LIfe as a fence sitter

Holdontoyourhat said:
DNA is a big problem for RDI, I'll grant you that. Its interesting how it brought all those headlines with JK, and how nailed he would've been had it matched!

The DNA is a major lift for IDI, as it has yet to be matched to anyone, factory worker or otherwise. LE is using it to rule out possible suspects, so it can't rationally be considered nonsense by anyone who is truely interested in the case.
It brought headlines because the current Boulder DA's office believes only in IDI theory, and has control over the case. As of such...to them, the DNA is drastically important (considering that along with Karr's rants that was all they planned to prosecute him with).

The DNA is a red herring though...it will make one seek out people to match it with, when most likely it belongs to a factory worker in some foreign country.

If one supposedly has DNA of an intruder yet no evidence an intruder was there...that's a problem.
 
LinasK said:
When you say LE you really mean the DA's office-biased towards an IDI, not the cops.
Precisely. There is no clear evidence of an intruder whatsoever.

There is absolutely no unequivocal proof that the case DNA, even if it contains the magical 13-loci for sequencing comparisons - which, according to rumor, it may not - came from any hostile source.

They are shuffling around, mumbling about intruders because they don't know what else to do, as the Ramseys and their lawyer put up a brick wall.

It's not that they necessarily believe the intruder theory, they just can't get anywhere with the Ramseys as suspects. For whatever reason.

The case DNA is nonsense because there is no way to tie it to anyone.

Sure, if Joe Bozo turns up tomorrow, with a Karr-style confession - but for real - and there is a DNA match, there, at the last hurdle, there is room for an intruder theory.

Let's not hold our breath, now...
 
I choose to think of this question in simplified terms.

I think Patsy was not a good mother. John was a good father. I do not see the fact that Patsy's personality, cold hearted as it was, and choosing to live her life through her daughter, makes her a killer.

These two adults, no matter how egocentric they were or totally frustrated with JonBenet's problems, I don't think they could have either murdered her or covered up her murder and then gone to bed for at least 4 - 5 hours till Patsy woke up and found the note.

I believe it was an intruder - most likely Helgoth and his pedo roomate. It is amazing how things stack up re: Helgoth. I should add, and roomie to this.


Scandi
 
scandi said:
These two adults, no matter how egocentric they were or totally frustrated with JonBenet's problems, I don't think they could have either murdered her or covered up her murder and then gone to bed for at least 4 - 5 hours till Patsy woke up and found the note.



[color=magenta[]Scandi[/color]
Scandi, I don't think the Ramsey's ever went to bed that night, Patsy- a woman who would always shower and change her clothes- was wearing the exact same outfit the morning JB was found as she wore to the White's party.
 
Hi Linask, I did not know that! It is odd, you are right. It leaves me at a loss to think she could have done this or covered up, when it was her little girl that was at stake.

Scandi
 
LinasK said:
Scandi, I don't think the Ramsey's ever went to bed that night, Patsy- a woman who would always shower and change her clothes- was wearing the exact same outfit the morning JB was found as she wore to the White's party.
And incidentally...I believe the fibers entwined in the garrotte were from those very same clothes.
 
Should it match ANYBODY (that is not working for the panty manufacturer) it would identify that person as the killer.

However, as Barry Scheck and Henry Lee and other experts have been trying to point out, just because someone is excluded by the DNA does not mean they are innocent of doing the crime.

I think that Mary Lacy's opinion (given in her interview yesterday) that she did not believe Karr was the killer was as stated in the motion to dismiss the charges, because IF Karr had done the murder the way he said he did, there WOULD have been DNA that he would not have been able to totally clean off.
 
Jolynna said:
Should it match ANYBODY (that is not working for the panty manufacturer) it would identify that person as the killer.

However, as Barry Scheck and Henry Lee and other experts have been trying to point out, just because someone is excluded by the DNA does not mean they are innocent of doing the crime.

I think that Mary Lacy's opinion (given in her interview yesterday) that she did not believe Karr was the killer was as stated in the motion to dismiss the charges, because IF Karr had done the murder the way he said he did, there WOULD have been DNA that he would not have been able to totally clean off.
If the case DNA had always been considered as proof of an intruder, there is no way the Ramseys would have been under suspicion for the last ten years, weird and obstructive behavior or not.

No way.

If there had been clear and unequivocal evidence of an intruder, ditto.

The case has never added up. Whether people want to believe it or not, RDI remains the least confusing option.
 
I'm a relative newcomer to the case Bronte, although I have been here for years.

I don't agree with your premise. The investigtator was new on the job and inexperienced in investigating murder. Drug crimes had been his forte before. I have not been assured in my reading that certain well known suspects were fully investigated. Or if they were, maybe there was no follow up on these people made as technology advanced to make the appropriate tests.

Be it that two suspects are dead now, the chances of the killer not being alive to be tried for the record to be cleared is pretty high odds, at least 50-50. right?

