Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast
Results 109 to 120 of 126
  1. #109
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    In a World With Too Much Crime
    Posts
    7,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel XVI View Post


    Or, as exactly with my theory as stated ten years ago here, the intruder could have lifted a number of pages (and the pen) from Patsy’s pad—not knowing exactly how much he or she would require beforehand— during the holiday party or some other time and brought back with him or her only the pages needed, the ransom note and the false start (as part of the act, to reinforce the perception that the note was written then and there).
    How did the pages remain pristine without the slightest crease during all of that moving around, including leaving the house and returning to the house?
    It's probably too late to get justice for JonBenét. Maybe it always was. But knowing where things went wrong is the first step to not going there again. **-- Alan Prendergast-Dec 21, 2006--**

    ______________________
    Bring all our Missing Home www.usearchut.org
    Prayers for our military who are protecting our freedom.

  2. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    In a World With Too Much Crime
    Posts
    7,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel XVI View Post

    On a final point, if I had been Patsy writing the note I would have destroyed the false start, tearing it up and flushing it. It strongly reinforces the impression that the note was written then and there at the Ramseys’ house. This is a cardinal reason why I have suspected an attempted frame up.
    4 people in the home that night
    4 people supposedly went to bed and to sleep
    3 woke up

    Where is the "frame up"?
    It's probably too late to get justice for JonBenét. Maybe it always was. But knowing where things went wrong is the first step to not going there again. **-- Alan Prendergast-Dec 21, 2006--**

    ______________________
    Bring all our Missing Home www.usearchut.org
    Prayers for our military who are protecting our freedom.

  3. #111

    Default

    This is for Daniel

    I was a late comer to this crime and knew very little about the evidence when it was big in the news those many years ago. Having read a little in the newspaper, at the time, I figured the parents were involved because of their behavior. My first real consideration of the crime was when I happened across a documentary on TV, which advanced Lou Smits intruder theory. Not knowing much about the evidence, I believed he made a good case. At any rate, it raised my attention, so I began reading everything I could find about the case.

    In order to not be close minded, I developed 4 or 5 theories about the case and I listed them in order of probability. BDI is my number one theory because it is the simplest explanation for the evidence, confusing crime scene and parent behavior. The number one piece of evidence to this writer, because of my occupation, is the pineapple. I knew JBR had eaten a cube or two of that pineapple only minutes before the head injury. Since Burke's fingers were all over that evidence, I concluded both children were up together after parents would have us believe all were nestled snugly in bed.

    My other theories, listed in order of probability, are:

    2. PDI and had something on JR whereby he had to go along.
    3 JAR hired a college friend, or drifter, to silence JBR.
    4. A Ramsey friend, or acquaintance, did it for revenge, jealousy, etc., and tried to pin it on the family.

    You may be surprised to read that I give some credence to your theory of revenge and frame up. Please note, however, that it is the least likely, IMHO. I'll present the reasons.

    1. If this theory is correct, John, Patsy, or both, know who did it. The perp would have to have some very embarrassing info on JR or PR to keep them from fingering him or her. What is more, this person would have been known to be in the inner circle and would, immediately, come under suspicion as did all acquaintances. Because of this, it would be very stupid to set up a big crime scene just to make the parents look guilty. As a suspect, you would increase the odds of leaving incriminating evidence behind. You would be considered insane to leave your writing on a ransom note since you, as were all of the inner circle, be asked for a handwriting sample. If you wanted to frame the parents, simply wear gloves, kill the child, and get out. Parents are number one suspects and, with no evidence at the scene, will remain #1.

    2. It would be especially cruel for a one time perpetrator to kill a child just to get at the parents. Simply kill the one who you're wanting to hurt.

    3. I've never been able to say that I'm 100% sure PR wrote the letter, but I'm pretty close to that. Very few people would write the letter q like an 8 and PR did. The frequent use of exclamation points. The exaggerated indentation. The use of "and hence". Now, you will no doubt answer that a perp, wanting to frame the family, might use some of PR's writing mannerisms. This implies, however, that the perp was very close to PR.

