JonBenet Ramsey Update

[Jonathan H]

See what I mean, Roy?

You present a devastating counter-argument and the response is to be practically offended that you have dared to challenged Buff-orthodoxy.

[Ally]

Because the same unknnown male DNA has now been found on another piece of clothing the victim was also wearing at the time, the long johns. (2008 click here)

There have been different District Attorneys over time. And someone said Mary Lacy, who was DA in 2008 when this new discovery was made, is biased. But that's irrelevant, isn't it. This is science.

That's all I was trying to point out here. New evidence.

Roy

Yes it's science but it doesn't absolutely point to her killer. I would have been more impressed if the touch DNA was found on the rope that strangled her.

Jon Benet was wearing those clothes to a party that night. A party with several other children and people. For "touch" DNA, all that would have had to have happen is someone either a child or an adult grabbed Jonbenet about the waist, either to play or to lift her up and give her a hug. Their DNA is scrapped off on her long johns, she hugs back, then later, she goes to the bathroom removes her long johns and transfers it to her underwear.

This is the same kind of "science" that used to get people dinged on gunshot residue. Test them for gunpowder residue and if they match, they are guilty. Until of course it was realized, years later, that gunpowder residue is EVERYWHERE in police cars, in police examination rooms and there was risk of tainted transfer just by contact.

While I find the DNA evidence interesting and it puts up a point to ponder, what happens years down the road if that DNA is identified as being from someone at the party? Are they automatically guilty of following her and murdering her?

[Tom_Wescott]

The DNA evidence Roy is referring to is so miniscule that it could not at all be said to belong to her murderer. There are a 1000 ways it could have been transferred to her clothes and such a small amount actually points away from it having come from her murderer and towards the conclusion that it's presence there is mundane in nature.

You have to disclude the DNA and look at the more reliable evidence in the case, such as the circumstances of the crime itself, the crime scene, the note, etc.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

'Disclude'?

[Tom_Wescott]

Note to Jordan: See what I was talking about now?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[cappuccina]

It's akshuallee a werd meeening tooo eksclude or shutte outte...

[Tom_Wescott]

No, Jonathan's correct in that 'disclude' isn't a word. I should have used 'discount'. However, since my point was sound, Prof. John had only my grammar as a recourse for attack.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Far be it from me to agree with Tom but when someone is decrying the lack of logical rebuttal in his opposition and they then respond with a childish grammar nitpick and no logical rebuttal of their own, they sort of bury their own case.

[Jonathan H]

To Ally,

What I have found is that when I make an argument or counter-argument with you, it is you who is actually juvenile because what you do is nitpick to death -- liike a child determined to annoy a parent -- until you have baxcked yourself ino a corner to concede that you are mistaken.

At that point you disappear from the debate.

But it's not a crime to be disagreeable.

Tom, I find you arrogant and pompous. You talk like an omnipotent expert about the Ramsey case. Look, pal, you are contributing -- in an admittedly tiny way -- to a grotesque witch-hunt against real people and real suffering.

To everybody else:

It is like a mental disease.

People who are intelligent and well-informed but so dominated by a contrarian flaw in their personality that they think they are objective when they are not, and then accuse others of what they themselves do.

They will of course, predictably, use these words against me amd say this is an unconscious self-portrait, and so on, and so on.

Therefore, it is up to the readers to make up their minds as to who is trying to be an adult, and who is not.

[Ally]

Nitpick to death? Is that what you call shredding your arguments down to their base components and exposing their every flaw?

If you look back over the course of this debate, which is frankly the only one I can recall having with you, so forgive me that you are that forgettable, you will find that the sole person on here who has made childish nitpicks, refused to provide any sort of logical rebuttal and thrown a tantrum, has been you.

But I can understand that logical debate is not your forte, and you prefer just slinging mud at others, hoping it sticks. You have done nothing but attack the personalities of others, rather than their arguments, which doesn't say much for either your personality or your arguments. Glass houses. Stones. Etc.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Jonathan!

I find it most likely, thinking about the conditions, timing and the sum of money, that someone in the Ramsey family did it.

What it comes to the DNA, the points made by Ally possibly out-rule the possibility of an outsider.

However, it someone can present definite circumstantial evidence, I am ready to change my mind.

But I'd rather believe someone not called by the Ramseys or their counterpart.

All the best
Jukka

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, I find you arrogant and pompous. You talk like an omnipotent expert about the Ramsey case.

For rizzle? I've hardly said two words on this thread and in fact stated that I preferred NOT to get too involved in the discussion lest you and Roy get upset and start slinging arrows. All you've done since is prove me 100% correct. While I'm obviously the supreme omnipotent expert in the Ripper case, and in all matters relating to sweet, sweet lovin', I do not hold myself out as the ultimate expert in the Ramsey case. I leave that title to the man who personally investigated the homicide and concluded beyond a doubt that the murder was certainly an insider and most likely Patsy Ramsey.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[cappuccina]

For rizzle? I've hardly said two words on this thread and in fact stated that I preferred NOT to get too involved in the discussion lest you and Roy get upset and start slinging arrows. All you've done since is prove me 100% correct. While I'm obviously the supreme omnipotent expert in the Ripper case, and in all matters relating to sweet, sweet lovin', I do not hold myself out as the ultimate expert in the Ramsey case. I leave that title to the man who personally investigated the homicide and concluded beyond a doubt that the murder was certainly an insider and most likely Patsy Ramsey.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

"Delusional disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental disorder that is characterized by holding one or more non-bizarre delusions in the absence of any other significant psychopathology..." (Wiki)

[Jonathan H]

As usual, certain people here dish it out with abandon but cannot take it in return.

They cannot take people who stand their ground -- and hurl it right back -- reacting with juvenile indignation that they themelves could be accused of being thoroughly mean-spirited and, dare it be said, mistaken.

[Ally]

I have no problem being called mean-spirited or even mistaken. However, in order to call someone mistaken, it is incumbent upon you to provide examples and counter arguments that show where precisely they are mistaken.

The only person behaving in a juvenile fashion on this thread is yourself. I have provided evidence and reasons why the DNA does not necessarily point to her killer.

One thing is clear from your behavior. You have no interest or no ability to argue this case rationally. You haven't provided a single piece of rational argument on it. All you have done is hurl insults, turn red in the face and stomp your feet saying "I'm right, Imright Imright!". I think someone needs a nap.