And Bronte, it is a known fact in this case that nothing other than the Ramseys were really looked into very seriously as to being potential killers. This is bizarre news to me, but it is a very affluent, keep to your self, make sure our hi tech boots are cleaned and polished in case we dicide to go somewhere kind of a populace. Snobby and private, at least back in 1996. That is what I have read. I would hate to make any other assesments based on what I have learned about people like this - it would be unfair even if true. LOL

Intruder for this gal, sweetie!


Sandi
 
scandi said:
I'm a relative newcomer to the case Bronte, although I have been here for years.

I don't agree with your premise. The investigtator was new on the job and inexperienced in investigating murder. Drug crimes had been his forte before. I have not been assured in my reading that certain well known suspects were fully investigated. Or if they were, maybe there was no follow up on these people made as technology advanced to make the appropriate tests.

Be it that two suspects are dead now, the chances of the killer not being alive to be tried for the record to be cleared is pretty high odds, at least 50-50. right?

And Bronte, it is a known fact in this case that nothing other than the Ramseys were really looked into very seriously as to being potential killers. This is bizarre news to me, but it is a very affluent, keep to your self, make sure our hi tech boots are cleaned and polished in case we dicide to go somewhere kind of a populace. Snobby and private, at least back in 1996. That is what I have read. I would hate to make any other assesments based on what I have learned about people like this - it would be unfair even if true. LOL

Intruder for this gal, sweetie!


Sandi
From what I've read, the police looked at many more suspects than what are credited to them by Ramsey legal teams.

Do you know the police were pretty much barred from examining Ramsey phone records?

Also...who else can set strict conditions to be interviewed by the police and actually get them?
How many common people could demand to have their legal teams examine the police case files before they would agree to be interviewed, and actually get them?
 
Bronte Nut,

I am a total RDI. I agree that it is the only explanation that makes sense.

But, of poor quality or not, should the 10 available markers match somebody, I'd have to change my mind. I think, according to Scheck, while the available DNA could not make a "Maury--yes...you ARE the father" inclusion, it could identify to a 1 in 10,000 certainty. Which is good enough for me.

I also believe that Scheck and Lee were correct when they said that being excluded by the DNA was not proof of innocence. I agree with them that it is very possible that the DNA found came from a source unrelated to the murder. Which is why the Ramseys should not be excluded.

Personally, I think that IF it had been a sicko intruder-molester he would have done, at the very least, the kind of thing Karr said he did. And there would have been a LOT of good DNA to get (despite washing).
 
Jolynna said:
Bronte Nut,

I am a total RDI. I agree that it is the only explanation that makes sense.

But, of poor quality or not, should the 10 available markers match somebody, I'd have to change my mind. I think, according to Scheck, while the available DNA could not make a "Maury--yes...you ARE the father" inclusion, it could identify to a 1 in 10,000 certainty. Which is good enough for me.

I also believe that Scheck and Lee were correct when they said that being excluded by the DNA was not proof of innocence. I agree with them that it is very possible that the DNA found came from a source unrelated to the murder. Which is why the Ramseys should not be excluded.

Personally, I think that IF it had been a sicko intruder-molester he would have done, at the very least, the kind of thing Karr said he did. And there would have been a LOT of good DNA to get (despite washing).
Yep, yep and yep, Jolyanna...

RDI all the way. Yes, it's hard to believe that a sicko intruder who had JBR at his mercy and for so long, wouldn't have fulfilled various sexual fantasies in the heat of the moment, and as you say, it would have been a DNA Fest.

Like you, I would totally accept a 'Joe Bozo did it', if his retardo confession was accompanied by a full-on DNA match. Unlike wacko Karr.

My thanks to Scandi and others, by the way. I think this is a very healthy discussion, and at the end of the day, we can only say what our guts tell us, as the actual evidence either way just ain't up to the job.

Peeing the bed at six ain't so unusual. To be also soiling the bed repeatedly, is a far greater sign of a disturbed child. Something was definitely rotten in the state of Denmark, y'all.
 
Jolynna said:
Bronte Nut,

I am a total RDI. I agree that it is the only explanation that makes sense.

But, of poor quality or not, should the 10 available markers match somebody, I'd have to change my mind. I think, according to Scheck, while the available DNA could not make a "Maury--yes...you ARE the father" inclusion, it could identify to a 1 in 10,000 certainty. Which is good enough for me.

I also believe that Scheck and Lee were correct when they said that being excluded by the DNA was not proof of innocence. I agree with them that it is very possible that the DNA found came from a source unrelated to the murder. Which is why the Ramseys should not be excluded.