    These are but a few of the things I believe makes this theory highly unlikely. I shall address your dna discussion in my next post.

  4. #112

    Default

    Daniel,

    You ask how likely is it that male DNA, belonging to the same person, could be found on two separate items of clothing. First of all, I believe it could be challenged, on the number of markers used, as to whether or not it really does belong to the same person. For the sake of fairness, however, l'll assume it does belong to the same person. How significant is this finding?

    It has significance, but only if there is other corroborating evidence placing that person to the crime scene. As Dr. Henry Lee demonstrated on the CBS documentary, touch DNA is found everywhere. You most likely have some strangers DNA on your clothing. When DNA was being harvested from bodily fluid, that was a huge piece of evidence since the fluid indicated the owner was, at some point, in close proximity to the victim. Semen or blood almost made it a slam dunk case.

    Touch DNA, however, is a whole different ballgame because people leave their skin cells, saliva (sneezing, coughing) all over the place. If you find touch DNA on a victim, you still need other evidence before the touch DNA becomes important. This is common sense and we didn't need Dr. Henry Lee to demonstrate this, but it was a very poignant part of the documentary because some hardheads want to believe the touch DNA is slam dunk ala Mary Lacy. It is not.

    I proposed a theory, a number of years ago, even before the Mary Lacy exoneration fiasco. I proposed the following scenario could explain the DNA under JBR's fingernails and panties. It could also explain the waistband of the long johns. JBR received a bicycle for Christmas. That bicycle was in a store before being bought. At the store, children play on the bicycles all the time. Sneezy, runny-nose children, without a doubt, grabbed the handgrips of that bicycle with their sweaty hands. There would be foreign touch DNA all over those bicycle grips. JBR gets on her new bike and, presto, she grips the handlebars thereby transferring foreign touch DNA to her hands. She goes to the bathroom and does the usual stuff which could have left that foreign DNA on her panties and any article of clothing she pulled up and down. The foreign DNA, under the fingernails, was very degraded. This could have been caused by hand washing. If you can get hold of a flu virus by touching a phone that a fellow employee handled before you, then, rest assured you can pick up someone's touch DNA in the same manner.

    As Dr. Henry Lee stated. This touch DNA means nothing at this point in time.

  5. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    Because some of what I wrote wasn't completely clear, I'm going to make a last comment.

    It's my understanding that the "false start" page was still attached to the pad. The nine pages before it were torn out, as were the three pages after it, ie, the ransom note.
    Thank you for your final comment.

    I think I’m pretty good (as an amateur) with linguistic analysis myself. For example, although I know nothing about you I’ll take a stab at profiling. You are highly educated, either formally (higher education) or informally (like myself, you’ve been a voracious reader since childhood) or both. You are older, a baby boomer (like myself) as exhibited by your usage of a word such as “provenance,” not a word younger, even erudite people would likely be familiar with or at least likely to use. I assume your pseudonym is a reference to Chesterton’s Fr. Brown mysteries. Like myself, you enjoy escapist literature (perhaps a proclivity toward mental refuge since childhood due to some unhappiness (like myself with terrible school bullying due to a then undiagnosed, relatively mild (though still noticeable) case of Tourette’s Syndrome)).

    Again as with myself, you are likely Catholic or were raised such as evidenced by your interest in Chesterton. Like the unfortunately late Mr. Delmar England, whom I encountered here ten years ago, you tend to be defensive and don’t appreciate being corrected or even questioned. All in all, it’s a pity that you seem unwilling to further engage in constructive dialogue in the interest of truth as such seems irrevocably settled in your mind. I have therefore been recently posting on Topix regarding this subject where at least all points of view are elicited, albeit not always appreciated.

    One of the dictionary definitions of “false start” is “an unsatisfactory beginning.” I first encountered the term in Robert Graves’s I, Claudius regarding a letter Claudius’s sister was writing to her lover. I prefer it to the term “practice note” in this instance because I believe the former term describes the uncompleted note whereas the latter doesn’t. “False start” is also used on the comprehensive JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia website. Therefore, I don’t appreciate your use of sarcastic quotes for the term which I assume is directed at my usage of it in place of “practice note.”

