No intruder?

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Holdontoyourhat, Nov 16, 2010.

  1. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To those who believe there was without question no intruder, I have some questions:
    1. Where is the rest of the cord?
    2. Where is the rest of the tape?
    3. What hit JBR in the head?
    4. Why was the paintbrush broken at both ends?
    5. Why was the ransom note reported to have been found on the back staircase steps?
    6. How did an unknown male deposit his DNA inside JBR's underpants?
    7. How did the same unknown male deposit his skin cells on JBR's legging waistband? (credit this discovery to Mary Lacy)
    8. Why did BPD fail to link JR to pornography?
    9. Why did BPD fail to link PR to the ransom note?
    10. Why did BPD fail to link PR or JR to abuse?
    11. Why did BPD fail to link PR or JR to crime scene DNA?
    12. Why did the DA's hired detective believe an intruder did it?
    13. Why did the FBI say that JBR had no signs of abuse?
    14. Why did JBR's own pediatrician say JBR had no signs of abuse?
    15. Why have three DA's not prosecuted?
    16. Why did the Grand Jury not indict?
    17. Why did the US Secret Service state that PR didn't write the note?
    18. What does SBTC stand for?
    19. What does Victory! mean?
    20. What was the motive?
    21. Why is mainstream media reporting intruder?
    22. Why threaten to behead a six year old?
    23. Isn't that just a little overboard?
    Please feel free to answer "I dont know."
     
  2. Loading...


  3. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Assuming there WAS any, any number of possibilities.

    How do we know she didn't hit something WITH her head? But Werner Spitz made a solid argument about the flashlight.

    JB could have easily rubbed it onto herself. That's the problem with modern DNA testing: the more sensitive it gets, the more likely it is to pick up artifacts. Don't take my word for it, either.

    Who says there was any?

    I'm not aware that they DID fail.

    No living witness.

    Who says there was a link?

    I didn't know there was one.

    Funny thing for you to mention the FBI, HOTYH. I'm very interested in your thoughts about some of the other things they had to say.

    Because he didn't LOOK. We established that a long time ago.

    Are you kidding? Answering that would take an entire thread.

    We've been over that before. According to various people on both sides, they were dismissed before they COULD indict.

    I wasn't aware that the US Secret Service HAD said that. ONE of their examiners made a preliminary analysis using incomplete material. The CBI man was pretty steamed when he heard about it.

    Let me ask you: Why did the Justice Department and FBI say she did? (To use your logic.)

    No idea.

    We can only speculate.

    Because it SOUNDS scary.

    I think that was the idea.

    Roger.
     
  4. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you don't truly know, then please answer "I don't know". The purpose is to show what is truly not known, not to theorize.


    Example:
    Q: Why threaten to behead a six year old?
    A: Because it sounds scary.

    This is a guess. A good guess, but a guess nevertheless.

    Unless you KNOW for a FACT that this is why the ransom note author threatened to behead a six year old, then the appropriate answer is "I dont know." There's not very many people who 'know' why they threatened to behead.

    Q: How did an unknown male deposit his DNA inside JBR's underpants?
    A: She did it to herself.

    This isn't an answer. It doesn't answer how the unknown male deposited his DNA, and it isnt a known fact that JBR did it to herself. The appropriate answer is "I dont know."
     
  5. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It's a little late to get particular now, HOTYH. But, fair is fair.

    Well, it's not just ME making that assertion.

    Okay, HOTYH. You win. I'm backing off.

    It's not a known fact that an unknown male deposited it the way you suggest, either. But for the sake of peaceful discussion, I'll concede the point.
     
  6. claudicici

    claudicici Active Member

    Messages:
    2,921
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If you want facts instead of theories this case would be solved HOTYH,
    at least Super Dave is making sense with his responses instead of saying "I don't know"
    Nobody knows.We're all guessing.Some just make more sense than others.
     
