advancements in DNA technology and the fall of RDI in The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

From CBC News:

"Investigators are reviewing and retesting evidence, including items from the crime scene as well as digital evidence. Technology not available at the time of the crime has allowed us to develop new investigative leads," Const. Markus Anastasiades said in a video posted on YouTube on Sunday.

"As many of you have likely seen in the media lately, advancements in fields such as genealogy and DNA analysis has led to resolution in many other cases," he continued.

Saanich Police Media Release

tricia griffith wrote:
Anti-K, this whole forum has example after example after example that an intruder did not commit this crime.

No one can show one scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

delmar england wrote:
Letter to Boulder Colorado District Attorney, Mary Keenan

The crime scene consisted of an obviously bogus multi-page "ransom note" utilizing local materials. JonBenet's body was left in the basement of the Ramsey home with crude trappings falling woefully short of presenting a convincing kidnap\murder scene as it was intended to do. Even without pointing out more of a very long list of corroborating facts, the bogus note and inept staging is more than sufficient to isolate the perpetrators to the Ramsey household. Only a few minutes in examining and evaluating the evidence is required to reach this conclusion. It is impossible to reach any other conclusion on the facts. There was and is no evidentiary reason to look anywhere else. The only mystery to be solved was and is which Ramsey did what in relation to JonBenet's death.

Although it is not possible to reach any other conclusion from the evidence, it is possible to ignore the evidence and mentally invent "evidence" to take the place of truth and keep it hidden. Prompted by preconceived notions set in a context of money and political influence in conjunction with investigative cowardice and incompetence, this is precisely what has been going on for over six years.

delmar wrote:
Handwriting? Patsy has not been ruled out by several examiners. By my own analysis, not of the writing, but of the mind match between the note and Patsy is clear. This is explained in my analysis of the "ransom note." So far, neither you nor anyone else has quoted and challenged it. So, to say the handwriting does not match the Ramseys, thus all Ramseys are excluded as author, is just another arbitrary declaration without substance. Note the exclusion of Ramseys necessarily depends on the intruder idea of no factual substance.

DNA? So, it does not match the family. So what? Who does it match? Unknown? If unknown, how can it be known to connect to the crime and be "evidence?" If the source of this DNA were known, then factually connected to the crime scene, then it is evidence. Absence this, it is just more speculation that caters to intruder mental creation.

Does the DNA have to be connected to the crime? Could it not be from a benign source totally removed from the crime scene? Again, the alleged evidence evidences nothing except itself with no known connection to the crime. No outsider as perpetrator is required to explain the DNA since no connection is known as crime related.

The same is true for boot print, hairs, fibers, etc.. A close look into anyone's house would most likely turn up all sorts of things whose source were unknown whether there is a crime or not. To call something whose source and cause is unknown as evidence is to say it causal related while simultaneously saying cause is unknown, thus relationship unknown; more "negative evidence." If my recollection of high school Latin is correct, this could be called "ignotium per ignotius", the unknown by the more unknown.

This "Ramsey defense" "thinking" is a direct and absurd contradiction that is without limit. With this kind of "investigative latitude", I dare say that one could "prove" anything; or at least, convince the deluded self that he or she has done so. "negative evidence?" Surely, thou jest. I repeat: All known evidence is local.

delmar england wrote:
For every "could be", there is a "could be not", therefore, inconclusive until cause is known. Right? No thing is evidence until evidentiary cause is known. Right? Are we in agreement so far? If not, please point out what you think is my error in thinking, and why you think it is error.

A shoe print is found in the basement whose cause is unknown. It "could be" evidence of an intruder. "Could be not" is forgotten and "evidence" of an intruder is declared to be fact. There is a palm print with cause unknown; a rope with source unknown that "could be" something brought in by an intruder; an unidentified fiber, a baseball bat that "could have" been used by the intruder; a bit of dirt or leaves at a window well which "could have" been disturbed by an intruder. The list goes on and on and on.

This massive "evidence" stated to be more consistent with a theory of intruder than Ramsey guilt is hot air, nothing more than a string of unknowns verbally laced together on "could be", simultaneously divorced from the known, and declared to be much evidence of an intruder. Ridiculous to the max. No wonder no one will step forward and answer questions about alleged evidence of an alleged intruder. Its indefensible.

The beauty of truth is that it is consistent. Every fact is a complement of and blends with every other fact without contradiction. The presence of a contradiction is also the presence of error. Are we in agreement up to this point?

When you don't know the difference between an idea, a speculation, a theory and evidence - you'll run into trouble trying to get to know a case.

Excluding the ninja pedo fetish trolls who have arrived in full regalia to degrade both these subs with their twisted pedo fan fic fantasies, I'd assume the rest of us who bother to even remain subscribed still would like to discuss the case at length and hash out theories and whatnot. I would too but after an extended break to come back and see some of these ludicrous IDI posts that are no such thing - I see a serious discussion may now be too much to ask for.

This is a fleshed out write up on some things that need to be addressed. It's not the tldr version. If you want that, oh well.

WHAT WE KNOW

There are two primary camps: RDI and IDI. Ramsey(s) Did It and Intruder Did It. In the RDI camp, we have three sub camps: Patsy Did It (all), John Did It (all), and Burke Did It (R/J cover up). We all have the basis elements down and we all know there are plenty of questions that will never, ever be answered so the most we can do is try the most sensical, intuitive, logical, reasonable, and rational speculation and see if it adds up.

When it comes to the IDI camp, at this place 20 years later, it's pretty clear that IDI is a dinosaur to everyone who is familiar with the case. We get it now, there's plenty of evidence of RDI - but which R remains up for grabs. The IDI debate ended years ago with new information, insight, and revelations. It's only a "thing" for those who for whatever reasons never followed this case, never paid much attention, just didn't delve into it beyond the age old headlines and going ideas that those who have been more involved have known for awhile are refuted, discarded, irrelevant, etc.

Then there's the other faction of IDIer that are not seriously IDIers. They are trolls or Ramsey shills or mentally disturbed sorts, and of course, the twisted Karr style fetishists who want a canvas to roll out their disturbing fetish nonsense and attach it to this case. This camp doesn't actually care about this case, the facts or the evidence, or what happened to JonBenet. Their sole agenda is to degrade the discussion. They will neither respect nor regard the following points and will likely argue them in spite of reality. By their fruits they shall be known.