    Since in your final comment you seem uncertain that the false start was found still attached to the pad, I can draw no definite conclusions and am still fuzzy on your bleed-through point. However, I appreciate your efforts to educate me on such matters, and I pride myself on always being educable regarding such matters as opposed to being doctrinaire, a regretful tendency here, I'm afraid.

    You might be surprised that as a result of my recent correspondence on Topix, I have begun to waiver on my personal IDI theory, though I suppose the more conventional one formulated by Mr. Smit (that the intruder broke in while the family was at dinner and wrote the note then and there) is still tenable. However, I find it farfetched. The “preaching to the choir” philosophy exhibited on this forum is unfortunate as there is a lot of useful information and a great many educated people on this case present.

    I shall answer others who have recently replied to my comments this weekend when I have more time. The last poster’s input I found particularly helpful and am thankful for it. I wish you well.


    .
    Last edited by Daniel XVI; September 30, 2016, 12:08 pm at Fri Sep 30 12:08:16 UTC 2016.

  6. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moab View Post
    How did the pages remain pristine without the slightest crease during all of that moving around, including leaving the house and returning to the house?
    This is admittedly a good point. Someone on Topix also noted this consideration. If my IDI theory is correct, all I can suggest is that the intruder took great pains to keep them so.

    Thank you.

  7. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    This is for Daniel

    I was a late comer to this crime and knew very little about the evidence when it was big in the news those many years ago. Having read a little in the newspaper, at the time, I figured the parents were involved because of their behavior. My first real consideration of the crime was when I happened across a documentary on TV, which advanced Lou Smits intruder theory. Not knowing much about the evidence, I believed he made a good case. At any rate, it raised my attention, so I began reading everything I could find about the case.

    In order to not be close minded, I developed 4 or 5 theories about the case and I listed them in order of probability. BDI is my number one theory because it is the simplest explanation for the evidence, confusing crime scene and parent behavior. The number one piece of evidence to this writer, because of my occupation, is the pineapple. I knew JBR had eaten a cube or two of that pineapple only minutes before the head injury. Since Burke's fingers were all over that evidence, I concluded both children were up together after parents would have us believe all were nestled snugly in bed.

    My other theories, listed in order of probability, are:

    2. PDI and had something on JR whereby he had to go along.
    3 JAR hired a college friend, or drifter, to silence JBR.
    4. A Ramsey friend, or acquaintance, did it for revenge, jealousy, etc., and tried to pin it on the family.

    You may be surprised to read that I give some credence to your theory of revenge and frame up. Please note, however, that it is the least likely, IMHO. I'll present the reasons.

    1. If this theory is correct, John, Patsy, or both, know who did it. The perp would have to have some very embarrassing info on JR or PR to keep them from fingering him or her. What is more, this person would have been known to be in the inner circle and would, immediately, come under suspicion as did all acquaintances. Because of this, it would be very stupid to set up a big crime scene just to make the parents look guilty. As a suspect, you would increase the odds of leaving incriminating evidence behind. You would be considered insane to leave your writing on a ransom note since you, as were all of the inner circle, be asked for a handwriting sample. If you wanted to frame the parents, simply wear gloves, kill the child, and get out. Parents are number one suspects and, with no evidence at the scene, will remain #1.

    2. It would be especially cruel for a one time perpetrator to kill a child just to get at the parents. Simply kill the one who you're wanting to hurt.

    3. I've never been able to say that I'm 100% sure PR wrote the letter, but I'm pretty close to that. Very few people would write the letter q like an 8 and PR did. The frequent use of exclamation points. The exaggerated indentation. The use of "and hence". Now, you will no doubt answer that a perp, wanting to frame the family, might use some of PR's writing mannerisms. This implies, however, that the perp was very close to PR.

