The REAL target?

[K777angel]

Originally posted by Toth
>With all that was done to that little girl there should be a >plethora of forensic evidence left behind by the perp.
>There is not.
Dna, note, cord, tape, rope, sack, window debris, window grate and vegetation, palm print, shoe prints, flashlight(?), cigarette butts(?)

Not a single thing you mention Toth has been attributed to an "intruder." Oh except by the illiterate speaking Lou Smit who wanted so badly to be the hero detective in this case he "found" things in crime scene pictures (he was NEVER present the days and weeks directly after the crime) that he promoted (all over national television so as best to get his much desired attention)
as being "evidence" and part of the crime. I laughed out loud when I saw him point to a teeny, tiny lift up in a bedskirt that a cat couldn't even have scurried under - and claim that this may have been where the "intruder" hid! LOL!! For God's sake - does he think the messy Ramsey's have perfectly coiffed bedskirts amidst the cluttered and disorganized rest of the house? He is grasping at straws.
He completely ignored so much other evidence in his "theory" that he lost all credibility with those who KNOW all the evidence (he does not) and proper investigative techniques - the most important of which is objectivity. Which he lacked in this case.

>Forget the DNA angle.
Yeah, lets forget the most scientific and reliable tool we have.

That's right Toth. It IS "the most scientific and reliable tool we have." And the qualified experts who have examined and tested this DNA have stated that it is SO minute and so degraded that it most likely has nothing to do with the crime committed. Probably transfer evidence occuring at the manufacturer. Deal with it.


>if it were some outside intruder who was careless enough to
>even BE in that house with her parents right there - there
>would be his DNA and fiber/forensic evidence all over the place.
>There is not.
Don't you think the fibers found in the immediate area of the place of death that match no fibers anywhere else in the house would qualify?

Oh - you must mean Patsy Ramsey's fibers from her jacket she WORE that night? Those same fibers found intertwined in the cord around her daughter's neck and in the paint tote the stick on the cord was taken and broken from??
And John Ramsey's black fibers from his shirt made in Israel that HE wore that night found in her crotch? Mmhmmm....

>It's called objectivity. And certain posters here lack it altogether.
Yes. And you are a very certain poster.
Don't quite know about your investigative techniques though, if you found a known pedophile who had been in the area would you want to not focus on "the type of person" he was?

Oh Toth honey - you are a VERY certain poster. The most certain on this forum.
And about this "known pedophile", and the "type of person he was" - so what? Was he wearing Patsy Ramsey's red and black jacket that night? If not - I guess he was not involved in the crime now was he?
Quit pretending that there weren't MANY other potential suspects investigated for this crime - and eliminated when the evidence did not link them to the crime. Much as you don't like it I know.
The authorities MUST work with the evidence that is there - not concocted "evidence" like "what type of person" someone is - to help solve this crime.
The basic facts in this case simply cannot eliminate the Ramseys from being involved in this crime somehow.
But I guess some just choose to "kill the messenger" when they don't like the message - like you are about to do in your reply.

 

[Imon128]

I believe Steve Thomas said there were 600+ investigated.

 

[Toth]

Originally posted by ajt400
Also, can the prosecution hire people like the defense can? I thought they could not hire witnesses.

Either side can hire experts in whatever field they want to. Whether that person can be allowed to offer an opinion to the jury is a separate question relating to the qualifications of the expert and the scope of his testimony.

My understanding is that the Ramseys wanted Dr. Lee and offered to waive any privilege involving communications in order to get him.

In Europe there is more of a tradition of the expert appearing to inform the court, in the US its become more an expert appearing as an advocate witness and the lawyers cleverly limiting the tests that will be performed and insisting on oral reports prior to written reports, etc.

