PARENTS KILLED AMBER ALERT ISSUED FOR 13-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER
---
POLICE NEED PUBLIC'S HELP IN FINDING MISSING AND PREGNANT KIERRA COLES

The top ten reasons I believe the IDI theory

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Junebug99, Sep 16, 2011.

  1. Junebug99

    Junebug99 New Member

    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The title says it all, if you deny any of my evidence please provide a link, that way I can counter or admit defeat!

    1. DNA evidence found in 3 different spots, under her finger nails, the sides of her long johns and mixed with JBR's blood in her underwear. RDI say the DNA evidence is weak, but it's strong enough to be used to clear people.

    2. The ransom note: bpd hired experts that cleared John and said Patsy was a 4.5 on a 1-5 scale, 5 would have eliminated Patsy.

    3. Fiber evidence: there were brown cotton fibers found on JBR and the paintbrush, not matched to anything in the house. Animal hair found on JBR, not matched to anything in the Ramsy's house.

    4. Brown paper bag with a rope in the guest room, how did it get there?

    5. The wiped down flashlight, why would Ramseys do that?

    6. The unidentified boot prints in the basement, even if Burke had owned hi tech boots, they would have been a child size. The unidentified pubic/auxiliary hair found on the blanket that was with JBR.

    7. Lou Smit, the man was a genius in his field, 200 for 200! BPD, inexperienced when it came to murders.

    8. The suit case under the window with glass on it, the scuff mark on the wall, the pking peanut and other debris that had gathered under the window sill some how made it to the basement.

    9. Judge and DA saying it appears that a intruder was responsible.

    10. John and Patsy Ramsey: clearly loved that little girl and you will never convince me they would ever hurt her, or allow anyone to hurt her. They hired their own investigators until they went broke, some chose to stay on the case pro bono.

    I hope and pray one day we find out the truth and justice is served, I think that is something we can all agree on:)
     
  2. Nuisanceposter

    Nuisanceposter Remembering Little Miss Christmas

    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    May I ask (with all due respect)...

    How long have you been studying this case?

    From where and which sources/links did you obtain the information you've used in the points you've listed?

    Just curious.
     
  3. Whaleshark

    Whaleshark New Member

    Messages:
    632
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
  4. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0

    A. The investigators were retained by our

    8 attorneys
    , and they stated to me that the

    9 principal purpose of those investigators was to

    10 prepare a defense in the case that the police

    11 might bring a charge against me.


    12 I hoped that they would also follow

    13 up on leads that came to us, but I was

    14 frequently reminded by our attorneys that their

    15 principal role was to prepare a defense should

    16 that be necessary.



    http://www.acandyrose.com/12122001Depo-JohnRamsey.htm
     
  5. wonderllama

    wonderllama Registered Snoozer

    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Pretty sure most posters here could clear up those 10 reasons for you...

    However, it is indicative of the fact that no matter how many times something gets said, it doesn't get heard by everyone.

    Did we all know there was STILL a Flat Earth Society...and they are SERIOUS?

    These people are not outliers...there are genuinely plenty of people who don't/won't/can't listen or understand. I wonder when a line is going to be drawn.
     
  6. Whaleshark

    Whaleshark New Member

    Messages:
    632
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    who knew? i did not.

    i had to check it for myself.

    for reals. they are for reals.

    with that i will leave my place of work and drive just far enough to
    get home, but hopefully not too fast so as not to accidentally drive
    off the edge of the earth.

    :waitasec:
     
  7. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I went "off the edge" long ago.
     
  8. Smelly Squirrel

    Smelly Squirrel Has never crawled into a Pontiac Sunfire

    Messages:
    1,753
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Junebug99, I lean to IDI too, but a few of your points are outdated/debunked. e.g, I believe the animal hair was from the paint brush.
     
  9. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It's our lot in life, I'm afraid.
     
  10. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Somebody call me?!