    These are but a few of the things I believe makes this theory highly unlikely. I shall address your dna discussion in my next post.
    Thank you for your detailed analysis and sharing your thought processes. It is most appreciated. I can’t buy that if my IDI theory of the crime is correct, the Ramseys would know the killer and keep quiet out of rank speculation of some sort of blackmail, as such seems farfetched. However, your implied question of: “Why leave a ransom note at all if the idea was to frame the Ramseys?” has merit. Someone on Topix was asked this and I found his answer to be rather fanciful as well. Maybe someone here who believes in the IDI theory (if such a poster exists) has a better explanation.

  8. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    Daniel,

    You ask how likely is it that male DNA, belonging to the same person, could be found on two separate items of clothing. First of all, I believe it could be challenged, on the number of markers used, as to whether or not it really does belong to the same person. For the sake of fairness, however, l'll assume it does belong to the same person. How significant is this finding?

    It has significance, but only if there is other corroborating evidence placing that person to the crime scene. As Dr. Henry Lee demonstrated on the CBS documentary, touch DNA is found everywhere. You most likely have some strangers DNA on your clothing. When DNA was being harvested from bodily fluid, that was a huge piece of evidence since the fluid indicated the owner was, at some point, in close proximity to the victim. Semen or blood almost made it a slam dunk case.

    Touch DNA, however, is a whole different ballgame because people leave their skin cells, saliva (sneezing, coughing) all over the place. If you find touch DNA on a victim, you still need other evidence before the touch DNA becomes important. This is common sense and we didn't need Dr. Henry Lee to demonstrate this, but it was a very poignant part of the documentary because some hardheads want to believe the touch DNA is slam dunk ala Mary Lacy. It is not.

    I proposed a theory, a number of years ago, even before the Mary Lacy exoneration fiasco. I proposed the following scenario could explain the DNA under JBR's fingernails and panties. It could also explain the waistband of the long johns. JBR received a bicycle for Christmas. That bicycle was in a store before being bought. At the store, children play on the bicycles all the time. Sneezy, runny-nose children, without a doubt, grabbed the handgrips of that bicycle with their sweaty hands. There would be foreign touch DNA all over those bicycle grips. JBR gets on her new bike and, presto, she grips the handlebars thereby transferring foreign touch DNA to her hands. She goes to the bathroom and does the usual stuff which could have left that foreign DNA on her panties and any article of clothing she pulled up and down. The foreign DNA, under the fingernails, was very degraded. This could have been caused by hand washing. If you can get hold of a flu virus by touching a phone that a fellow employee handled before you, then, rest assured you can pick up someone's touch DNA in the same manner.

    As Dr. Henry Lee stated. This touch DNA means nothing at this point in time.
    As I stated in my initial post on this thread, unless I missed it in this documentary Dr. Lee merely demonstrated that trace DNA on even newly unwrapped clothing is not uncommon. (Which, BTW, leads me to wonder if such can survive washing. Do you or anyone know? I assume Patsy would have washed JB’s new clothing before allowing her to wear them.) He seemed (at least from what I heard) to ignore the same male DNA on two separate articles of JB’s clothing which caused Ms. Lacy’s unorthodox exoneration of the family. Your theory to account for this seems fanciful, but I suppose not impossible. I would like the Boulder DA’s office to test DNA from any man who might have known of JB’s bonus amount either firsthand or through another and was familiar with the Ramseys' house.

    Thank you again. Your input is most appreciated.
    Last edited by Daniel XVI; September 30, 2016, 4:35 pm at Fri Sep 30 16:35:03 UTC 2016.

  9. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel XVI View Post
    Thank you for your detailed analysis and sharing your thought processes. It is most appreciated. I can’t buy that if my IDI theory of the crime is correct, the Ramseys would know the killer and keep quiet out of rank speculation of some sort of blackmail, as such seems farfetched. However, your implied question of: “Why leave a ransom note at all if the idea was to frame the Ramseys?” has merit. Someone on Topix was asked this and I found his answer to be rather fanciful as well. Maybe someone here who believes in the IDI theory (if such a poster exists) has a better explanation.
    You're very welcome and thank you for your kind response. I suppose it is possible that someone, hell-bent on revenge, could be unknown to P or JR. My belief, that an intruder would have been known by P or JR, is based upon their behavior and the physical evidence. For some reason, P and JR were trying to distance themselves from those charged with the task of investigating this crime. As the retired FBI agent said in the CBS docudrama: "The Ramsey's did not want this thing solved." I have always believed that the Rams, if they were not covering for themselves or a family member, were covering for the perp. For whatever reason, if it was an intruder, they didn't want this thing solved.