  7. armywife210

    armywife210 Active Member

    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Seriously HOTYH... all that you can do is speculate, same as us. Simply because we are RDI's doesn't mean that we have to have more definitive answers than you do. Our speculations are made with thought and reason, but there isn't one of those questions we can answer definitively. Can you?
    We can offer theories to support those speculations...but you aren't allowing room for that.
     
  8. LinasK

    LinasK Verified insider- Mark Dribin case

    Messages:
    24,159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And yet... how did the intruder manage to break in through the basement window and not disturb the unbroken spider web??? How did John's shirt fibers get in JB's unwashed panties? What appropriate reason is there for that???:waitasec:
    Why did John and Patsy both contaminate the body by handling/falling all over it???
     
  9. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you, you're the best.

    There's another poster who claimed to know there was no intruder. I wanted to show that there's a boatload of important stuff we dont know. Its a lot to not know and still claim RDI as fact.
     
  10. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sure I am. Answer "I dont know but maybe..." or dont answer at all. It is simply meant to show just how much we dont truly know, and how we are therefore in no position to conclude RDI or what happened.

    Here's some more:

    Q: How did JBR move from her bed to the basement?
    Q: Was she ever in her bed?
    Q: What exactly happened in the basement?
    Q: What happened between 11 PM and 5 AM?
    Q: When was the ransom note written?
    Q: Who wrote it?
    Q: Did they want money?
    Q: Did they want sexual gratification?
    Q: Who owns the DNA?
    Q: Who owns the cord?
    Q: Who owns the tape?
    Q: Who owns the object that struck JBR in the head?
    Q: Where is the missing piece?

    Technically we are in a position to conclude IDI if and only if the DNA testing is valid. It would then be smoking gun evidence of an intruder.

    If the DNA testing is valid then innocent explanation for the DNA is truly remote AND the DNA has a definite appearance of being crime-related. Its not my fault if RDI doesn't accept this. Apparently mainstream media has.

    Testing the waistband for DNA was a standard approach and produced a positive result. The personnel at the lab probably believed they made an important breakthrough. They did and the event was reflected in the news.
     
  11. cynic

    cynic Active Member

    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The DA and LE aren’t “accepting” it either.

    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117504"]The Ramseys are no longer “cleared” according to Stan Garnett - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

     
  12. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,165
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LinasK,
    The intruder sneaked into John's bedroom and removed the shirt then he wiped down JonBenet in an attempt to incriminate the R's.

    .
     
  13. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I read what the DA said enough to know you've mischaracaterized it. The new DA is the new DA and isn't bound to any previous DA commitments on a go forward basis. I'd say the same thing. I mean, its not like he then proceeded to greedily press charges or anything (LOL).

    RDI needs some contemporary statements by CBI, FBI, etc. on their take as to the DNA evidence, because that seems to be driving the investigation as far as the public is concerned.
     
  14. cynic

    cynic Active Member

    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I haven’t mischaracterized it, and you know it.
    ML used DNA as an excuse to exonerate the Ramseys, the present administration isn’t buying it. No one is suggesting that IDI leads are not being pursued, but they are unquestionably not giving the Ramseys a pass.
     
  15. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ML found more evidence at the crime scene that could be vital. Bashing her for it doesn't help RDI's image, believe me. Anyone truly interested in justice should be happy about finding any DNA on significant items at a crime scene. IOW your claim that ML 'used DNA' seems to indicate that anyone could 'use DNA'. Fact is, you have to HAVE some DNA in order to USE it. See what I mean?

    Technically there is probably an argument for exhonerating the R's, but that argument might be out of our expertise. Thats why I said RDI needs some more remarks from CBI and FBI on it.
     