Personally, I think that IF it had been a sicko intruder-molester he would have done, at the very least, the kind of thing Karr said he did. And there would have been a LOT of good DNA to get (despite washing).
Aaaaaaaargh... sorry, Jolynna, I mis-spelled your name.
 
aspidistra said:
...............
7. They showed an unconcerned attitude toward their children by having the alarm system off; the kids' rooms on another floor so they couldn't hear them.
8. (Added by Eagle) They showed improper lack of concern by wanting to get out of town, leaving the body lying there until the m.e. removed it at 10:30 that night, and by "covering for" the real situation, whatever it was. In fairness, possibly pedophiles from a too-powerful secret organization of some kind, they didn't want to be the only ones standing up to until they're caught for something else. For instance, although they hadn't been Christians very long, they could have known there's a mysterious malicious "babylon" underground that rules kings of earth, a leader I'm sure isn't Bin Laden who walks in the way of Cain, "hence" jealousy of the Ramseys, pretends to be religious but is spreading hatred in the house of his God, for instance claiming that people "brag". In one part of the Bible he's called "the little horn with the bragging mouth" himself, older translations, so is projecting own guilts. I hear he's trying to take over churches by telling them children have to be taught to be humble, but Christ said they're already examples of humility, and they're going to make them too inhibited to succeed in a rough world, no resume' statements, and like that. A danger like pedophiles, don't know if he is one.)

B. Intruder Theory:
1. Lou Smit's presentation of how a man could enter through the basement window was convincing.
2. The suitcase found near that window with a shard of glass on it.
3. The unknown male dna found on JBR.
4. No alarm system on means they could have easily got in.
5. Brutality of the garotte points against parents or brother committing this crime for any reason.
6. Still looks like her size 6 panties she was wearing are not accounted for; i.e. killer took them
7. Ransom note actually makes the parents look more guilty so why would they bother with it
8. Parents if they killed her had ample time to spirit the body away and dump it. However, parents if they accidentally killed her would have called 911 immediately. The body itself points to a killer who was obsessed with her, planned to take her either dead or alive but panicked and thought he had to get away fast.
9. (Added by Eagle) All of the above plus a lot of other points I thought of until actually getting this far into writing them down, may want to add them later. But I don't think the suitcase has anything to do with the case, since FW put it there and picked up glass off the floor to put on top of it, unless having the blanket and book in it was staging pointing in yet another direction, JAR, instead of the parents. They wouldn't have done that, or killed Helgoth and staged that crime scene too, with the stun gun, boots,etc. He was shot from the left, remember, but was right handed.

I think the case is too confusing, and will never be solved. Whoever did it committed the perfect crime.

Maybe not the perfect crime. I don't think there's any such thing, and most of my answer is WITHIN the quote above, so please read it again. Thanks. Let's don't be discouraged. Truth always rises to the surface like oil on water eventually. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. The fence is as good a vantage point as any, imo, "fair and balanced".
 
This crime was far from perfect, but what made it seem to be so and ultimately sealed the deal was the way the DA went in the tank for the Ramseys. From that time on, this crime was morphed into a PERFECT one!!:cool:
 
scandi said:
And Bronte, it is a known fact in this case that nothing other than the Ramseys were really looked into very seriously as to being potential killers.


Sandi
That is not a known fact and it is absolutely not true. Police spent hundreds of hours tracking down every lead. Someone even made a post on this board, I forget which thread, enumerating exactly what police did in this investigation. I'll go see if I can find it for you.
 
gaia said:
This crime was far from perfect, but what made it seem to be so and ultimately sealed the deal was the way the DA went in the tank for the Ramseys. From that time on, this crime was morphed into a PERFECT one!!:cool:

exactly....
 
I found it. This post detailing what all the police did was posted by LaMer, in this thread:

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1163893#post1163893


And if I may so be bold as to copy the info (please and thank you, LaMer) -


In the five years they followed: Courtesy of Peter Boyles:

5,300 Phone Tips

4,800 letters (I think it was letters)

6,300 interviews

140 possible suspects



That hardly sounds like the Ramseys were the only suspects seriously looked into as potential killers of JonBenet. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but it really bothers me when people try to say that the police focused on the Rs and no one else. That just isn't true at all.
 
JOHN RAMSEY: "And actually I'd gone down there earlier that morning, into that room, and the window was broken, but I didn't see any glass around, so I assumed it was broken last summer. I used that window to get into the house when I didn't have a key. But the window was open, about an eighth of an inch, and I just kind of latched it."
Lo and behold, he just happened to open the window that morning. Hmmmmmmmmm!

And the alarm was always on, except this night and this so called intruder knew that this night of all nights the alarm wasn't going to be set, cause he read the Ramsey's minds and said to himself "Now's your chance to have your way with JBR"? Yeah, I buy this all the way around.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
I found it. This post detailing what all the police did was posted by LaMer, in this thread:

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1163893#post1163893


And if I may so be bold as to copy the info (please and thank you, LaMer) -


In the five years they followed: Courtesy of Peter Boyles:

5,300 Phone Tips

4,800 letters (I think it was letters)

6,300 interviews

140 possible suspects



That hardly sounds like the Ramseys were the only suspects seriously looked into as potential killers of JonBenet. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but it really bothers me when people try to say that the police focused on the Rs and no one else. That just isn't true at all.

i'm so glad you were able to find this info, NP....it bothers me also...
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
206
Guests online
4,397
Total visitors
4,603

Forum statistics

Threads
592,469
Messages
17,969,388
Members
228,777
Latest member
Jojo53
Back
Top