In Defense of Patsy & John Ramsey [Archive] - Page 6

Ames

11-09-2006, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I wouldn't call the Ramseys "perfect", but yes, I would say moral, wholesome, and Christian - with no precursors for violent behavior and no substantial evidence against them.

JMO

There are plenty of other "moral, wholesome and Christian" people out there, that had no precursors for violent behavior...that have snapped, and something went terribly wrong, and they committed murder. One example is my cousin's husband....she asked for a divorce, he apparently didn't want to give her one, he "snapped" and he shot and killed her. And he is just ONE of many. None of us on this board (that I know of) have LIVED with the Ramsey's...and nobody has a clue what went on behind closed doors. Even tough you say that you wouldn't call the Ramsey's perfect...your post above says otherwise. Nobody is perfect...including the Ramsey's. I do not think that the Ramsey's INTENTIONALLY harmed JB. I do want to make that clear....so, with that said...it doesn't matter how moral, wholesome or Christian a person is....ANYBODY could snap...and do something that they regret later...such as shaking a child, or shoving them...therefore causing a terrible accident. Thats what I think happened in the Ramsey household that night. Not wanting to go to jail....and they WOULD have, if they had of taken her to the emergency room and had of admitted to "snapping", (and doctors can tell, usually, how a child received an injury, so they knew that they couldn't fool the doctor) they conjured up the whole intruder did it thing, complete with staged coverup. imo

sweetcharlotte

11-09-2006, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Ames

There are plenty of other "moral, wholesome and Christian" people out there, that had no precursors for violent behavior...that have snapped, and something went terribly wrong, and they committed murder. One example is my cousin's husband....she asked for a divorce, he apparently didn't want to give her one, he "snapped" and he shot and killed her. And he is just ONE of many. None of us on this board (that I know of) have LIVED with the Ramsey's...and nobody has a clue what went on behind closed doors. Even tough you say that you wouldn't call the Ramsey's perfect...your post above says otherwise. Nobody is perfect...including the Ramsey's. I do not think that the Ramsey's INTENTIONALLY harmed JB. I do want to make that clear....so, with that said...it doesn't matter how moral, wholesome or Christian a person is....ANYBODY could snap...and do something that they regret later...such as shaking a child, or shoving them...therefore causing a terrible accident. Thats what I think happened in the Ramsey household that night. Not wanting to go to jail....and they WOULD have, if they had of taken her to the emergency room and had of admitted to "snapping", (and doctors can tell, usually, how a child received an injury, so they knew that they couldn't fool the doctor) they conjured up the whole intruder did it thing, complete with staged coverup. imo

Name one Christian family in the same circumstances as the Ramseys that has killed their child and tried to cover it up.

docg

11-09-2006, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Ames

I agree...In my opinion the IDI theory is way more laughable than the RDI theory. Not to mention that we KNOW that the Ramsey's were in the house that night. I wonder why the RDI theory is SO laughable to the IDI's? Most of them seem to think that it is SO farfetched to think that the Ramsey's were involved...and I just don't get why they would think that. IMO

When RDI's keep beating their heads against the same brick wall, trying strenously to make a case for an out of control mother, an accident, bedwetting as motive, Patsy as "over the top" and the ransom note likewise, Patsy as drama queen, Patsy peeking through her fingers at the cop, Patsy as demonic pageant mom, Patsy's pad, Patsy's pen, Patsy's handwriting, Patsy's paintbrush, Patsy's wearing the same outfit the next day -- as though anyone would be so dumb as to leave so many "clues" pointing to herself while staging a kidnapping intended to point away from herself -- then it does make sense that the IDI's would find it laughable, yes. A jury would too. Which is why there was never any attempt to indict.

Meanwhile, John is sitting off to the side, watching the action, no doubt with great amusement.

Ames

11-09-2006, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Name one Christian family in the same circumstances as the Ramseys that has killed their child and tried to cover it up.

Oh good grief....it doesn't MATTER the circumstances....when a person SNAPS...they SNAP....regardless of the circumstances...that is my whole point. YOU name another set "Christian" parents ....that had their child murdered in their own home, and under their noses....that WASN'T the killers.

thewhitewitch1

11-09-2006, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by shill
So it's Patsy's fault JB wet the bed, because Patsy didn't wake her. So Patsy's anger was misdirected at JB and not justified. Patsy should have bashed her own head in for not waking JB IMO.

Where did I ever imply that Patsy bashed in JBs head for wetting the bed?