We are faced each day with a great deal of 'advocacy' rather than 'neutral scholarly documents'. Doctors publish articles that have been ghostwritten by a pharmaceutical company, yet readers are not told of the financial conflicts of interest. Surveys and reports in zoning cases are advocacy documents, not scientifically sound assessments. I think we should return to the days when a scientific paper addressed the truth rather than The Party Line and an Expert Witness gave testimony in a courtroom that his colleagues would not laugh at if he gave at a lunch meeting. The Harvard Shrink-type who wrote a book asserting the truth of all those New Mexico Alien Abductions did so for royalties, not for science. When Syracuse established its school for the study of Facilitated Communication it did so in order to get 35 million dollars, not in order to further scientific inquiry.

Neutral experts, whose testimony can't be bought?
Getting harder and harder to find those.

 

[Charlie]

Originally posted by K777angel

If the real "target" of this crime were the parents, JonBenet's body would have been "displayed" for them to see. Instead, the complete opposite occured. The body was "hidden." In the most remote part of the house.
Not only hidden, but wrapped up and laid on a blanket.
Her body WIPED DOWN from the assault and her pants pulled back up.
These are not actions taken by a "pervert" out to target the parents. These are actions taken by someone who not only cared about JonBenet but was remorseful about what had happened. Yet the overriding emotion that propelled the perp and/or helper(s) into gear - was FEAR. Of being found out.

I dont see why one can assume that the ramseys were not targets simply because the body was not displayed out in the open in a shocking manor. Just think from the killers point of view for a moment, he/she has just killed a defenceless little girl in order to hurt the ramseys. Now thinking where to put the body. he/she could display jBR in the living room in one last final atempt to hurt the ramseys, or he/she could hide her in the basement. Now displaying JBR in the living room for instance would be horrible for the parents to experience, however the killer thinks hiding her would be just as worse, because the ramseys would be in more pain not knowing where thier daughter is, if shes still alive and if they will as the note scribes 'get her remains back for a funeral' in the event of the worst scenario.

Now imagine a parent no knowing the answers to these questions for what could be hours, would in my opinion far more painful for john and Patsy.

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Toth
The dna appears foreign even if it were lacking in the desired number of markers. Its still 'a male other than a Ramsey'.

Toth, the problem with the DNA has nothing to do with how it appears. There is no identifiable source for the DNA that can be dated to the crime. For all anyone knows, the DNA came from the Asian garment factory or some contamination from Meyer's lab.
Plan on going to your grave waiting for the DNA to be matched.

 

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Maxi
Both Scheck and Lee have said they are only on the side of good science.

Is that before or after the OJ trial?? I just hate the fact that the man got away with two awful murders. It makes me angry....

 

[ajt400]

I doubt there were 600+ investigated....something about that number just seems over the top. Not to say in some murder investigations there aren't that many people investigated.

 

[K777angel]

There are certain things in a crime scene that criminal experts look at to determine or get an idea of what occured - or did not occur. This is called crime scene analysis.
One of the most important things they look for in a murder is HOW the body was left. Was it dumped? Was it posed? Was it out in the open - or hidden? Among other things.
The actions of the killer and how he treated the body after he killed the person gives great insight into what happened and the motivations of the killer.

JonBenet was never even taken out of her house. Her parents were right there (as far as we know). How could the "intruder" even be assured that John and/or Patsy were not awake when he supposedly came upstairs to grab JonBenet?? He could not of course. They were on the floor above JonBenet. One of them could have easily walked down those stairs and ran right into him.
What did he do? Walk upstairs and go into John and Patsy bedroom to see if they were asleep? LOL! Also, he would have no way of knowing just how many people actually came home with John and Patsy. Intruder theorists claim he was already in the house when the Ramseys arrived home. So obviously they believe he was hiding. No way he could then see just how many came into that house to sleep that night. There could have been additional "guests" there as far as he was concerned (about being caught) roaming around that night.

Also - for all those "intruder did it" believers I have an important question for you.
At just what point did this guy place those 3 pages of the note/letter on the stairs?
This is very important. He could not have placed them there on his way UP the stairs to get JonBenet because he would have stepped on them coming down with her.
He could not have placed them on his way DOWN the stairs as he was carrying her. (Or do you think he just put JonBenet down and placed them? LOL! Of course not - he couldn't have carried them both down and not have created wrinkles in the pages. There were none.)
And it is simply ridiculous to think that after killing her down in the basement, this guy is going to run back upstairs and put the dumb "note" there. This would mean he had written it before the whole crime and it makes absolutely NO sense then to have not taken her AWAY from the house and then attempted to collect the ransom money which the note tries desperately to convince the reader is the point of it.