    Like I said, llama, what's the point of posting if no one READS it?
     
  11. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I hope you're a woman of your word.

    I'll take a whack at some of them.

    To whom are you referring? I'm sure someone else has easier access to it than I do, but ST stated clearly in his deposition that no one was cleared on DNA evidence alone.

    But even if it HAD been strong enough to clear people on its own, that's no indication that it's of any value. See, if I come off as frustrated or impatient, it's because there are so many SIMPLE things that IDI just. Does. Not. GET. And this is the big one. They'd have us believe that the DNA being tested at all immediately means that it has value to the case. But I ask you: what was the alternative? I'll TELL you what the alternative was, not using it in the first place and just letting it sit unattended in some locked vault never to see daylight again. IF the Boulder police HAD done that, then all the IDI assertions about them supposedly ignoring evidence would have been TRUE. If I had been in their position, even if I believed the Ramseys guilty, I STILL would have needed to use everything at my disposal. Orders are, I check it out, so I check it out, if for no other reason than to cover my butt.

    The problem here is with how the IDI theory is constructed. Instead of taking an holistic view of the case, which the FBI recommended, the CSI effect (or in this instance, the OJ effect) hit the DA's office (and Lou Smit) with a freakin' VENGEANCE.

    And I'll tell you something else, and ST's book will confirm this: even after Bill McReynolds's DNA came back as a non-match, the DA STILL wanted to go after him! And no one was more vocal in their suspicions of him than IDI's hero-with-feet-of-clay-and-brains-to-match, Mary Lacy. I refer you guys to the section dealing with the aftermath of the June 1998 interviews!

    On Larry King Live (4/14/2000), Steve Thomas stated: "Well, they're saying that she scored a numerical scale of 4 1/2, but that apparently is from their own defense handwriting experts."

    He's right. No such scale exists in modern document examination. In the court case, US v. Thornton, the court stipulated to the use of a NINE-point scale for use in grading handwriting matches. It reads as follows:

    "Mr. Hammond based his opinions using a 9-point scale, ranging from: (1)Identification, (2)Highly probable did write, (3)Probably did write, (4)Indications did write, (5)No conclusion, (6)Indications did not write, (7)Probably did not write, (8)Highly probable did not write, and (9)Elimination.......The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has also promulgated standards for forensic document examiners. The nine-point scale used by Mr. Hammond in this case for expressing his opinions was established under the auspices of the ASTM."

    So a 4 on that scale would mean "indications did write." That finding would be consistent with the majority opinion of the BPD's experts, especially Chet Ubowski.

    Carol McKinley stated in the Fox News story that Ramseys sued Fox over: "Many forensic document examiners have given their opinions as to who wrote the note. But the only one to testify before a grand jury in the case was Chet Ubowski, forensic document examiner for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Out of 100 people he analyzed for the Boulder Police Department, he found ONLY ONE person whom he thought may have authored the document, Patsy Ramsey. Investigative sources tell Fox News that the disguised letters and bleeding ink from the felt tipped pen used to write the note kept him from 100 percent ID of Mrs. Ramsey."

    Carol McKinley was one of the speakers on our radio show last month, and not only did she confirm this, but she went into greater detail. Ubowski showed her a chart he had made, consisting of two sections: "greater than 50% chance," and "less than 50% chance." There were about 100 names on that chart, and ONE was in the "greater than" category: Patsy Ramsey.

    "The police never bothered to ask Ubowski if he had put his entire analysis of the ransom note into his report. Either way, Ubowski was prepared to say, 'Patsy wrote the note.' The CBI saw this as another missed opportunity" (Schiller 1999a:536-537)

    Ms. McKinley confirmed THAT, too. The BPD "experted" themselves right out of probable cause.