Ames

11-09-2006, 12:14 PM

sweetcharlotte

11-09-2006, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Your whole theory makes sense...but, I just can't imagine John molesting JB. Maybe he did...who knows. I can tolerate Patsy getting upset and "snapping" a whole lot better than John molesting JB. Stranger things have happened though...and as awful as it is, that incest does happen every single day. I will get bashed for this, I am sure...but, John ....during his interviews...seemed like a cold hearted snake, to me. He has always looked "shady"...like he is hiding something. So, I know that he is involved...and I believe that Patsy is too. She could have KNOWN all along that John was molesting JB. IMO

You can't imagine a "cold hearted snake/shady" John molesting his daughter, but you can 'tolerate Patsy getting upset and "snapping"?'

OK........

Ames

11-09-2006, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

You can't imagine a "cold hearted snake/shady" John molesting his daughter, but you can 'tolerate Patsy getting upset and "snapping"?'

OK........

Yeah, I guess its just the idea....of John molesting JB. Even though he looks shady...I just don't know if I buy into the whole molesting thing. Maybe he was...I don't know. When I say TOLERATE...I don't mean that I think that the idea of Patsy MAYBE snapping is okay. I just meant that I could see that whole scenerio happening...better than the idea of John molesting JB. IMO

Coloradokares

11-09-2006, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I just posted two LKL transcripts where Lin Wood talks about the fact that there were no black fibers from John's shirt found in JonBenet's underwear. See "links" above.

JMO

Lin Wood may just be in for some surprises if this makes it to a courtroom before he is to ancient of days to represent his client. The shirt existed the fibers are real they were from his expensive Isreali shirt.... Not that I have personally seen them but that does not mean they do not exist. I have not seen God. That does not mean He does not exist. I have faith those fibers are not lost or non exisistent since they were found and tested.

Ames

11-09-2006, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Lin Wood may just be in for some surprises if this makes it to a courtroom before he is to ancient of days to represent his client. The shirt existed the fibers are real they were from his expensive Isreali shirt.... Not that I have personally seen them but that does not mean they do not exist. I have not seen God. That does not mean He does not exist. I have faith those fibers are not lost or non exisistent since they were found and tested.

Even though I can't imagine John molesting JB...(and I don't know WHY, because I don't even know him)...I can't get past those fibers that they found from his Isreali shirt. That, to me...sounds like something sinister was going on. IMO So, even though I couldn't imagine it, I know that incest happens every single day. So, John molesting JB is not all that farfetched. IMO

WallyCleaver

11-09-2006, 03:08 PM

...

So in addition to killing their daughter; they did laundry too; wrote the ransom note, and staged the crime scene. Yea - ok. LOL JMO

What's so laughable about that?

When a child is murdered in the home the odds are 12:1 that the parents did it (Wecht, I don't recall the page number)

The note is phoney as hell, and no intruder had any reason to write a fake RN. A revenge killer would have left a revenge note. A paedophile wouldn't have left a note. That leaves one or more of the 3 Rs in the house that night. And an R would have a damn good reason to write a fake ransom note.

No reason one of them didn't do laundry that night. It might have been absolutely necessary to destroy some type of evidence on the sheets, or on a blanket.

And yes, we know the crime scene was staged, so who had more of a reason to do it than one of the Rs?

The only thing really left to discuss is which RDI theory is correct.

I'm not trying to start anything, but IDIs really need to take their blinders off.

shill

11-09-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Police are under no obligation whatsoever to share details of evidence against the suspects. But they did, and as hearsay only. If they had evidence to protect, they wouldn't have told them about it.

Ames

11-09-2006, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by shill
But they did, and as hearsay only. If they had evidence to protect, they wouldn't have told them about it.

How do you know that they have shared ALL of the evidence with the Ramseys?

shill

11-09-2006, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

In your opinion, exactly. Levin didn't want to give the Rs any more details about the fiber evidence - that does not mean he fabricated there being any in the first place.

Just because that evidence isn't released to the public does not mean it does not exist. Just because Levin didn't persue the line of questioning does not mean the evidence does not exist.

Police were not required to give details of evidence to the suspects in a murder investigation. That does not mean that anytime police ask about evidence and don't go into detail about it that it was made up and does not exist.

Lack of detail about evidence does not equal lying about it existing in the first place. I can't believe rational-thinking people can't accept that. Because it's not rational.
He revealed to them all the incriminating details about this alleged evidence, there was nothing more to reveal. Nothing more would be revealed by showing proof of it's existence. Nothing would be compromised that already hadn't been, by revealing it's alleged existence.
Since he supplied no proof to his statement, it is therefore only hearsay and not admissible in court.

IMO if they had it, they would have swayed a GJ (and IDIs) to put the Ramseys on trial.

sweetcharlotte

11-09-2006, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

<snip>

I have faith those fibers are not lost or non exisistent since they were found and tested.