There is NO logical time that this "intruder" could have placed that note. Because he didn't. He didn't/doesn't exist.
It makes NO sense that anyone other than one of the family members in the house that night did this crime and cover-up/staging.

So just WHEN do you intruder theorists think this guy put the "ransom" letter on the stairs? Just curious.....

 

[Toth]

Law-abiding, highly moral, loving parents suddenly decide to kill one of their kids because there is NO LOGIC to a demented pedophile doing it?

 

[lannie]

Originally posted by sissi
This person who killed Jonbenet,if insane,would have no qualms about leaving the ransom note on his way out.
The second type of intruder would be a person well known to the child,one that came prepared with the note,and knew where to place it to get Patsy's early morning attention.
another possibility>>>>>>>?
I'm not certain she was murdered in the house,is everyone else certain of this?
Are we sure she wasn't taken,perhaps for photography, dressed in the nightgown, killed for her lack of co-operation,and returned along with ransom note to the home? Do we know she wasn't wrapped in the blanket for transportation? Did the BPD check for fibers from the cars of known suspects,including Randy Simons?

JMO [/

QUOTE]
YES< all this while intangling patsy' s jacket fiber in the cord at JB's neck ,while Patsy gets up & dresses in her same dirty clothes she wore the day before. JB must of peed in the basement that night, right before the intruder took her & then he killed her & took her back to the house, what a nice fellow.

 

[Ivy]

sissi, how stupid do you think the Intruder was? Do you really think he would remove JonBenet from the house, kill her, and then return her body to the house, along with a ransom note?

 

[K777angel]

Originally posted by Toth
Law-abiding, highly moral, loving parents suddenly decide to kill one of their kids because there is NO LOGIC to a demented pedophile doing it?

First of all I take exception to describing John Ramsey as "highly moral." In my book - and God's - committing adultery is far from being "highly moral." And having 3 young children on top of it puts John Ramsey in a category of the unethical and IMmoral.
He destroyed a family and created a broken home. That is a fact.
So scratch that title off the John Ramsey list.

There is NO EVIDENCE that a "demented pedophile" killed JoBenet Ramsey.
There IS evidence that a close family member did and it was staged and covered up. Not very well though.

You can claim till the cows come home Toth all kinds of glowing things about the Ramseys. Doesn't make it true.
First of all - how in the **ll do YOU even know that they were "loving parents"? They may have just been indulging parents mistaking their indulgence in part, for love. The pageants are a perfect example. (And of course they probably loved their children, but for you to continue to make intimate descriptions of the Ramseys as if YOU lived there and it is fact, - well it raises suspicions.)

It's very easy to claim some "pedophile" killed JonBenet.
Truth is that pedophiles - David Westerfield is a perfect example - abduct their target and get the heck out of there so they can do their nasty business.
The child was not taken away and the killer told the parents he wanted money.
Like the criminal experts have said - kidnappers and sex criminals do not mix. They are two different breeds and their motivations and goals are totally different.
That's the mistake the Ramseys made in writing that note.
Hoping the sexual molestation of JonBenet was ALSO "hidden" - the wiping down and pants pulled back up - they relied on the kidnapping angle.
Too bad they didn't bank on the autopsy revealing what REALLY happened that night.
Otherwise they may not have ever written that note.

 

[K777angel]

I should add that "kidnappers for ransom" and sex offender criminals do not mix.

 

[Toth]

The cops did not check vehicles for fibers.
Photography, IF it took place, took place in the basement.
Place of death is where the urine was voided near the artist's totebox, outside the 'wine cellar'.
Nightgown was probably there due to 'static cling'.