    Secondly. The perp displayed familiarity with the family.

    Thirdly. Pineapple. The pineapple will always be the big thorn in the Ramsey's side. JBR knew her killer. She was comfortable enough, with her killer, that she ate pineapple shortly before being assaulted by that killer. The only other explanation is that JBR woke up and went downstairs by herself, grabbed a cube of pineapple and then went back to bed. Shortly, thereafter, was assaulted by an intruder. Possible? I suppose, but you can see why I place this theory down on the list.

  10. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel XVI View Post
    As I stated in my initial post on this thread, unless I missed it in this documentary Dr. Lee merely demonstrated that trace DNA on even newly unwrapped clothing is not uncommon. (Which, BTW, leads me to wonder if such can survive washing. Do you or anyone know? I assume Patsy would have washed JB’s new clothing before allowing her to wear them.) He seemed (at least from what I heard) to ignore the same male DNA on two separate articles of JB’s clothing which caused Ms. Lacy’s unorthodox exoneration of the family. Your theory to account for this seems fanciful, but I suppose not impossible. I would like the Boulder DA’s office to test DNA from any man who might have known of JB’s bonus amount either firsthand or through another and was familiar with the Ramseys' house.

    Thank you again. Your input is most appreciated.
    To this viewer, Dr. Lee demonstrated that touch DNA is easily transferrable. Common sense. You touch a telephone that John Doe just handled. John Doe has been exposed to the flu virus and has not yet come down with symptoms. John transferred some of that virus on to the telephone. You, now, have flu virus on your hands. If you shake hands with Betty Doe, shortly thereafter, you may transfer that flu virus to her.
    This is why proper hand washing is so important.

    What can be done with microbes, can certainly be done with skin cells.

    I could be wrong, but I believe the panties, found on the victim, had just been removed from a package.

  11. #119

    Smile

    Hello all!

    I see "old" members coming back! And yes, where is Koldkase?? and Elle??

    I'm surprised there is no thread for the lawsuit Wood has filed??!!

    I see that not all people believe that BDI... strange...

    Anyway - I believe there is a thread over at Tricia's WS forum. So I'll mosey on over there!

    ~~"Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
    I came, I saw, I stuck around!~~

  12. #120
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Niner View Post
    Hello all!

    I see "old" members coming back! And yes, where is Koldkase?? and Elle??

    I'm surprised there is no thread for the lawsuit Wood has filed??!!

    I see that not all people believe that BDI... strange...

    Anyway - I believe there is a thread over at Tricia's WS forum. So I'll mosey on over there!

    We have some Ramsey defenders hanging on to the last gasp!

    It is more active at WS, for sure. I have been here a lot more than there through the years, but this forum does seem to be quieting down overall.

    I miss KK and Elle, and everyone else! :'(
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!



Similar Threads

  1. Movie "Nick Of Time" and the Ramsey case
    By Learnin in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 6, 2010, 7:38 am, Sun Jun 6 7:38:51 UTC 2010
  2. New Ramsey case novel by Joyce Carol Oates - "My Sister, My Love"
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: July 21, 2008, 5:32 am, Mon Jul 21 5:32:02 UTC 2008
  3. "Law & Order" Takes on the Ramsey Case
    By Carol in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: October 26, 2006, 10:48 am, Thu Oct 26 10:48:34 UTC 2006
  4. The "Bonita Papers" - Unedited Notes From Ramsey Case Documents
    By Tricia in forum Evidence Files: Ramsey murder case
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 10, 2004, 1:55 am, Sat Apr 10 1:55:43 UTC 2004

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •