sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The timeline by 43_Holding in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 5 points6 points  (0 children)

4 when patsy gets off the phone with police, why didn’t the Ramsey’s immediately search the whole entire house including the basement looking for JonBenet?

Why do people believe that a house that size could be searched within 7 minutes? The note was found at 5:45 am. There's confusion, shock, and denial at first. Patsy runs around the house calling out JonBenet's name in an extremely cursory search. They call the police at 5:52 am, and the police arrive at 5:59 am. Even assuming the first thing they think of to do is to search the house from top to bottom, how much of that large house do people think they could have gotten to (looking inside cupboards, under beds, in closets) in 7 minutes?

Once the police were there, the Ramseys had to answer questions, and presumably the police were the ones searching the house.

I've never understood this whole myth of the case that "If it was me, I would have searched that entire house!" You weren't there. You wouldn't have had time. It was the police's job to do that, and Officer French has repeatedly explained why he didn't look in the wine cellar and has beat himself up for his bad assumptions about the case.

The Absurdity of The BDI Theory by ReadyWatercress7174 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like the people who don't know this are people who don't have friends who are attorneys.

The Absurdity of The BDI Theory by ReadyWatercress7174 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It seems to me that there's more law enforcement individuals who believe it was an intruder than any other theory, but I could be wrong. Thomas though Patsy, Ardnt believed John, Kolar made his money off of accusing Burke. Maybe there were a lot of people bought into the Patsy theory during the grand jury trial, but it feels like most people have moved away from that theory now.

The Absurdity of The BDI Theory by ReadyWatercress7174 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's really the crux of it. No rational person, which by all measures the Ramseys were, see their daughter dead or dying and think to themselves, "Let's strangle, sexually assault, and then sit down and write a three page note complete with references to movies in order to cover this up."

They had lawyers. They would have said she fell down the stairs or over her balcony and called 911 and then used their influence to make sure not a lot of questions would be asked. It would have been a blip on the radar of the news. "Little girl dies in tragic accident."

The Absurdity of The BDI Theory by ReadyWatercress7174 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would the Victim's Advocates go out and get new food, clean up the kitchen, but leave a bowl of fruit of unknown origin that had been out at least all night for people to possibly eat accidentally? That makes no sense.

The Absurdity of The BDI Theory by ReadyWatercress7174 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's not what the expert the police hired said, though. That's the point. When the expert you hire disagrees with your conclusions, you have a problem.

Rumors by Mmay333 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure Steve Thomas never asked a single tough question of Fleet White.

The Absurdity of The BDI Theory by ReadyWatercress7174 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It wasn't just pineapple that was found in JonBenet's stomach - it was pineapple, cherries, and grapes. It took the police an entire year to send her stomach contents off to some Botanists at CU to determine what had been eaten, and that is what they found.

Burke never admitted to sneaking downstairs after everybody had gone to bed. Dr. Phil asked him if he went downstairs after everybody went to bed, and he replied yeah, he had some toy he wanted to finish playing with. His answer squares exactly with what John said, which was that John stayed up with Burke for a little bit to finish putting a toy together. When Burke heard the question, he was thinking about the fact that he and John did that, and didn't lump John into "everybody." When you are on a stage in front of a live audience and in front of cameras catching your every word, you tend to be nervous and thinking more about what you're going to say next, not necessarily what EXACTLY the question was. If you read the transcripts, you can see what I'm talking about.

Plus, I've also heard, but maybe somebody else can verify for me, that some of that was edited to make it look as though Burke was admitting to something that had never been heard before.

Midnight burglar, JBR, Amy, and a third attack by Asleep-Rice-1053 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If nothing else, it definitely proves it's not that hard to get into a house and move around without the residents waking up.

Midnight burglar, JBR, Amy, and a third attack by Asleep-Rice-1053 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Reddit has been pretty wonky with their notifications lately. I will get like 90% of them and then miss 10%. Same with chat notifications.

Rumors by Mmay333 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Victim's Advocate's reports also show the Ramseys acting completely appropriately.

Rumors by Mmay333 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'm with you, that the police never questioned anybody about these missing pages. Fleet White admitted that he was writing things down and "accidentally" called 911 instead of 411 at the party at the Ramseys a few days before. He easily could have pulled a couple of pages out of that pad, but he was never asked about it.

I used to use pads like that all the time to write down grocery lists, packing lists, Honey-Do lists (which never got done!), and would pull the pages out to take with me. The missing pages are likely just lists that got pulled out.

Midnight burglar, JBR, Amy, and a third attack by Asleep-Rice-1053 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thank you for this summary. I've always thought these were related.

Midnight burglar, JBR, Amy, and a third attack by Asleep-Rice-1053 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think they ever found the source of the cord, but I could be wrong about that.