    "experts from the CBI presented their evaluations into evidence, including Chet Ubowski. He also told Pete Mang, his boss at the CBI, that his gut told him it was her handwriting" (Schiller 1999a:740)

    Gideon Epstein, an examiner with impeccable credentials and enviable experience, who NAMED Patsy Ramsey as the writer, offered an explanation for why none of the examiners would name Patsy Ramsey in court: because the field of document examination is so narrow and depends so greatly on unity to maintain courtroom credibility, that once Howard Rile was hired by the Ramseys and made his finding, (after ONE session, as Cina Wonf was kind enough to point out), nobody wanted to be the one to challenge him in court and lose:

    "First of all, I'd like to say that the field of forensic document examination in the United States is a very small profession, as you may well have found out, especially within the ranks of those people who are board-certified and who are the mainstream examiners in this country. Everyone knows everyone else. There are certain document examiners who, because of their exposure in the profession, because of the work that they do, because of the workshops that they may present, are looked upon by other examiners as leaders in their field. A lot of these examiners are in private practice, and they're retained oftentimes by one side or the other. In this particular case I think the fact that Howard Rile and Lloyd Cunningham, who became involved in this case very early on, and who were retained by the Ramsey family, coupled with the fact that Lloyd -- that Howard Rile came out of the Colorado bureau and knew the people in the Colorado bureau, I believe that that connection was very instrumental in the Colorado bureau coming to the conclusion that they did, because Howard Rile had come to the conclusion that he did." (pp. 168-169)
    "Lloyd Cunningham works very closely with Howard Rile and they were both on this case, and then it was a matter of chain of events, one document examiner after another refusing to go up against someone who they knew, someone who was large in the profession, for fear that they would be criticized for saying something that another examiner -- it's sort of like an ethics within the medical community, where one doctor protects the other doctor." (pp. 169)
    "The fact that I think the whole scenario may have been completely different if Howard Rile had not been one of the first document examiners and who was not in private practice, and if he had not been connected so closely with the Colorado bureau; if it had been a document examiner totally separate and apart; if the document examiner had actually been a document examiner in government service who had nothing to gain by his conclusions, who was on a salary rather than on a large retainer." (pp. 169-170)
    "All of these things influence a case, and when it came down to Dusick and it came down to Speckin and it came down to Alford, by that time a number of well-known document examiners had already rendered conclusions, and I feel personally that the other examiners were simply afraid to state what they believed to be the truth, or that they simply didn't devote the necessary time." (pp. 170)
    "This is the kind of case that you have to devote a tremendous amount of time and effort to. I've spent a lot of my years working cases where you don't count the hours, you simply count the weeks and you count the months and you devote the time that's necessary. If a document examiner is working this kind of a case and counting the hours, he's going to get to a point where it's going to be too expensive for him to bill, and so he's either not going to do the case in the time that's required or he's going to cut the time short." (pp. 170-171)
    "And I just don't believe that some of these people devoted the necessary amount of time to the case to come up with the correct conclusions, and I think they simply went along with what had been previously said because it was the most expedient thing to do."


    I should point out that, unfortunately, Mr. Epstein seems to be misinformed on a couple of things, and this may well be one of them. He took the Ramsey lawyers at their word that the BPD-hired experts said what they claimed to have said in the reports that Lou Smit took illegally from early on in the case. I'm not sure that the actual police-file handwriting reports DO say what they claim. I think they say something different. Because if they really DID come close to eliminating Patsy Ramsey, then WHY was Hal Haddon, the defense attorney, so DEAD-SET on making sure that no one, not even their own litigation lawyer Lin Wood, would ever be able to see them? And we KNOW Haddon didn't want Wood to see them, because Wood admitted (and vlpate posted that someplace) that even AFTER the Grand Jury secrecy law had been voided, he asked Haddon for those reports and was flatly refused.

    That's not even COUNTING the experts on our side. And boy, there's some stories!

    Also, that's not taking into account what the behavioral analysts said about what KIND of person wrote this note. That's even more interesting. Mikebr provided a link to the analysis Roger DePue did for the DA, but that's only the iceberg's tip.