 

[ajt400]

Originally posted by K777angel
You can claim till the cows come home Toth all kinds of glowing things about the Ramseys. Doesn't make it true.
First of all - how in the **ll do YOU even know that they were "loving parents"? They may have just been indulging parents mistaking their indulgence in part, for love. The pageants are a perfect example. (And of course they probably loved their children, but for you to continue to make intimate descriptions of the Ramseys as if YOU lived there and it is fact, - well it raises suspicions.).

How do you know the Ramsey's were not loving parents? Do you know them? Did you ever personally see them mistreat their children? Or are you going on the pretense that putting your child in a beauty pageant is evil and wrong and whoever would do that would have to be harming their child? (They are quite common here, along with dance recitals and youth football, etc)

For all your words in the post above, you seem to have lost the fact that YOU are assuming as well. Why can you do it and not Toth? The evidence shows that her parents were not abusive. Speculation is the only thing that has been offered to this point as to her life before her death--and her treatment. Most have claimed that they seemed doting and caring towards their children, and Patsy towards her step-children.

Oh and also, as far as the sex offenders and kidnappers mixing. There can be cross breeds, you know. I have been studying serial killers for quite some time now, and serial offenders of today are different than some even 10 years ago, much less 20. People are ever evolving, and killers will change with the times.

Who would have thought that rock and rap could meet a happy medium?:bigthumb:

 

[Toltec]

Tje FBI has not run into a "cross-breed" of that sort EVER.

Insane people leave plenty of evidence behind.

There are plenty of examples of "good christian parents" who kill their spouse and/or children. No doubt the Ramseys were loving parents but there can be that one incident...that one accident....

 

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Toltec
Tje FBI has not run into a "cross-breed" of that sort EVER.

Duh, you think I don't know that? The FBI will also tell you that they only know of few serial murderers in our society. Many are in the cocooning stage and trolling stage--which means they haven't killed yet. EVER, as you so brazenly put in bold, only refers to the past up to now. Evolution takes time. There may be many cross breeds of serial killers in this country that will not strike for years now--I do believe that some are operating right now and just have not been caught yet. (Since you are so wise in the ways of serial killers, you would know that they do not get caught unless they make a mistake, get arrested for another crime, confess, or kill themselves--)

Also, you say, insane people leave lots of evidence behind. Was Ted Bundy not insane to you? How about Dahmer? These were just a few that operated amongst other people for years without anyone noticing what was really going on in their heads.

And, either way you want to cut it, this offender was not insane in the legal sense of the word. He/she may not have staged the scene perfectly, but they had the know-how and composure to do it---and obviously get away with it. I have never stated that I thought the killer was just a maniac running loose through the house. (see William Heirens)

 

[Imon128]

IMO, this case doesn't appear to be anybody strange to the household, John, or Patsy. I think it's a family member...JAR. JMO, of course.

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Toth
Law-abiding, highly moral, loving parents suddenly decide to kill one of their kids?

You're right, Toth...it could only have been Burke. The parents just staged the whole coverup to protect him from a life of mysery.

 

[K777angel]

Originally posted by Toth
The cops did not check vehicles for fibers.
Photography, IF it took place, took place in the basement.
Place of death is where the urine was voided near the artist's totebox, outside the 'wine cellar'.
Nightgown was probably there due to 'static cling'.

Toth - you do NOT know where the "place of death" occurred.
Name your source for that.
But let's pretend that you are right and she was murdered outside the room ("wine cellar') where PATSY'S paint/totebox was (by the way - why do you distance her from the ownership of it by referring to it only as "the artist's" totebox????)

Anyway - so she is killed right there OUTSIDE the "wine cellar."
WHY then did the killer take the time to: Wrap her in blanket,
lay a blanket on the floor to lay her on, place her on the blanket and then when leaving, take even MORE time to turn around and latch the door behind him/her???? Again - As the criminal experts have said - the facts show that the killer was far too comfortable in that house to be an intruder. No fear of discovery.

By the way - you have no idea WHERE or WHAT vehicles the cops
checked for fibers in.
Again, name your source if you do. Otherwise, please quit making
absolute statements all the time like this without backing them
up.