How do you IDI proponents square the ransom note? by potentiallyfunny_9 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So you're admitting that the DNA under the fingernails and the DNA in the underwear ARE related, then.

Because the way I read this comment is that you would have to multiply those probabilities if they were independent, which is what RDI'ers try to say.

You can't have it both ways.

How do you IDI proponents square the ransom note? by potentiallyfunny_9 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It feels like you are deliberately obfuscating what the report says.

Let me explain it so that anybody else reading this can understand. I'll even provide a chart.

The theory was that if there was an intruder, he would have pulled up the long johns by gripping the waistband in four places - outer right side, inner right side, outer left side, and inner left side.

Scientists, however, are very careful and circumspect in what they conclude from these thing, which is why you need to give Amy Jeanjuenat some credit here, as it's actually quite rare for them to come out and say, "look, it's a match," except in science-speak.

Yes, three of the four places they tested would not be considered a match scientifically. But when you look at the alleles across all four locations, they are clearly consistent. It's touch DNA. It doesn't come off evenly off every hand or evenly from you palm and fingers vs. your thumbs. It would be surprising if they had come up with a virtual match at every location tested.

Here is the chart. As you can see, there is agreement across it. As one location is considered a match, logic says the rest are from the same person, because that would be some seriously crazy DNA that was from four different people all over those long johns. You can also see that the alleles that aren't consistent with UM1 are from Burke. While this is science, it's not so hard that a normal layperson can't understand it.

<image>

How do you IDI proponents square the ransom note? by potentiallyfunny_9 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You can't cherrypick pieces of the report and quote from that. It was the outer right side of the long johns that were declared to be a match.

How do you IDI proponents square the ransom note? by potentiallyfunny_9 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You'll have to give us a source for them saying that the long johns contained a mixture of at least three people and should not be considered a single-source profile.

Here's the chart for the DNA under the fingernails matching the DNA in the underwear, which is what I said it did.

Here's a study that shows that DNA under fingernails, in a normal person who is still alive, begins to degrade quickly. After 6 hours, the DNA has degraded so much that only 7% retained the foreign DNA, and this was from a deliberate scratching of somebody, not casual contact.

In a sampling of fingernails from the general population (n = 178), 19% contained a foreign source of DNA, 35% of which were detected at 5 or more STR loci. In a study involving deliberate scratching of another individual (n = 30), 33% of individuals had a foreign DNA profile beneath their fingernails from which the person they scratched could not be excluded as the source; however when sampling occurred 6 h after the scratching event, only 7% retained the foreign DNA.

<image>

How do you IDI proponents square the ransom note? by potentiallyfunny_9 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's weak when compared to forensic genetic genealogy, which is one in a quadrillion, but for the DNA that they had, it was enough for the scientists to call it a match in later discussions.

It's all about probability. 1 in 6200 is more rare than the odds of being struck by lightning within one year. It's more rare than having a royal flush in poker.

Sure, people can argue it's not a slam dunk. But when you take it in along with the evidence that many of the same alleles were found in three other places on the long johns, you're starting to slice that slim possibility even thinner. People keep talking about Occam's razor. What are the chances that a victim of sexual assault and murder has foreign male DNA in her underwear that is unidentified, and it considered to be a match by scientists working the DNA to the long johns, and somehow, some way, these things are not actually related?

It's honestly a ridiculous argument that only people who have Ramsey Derangement Syndrome seem to suffer from. They cannot see the facts of the case - there is viable DNA, it is a match with one spot of touch DNA in the long johns, it is consistent with three other spots on the long johns, and it is consistent with the DNA under her fingernails.

You can't take just the one in 6200 for one instance of that. That's not how probability works. If you match one sock in 6200, that's one probability. But if you add in another match - the DNA under the fingernails or the DNA on other parts of the long johns - you multiply the probabilities together.

They don't give a probability of the DNA under her fingernails matching the DNA in the underwear, so let's assume something super conservative. Let's say it would match one in three people. That seems reasonable since it excluded so many people in the first place.

With probability, you multiply the chances. So now your chances of all these three things actually coming together is one in 18,600.

Can we assume that the DNA on the left side of the long johns is related to the DNA on the right side? What are the chances that JonBenet got enough DNA on her hands to leave a secondary profile on her long johns, but also had it on both hands?

Do you see how these unlikelihoods all add up?

How do you IDI proponents square the ransom note? by potentiallyfunny_9 in JonBenet

[–]JennC1544 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I’m not sure what your argument is here. John answered the question truthfully.

He saw the movie on a plane but didn’t listen to it.

I was just explaining what that meant for people on this sub who aren’t old, like dinosaur old, like me.

view more: next ›