    The FBI, according to Thomas, "believed that the note was written in the house, after the murder, and indicated panic. Ransom notes are normally written prior to the crime, usually proofread, and not written by hand, in order to disguise the authorship." Thomas said the FBI deemed the entire crime "criminally unsophisticated," citing the child being left on the premises, the oddness of the $118,000 demand in relation to the multi-million dollar net worth of the Ramseys, and the concept of a ransom delivery where one would be "scanned for electronic devices." Kidnappers prefer isolated drops for the ransom delivery, not wanting to chance a face-to-face meeting. CASKU profilers also observed that placing JonBenet's body in the basement indicated the involvement of a parent, rather than an intruder. A parent would not want to place the body outside in the frigid night. They pointed out the use of the blanket that was found on her that day. It's been characterized as just having been thrown over her, but in his 1998 interview, John said that whoever did it had taken enough time to carefully tuck her in, like a "papoose."

    During the brief media frenzy in the summer of 2006, former FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt was interviewed several times over a period of days. During an interview with cable news outlet MSNBC, Van Zandt said that he and several other profilers had studied the note and concluded that the writer was either a woman or a "very genteel male." He listed ten points of interest. Here are a few of them:

    1 - Claiming to be part of a terrorist organization is a common ruse in ransom notes. Van Zandt says he sees 'no linguistic evidence' to imply a foreign connection.

    5 - Despite threats of violence throughout the note, Van Zandt says, it has a 'softness' suggesting its author was a woman or perhaps a 'genteel man.'

    That's not even HALF of it!

    Why WOULDN'T they?

    You certainly wouldn't know it, given his conduct in this case! I'm not being a wise-ass, either. I'm quite serious. From the questionable evidence he gave more weight than was warranted, to the evidence he whipped up out of thin air to the evidence he flat-out refused to hear and/or made excuses for AFTER saying that he'd hear ANYTHING out, his conduct was nothing short of shameful. That's not even COUNTING his flagrant acts of bias toward the Ramseys, his STEALING evidence and then blackmailing the DA into letting him keep it, and a few other things I can't even remember just now.

    Junebug, you say that this man decided your position. Well, he decided MINE, too! It's largely because of him that I switched from IDI to RDI (there were other reasons, but that was a big one).

    What bothers me the MOST is that this man should have known better. Unlike most police today, Lou Smit was from an era when all of this forensic technology did not EXIST, and when the best (and sometimes only) things a cop had going for him were his hunches and his willingness to wear out some shoeleather. He should have known that no amount of technology will ever take the place of old-fashioned legwork. The BPD knew that. I'm damned if I can explain why HE forgot it!

    Maybe so, but they knew enough to WORK with people who had the greatest experience with murders, as opposed to people like LS, who thought he knew it all and didn't bother. They ALSO knew that cases like this are not solved on forensic evidence; they're SOLVED by arresting the participants and letting them sit in separate jail cells until one of them cracks, which is exactly what they WANTED to do to the Ramseys and what Lou Smit himself (perhaps unwisely) said he would have done if he had been there on the first day!

    Fleet White said that he MOVED that suitcase under the window that morning when he was rooting around in the basement. As for the rest, that's just plain pitiful.

    A judge who was uninformed to a scandalous degree and could only rule on the evidence put before her (much of which was false anyway). And as for the DA you speak of, how much time do you have, Junebug? That article by Jeff Shapiro was only the appetizer. There are plenty of other people who worked with her who could tell you about how she let her radical feminist beliefs cloud her judgment about Patsy Ramsey, up to and including chastising a damn good cop (every bit as good as Lou Smit, by Lou's own admission) for being too tough on Patsy during her interview (prompting him to snarl, "who the hell does she think SHE is?").

    A LOT of parents who killed their children loved them, Junebug. That means nothing. There's a very good article from slate.com about mothers who kill. I'll see if I can dig it up for you.