  16. cynic

    cynic Active Member

    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Actually it would be more accurate to say that ML misused rather than used the DNA evidence.
    The type of DNA in this case is subject to many issues, and open to innocent explanations. (I have posted about this extensively.)
    ML chose to disregard alternative explanations and proclaim that there was no innocent explanation. She then proceeded to exonerate the Ramseys.
    It could be argued that perhaps she was misinformed, but given her obvious bias, I seriously doubt it.
    A task force comprised of a number of professional agencies reviewed the evidence when the case was turned over to LE by Stan Garnett.
    Clearly, the review found no reason to exonerate the Ramseys and the investigation is continuing along the same lines that it did prior the interruption by ML, IOW, IDI and RDI possibilities are both being pursued.
    The days of a free pass at the hands of a staunch ally are over for the Ramseys.
     
  17. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes but I noticed you don't credit ML for finding DNA on a significant item at the crime scene. Was submitting the leggings someone elses idea? Didn't she go to a seminar where they introduced methodology, and she simply applied it with positive result?

    Because you can't seem to acknowledge that its a good thing when we find any DNA on any significant item at a crime scene, your bias becomes overwhelming. The dismissal of DNA evidence thru ad hominem argument appears thoughtless and that damages RDI credibility.
     
  18. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If I had to bet my life on it one way or the other I would agree with ML.

    There is very likely no innocent explanation for the 2nd DNA discovery.

    There is no plausible scenario that places this DNA in these places with the exception of an unknown male who handled them that night in the course of a sexual assault. This is far and away the most likely scenario. What is so incomprensible about this? What is so outrageous about this? There is logic and the logic is sound. The logic is two separate items she was wearing at the time, and the legging DNA is skin cell which is easily removed. Doesn't survive the laundry.

    I'm sure if you read more about the seminar, Bode methods, the actual test result, and think about it you'll agree. Remember they would identify JBR's touch DNA also if she had transferred the unknown male DNA, but then you need a story about how JBR got so many skin cells from an unknown male on her hands! It does get a little sublime.
     
  19. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Thank you for allowing that much.

    Any particular order you want that?

    Boy, if that isn't circular reasoning, I don't know what is!
     
  20. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Wow! :applause: Could not have said it any better.
     
  21. cynic

    cynic Active Member

    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I do acknowledge that it’s a good thing that the course of the investigation, the DNA, and all the evidence is out of the hands of a friend of the Ramseys.
    Suicidal ideation.
    According to you, yes.
    An independent task force reviewed all the evidence in the case.
    The Ramseys are no longer exonerated.
    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117504"]The Ramseys are no longer “cleared” according to Stan Garnett - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
    I don’t need to read more; neither does Stan Garnett or Mark Beckner.
    Garnett and Beckner have placed the DNA evidence its proper perspective.
    The task force that evaluated the evidence lends credibility to the current view held by the DA's office and LE.
    Among the information presented was probably something similar to the following:

    PROCEEDINGS of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
    Annual Scientific Meeting, Denver, CO
    February 16-21, 2009
    “Touch and Transfer” DNA Samples: Practical and Ethical Issues
    Valerie K. Fahrnow, BSN*, Clinical Reference Laboratory, 8433 Quivira
    Road, Lenexa, KS 66215

    After attending this presentation, the attendees will understand the practical and ethical issues of “touch and transfer” DNA in the judicial system.
    …
    “DNA is robust and easily transferred ... Its mere presence is not adequate for inferences of guilt.” Accordingly, prosecutors must be aware of limitations and challenges regarding touch DNA to minimize its misuse as evidence. The analytical process, misconceptions and powerfully persuasive evidential impact of touch DNA in criminal prosecutions must be understood and properly utilized..
    http://www.aafs.org/pdf/2009ProceedingsDenver.pdf

    As you know, I have addressed your arguments regarding DNA many times in the past and I don’t really feel the need to hijack another thread.
    Feel free to revisit the past:
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108432&page=3
    Posts 64 and 65
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108432&page=7
    Post 158
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91605&page=4
    Post 99
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90999&page=15
    Posts 367 - 370
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108432&page=8
    Post 177
     

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