    Then what's the POINT, huh?! That's not evidence; that's the wishful thinking that dominates far too much of what I see around here. To this day, I'm amazed at how much IDIs NEED the Ramseys to be innocent, but I'm not the LEAST bit mystified as to WHY.

    We've been over that. And as for them being "broke," don't you believe it! Are you kidding me? I could live for a YEAR on what Patsy spent on make-up! To say nothing of what John's political campaign or his recent wedding must have cost!

    Is ANYONE OUT THERE LISTENING!?!? Or am I just talking to myself?!

    There are those in the IDI camp, who I will not name--YET--who seem to think that they have a stranglehold on truth and who view RDIs as lunatics who only exist to provide them with amusement when they deign us worthy to speak to, similar to the old Bedlam inmates that English toffs used to pay to gawk at. Well, speaking purely for myself, I'm NOT stupid, I'm NOT ignorant and I HAVEN'T lost my mind, at least not yet.
     
  12. Roy23

    Roy23 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    "There are those in the IDI camp, who I will not name--YET--who seem to think that they have a stranglehold on truth and who view RDIs as lunatics who only exist to provide them with amusement when they deign us worthy to speak to, similar to the old Bedlam inmates that English toffs used to pay to gawk at. Well, speaking purely for myself, I'm NOT stupid, I'm NOT ignorant and I HAVEN'T lost my mind, at least not yet. "

    Hi, I am Roy 23 and I am one of these people. But, let me say that I do not deem RDI's useless nor ALL of them lunatics. Some of them, yes I do. A better word is they have been misled. I appreciate RDI to an extent and I just hope that in time we will have an answer. And even though I am certain I am not wrong, I will be singing your praises if you just happened to be right. I will buy you all a beer, coke, and shake your hands if you will let me.
     
  13. Smelly Squirrel

    Smelly Squirrel Has never crawled into a Pontiac Sunfire

    Messages:
    1,753
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It seems to me RDI is the prevalent view on this board and in the public and the media, so they do have the numbers, even if they are all nuts. :p
     
  14. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Likewise, I'm sure. But I guess as a squirrel you are the nut expert.
     
  15. Roy23

    Roy23 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Okay, see we all just don't agree. But that was witty and funny. I think squirrel gets it more but I give you much Kudos.
     
  16. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We don't have to all agree. Even among RDI, we disagree on who did what and how. It's all good. We are striving towards solving this case. We may never reach that goal. But it is important to TRY. The case may be cold to LE and the new (aka same old) DA, but in our hearts it is still very important. We can't let it go stale. We have to keep talking about it and repeating the same things, keeping it relevant, because it we don't- JB loses and evil wins. And there is more than enough evil in the world winning- just look at the news each day.
     
  17. Smelly Squirrel

    Smelly Squirrel Has never crawled into a Pontiac Sunfire

    Messages:
    1,753
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Yeah, I like nuts OK, but I prefer old Pontiac Sunbirds.
     
  18. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm a VW Beetle kinda gal myself. Wish I still had my '69 or '72 Super Beetle. Diamond Blue. I bet they'd still run. (anyone remember Woody Allen in "Sleeper" where he finds a 200-year old VW Beetle and it starts?).
     
  19. Junebug99

    Junebug99 New Member

    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My dream vehicle is an old VW van, if only I could find one in good shape:)
     
  20. FairM

    FairM Inactive

    Messages:
    157
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Question to those who believe IDI, Would you have a different view if there was no DNA evidence that was unidentified ? ie take out the DNA evidence , what have you got?

    And ref to ST , he really mislead in his book because he did mention a few times about people being cleared due to their DNA not matching , that chap in prison for example, sorry SuperDave I know you have explained this a thousand times , well I feel like I've read your explanation a thousand times now but it keeps cropping up doesnt it , prob no thanks to ST's book!
     

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