When were they found, tested, and analysis available? Why weren't they introduced at the GJ?

shill

11-09-2006, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Lin Wood may just be in for some surprises if this makes it to a courtroom before he is to ancient of days to represent his client. The shirt existed the fibers are real they were from his expensive Isreali shirt.... Not that I have personally seen them but that does not mean they do not exist. I have not seen God. That does not mean He does not exist. I have faith those fibers are not lost or non exisistent since they were found and tested. If you're trying to say those fibers were found in her crotch area, then say it. And then prove it.
Enough of your water cooler gossip.

shill

11-09-2006, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by shill

What known abuse did Patsy do to JB for wetting the bed?

Ames

11-09-2006, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by shill
If you're trying to say those fibers were found in her crotch area, then say it. And then prove it.
Enough of your water cooler gossip.

CK has already said that she is from Colorado...had even seen Patsy and JB out shoppng before...and knows someone on the inside. What makes you think that everything she says is "water cooler gossip". She LIVES there...why is it so hard for you to accept that she may KNOW SOMEONE on the inside of the investigation? Just like it is hard for you to accept that there MAY be and COULD be people that are millionaires that post on this board. Why is THAT so hard for you to accept, too?

shill

11-09-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

There IS evidence that she wet the bed that night. The housekeeper stated that the sheets on the bed were different ones than she had put on just two days ago.
The blanket was clearly not on the bed in the photos. The housekeeper said that if the blanket wasn't on the bed, it would have been in the dryer. It makes sense that it was in the dryer because not only would it explain why it wasn't on the bed, but also how the Barbie night gown wound up in the cellar (static cling). People make a big to-do about that being JBs favorite nightgown or a "pageant" nightgown, when, in fact it was neither. Patsy made it pretty clear that that nightgown had no special meaning and even seemed confused about where it came from. It was thought to have been from a life size Barbie doll.
The sheets on the bed could have easily been washed and dried that night and put away. No one would be the wiser (except the housekeeper who should know if the sheets were different from the ones she put on). No need for the pull-ups. There was a plastic mattress cover on her bed. Pull-ups were being taken on the trip with them on "the Big Red Boat" in case she had an accident so she wouldn't soil the mattress.
Not only that, but Patsy even said herself that if JB wasn't woken up during the night to use the bathroom, chances were good that she would wet the bed. We all know that JB was asleep when they got home and was put in bed without getting her up to urinate so I'd say the chances were pretty good that she did wet the bed...and that is by Patsys own admission. Unless you'd prefer to believe that on this one night she suddenly achieved bladder control and Patsy changed the sheets just for the heck of it only two days after they'd already been changed...
You may or may not believe LHP about the sheets, but why would she lie? If you don't believe Patsy killed JB because she wet the bed, why did you post this?
It makes you look like you believe bedwetting was the motive.

sweetcharlotte

11-09-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
[B]

<snip>

The only thing really left to discuss is which RDI theory is correct.

I'm not trying to start anything, but IDIs really need to take their blinders off.

Perhaps you'd like to start your own message board for RDIs only.

In the meantime, please don't attempt to talk down to the rest of the people posting here on this board. Old southern expression - bless your heart.

JMO

shill

11-09-2006, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Ames

CK has already said that she is from Colorado...had even seen Patsy and JB out shoppng before...and knows someone on the inside. What makes you think that everything she says is "water cooler gossip". She LIVES there...why is it so hard for you to accept that she may KNOW SOMEONE on the inside of the investigation? Just like it is hard for you to accept that there MAY be and COULD be people that are millionaires that post on this board. Why is THAT so hard for you to accept, too? Maybe I know more about her then you think. Is that going to be hard for you to accept?

"MAY be, COULD be", boy you changed your tune from "some of us"
What ever helps you sleep.

Ames

11-09-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

<snipped>

Perhaps you'd like to start your own message board for RDIs only.

JMO

LOL...I have already tried that...and it got merged.

Ames

11-09-2006, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by shill
Maybe I know more about her then you think. Is that going to be hard for you to accept?

"MAY be, COULD be", boy you changed your tune from "some of us"
What ever helps you sleep.

Okay, I was being sarcastic with the MAY BE and COULD BE thing. Its none of your business...but, lets just say that unfortunately I didn't grow up with alot of money, but...my husband was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. And, lets just end it at that....all I am saying is that you can't say that ALL RDI's are jealous of the Ramsey's, because they have/had money...because you don't know WHO on this board has more money than they did. IMO

rashomon

11-09-2006, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Your whole theory makes sense...but, I just can't imagine John molesting JB. Maybe he did...who knows. I can tolerate Patsy getting upset and "snapping" a whole lot better than John molesting JB. Stranger things have happened though...and as awful as it is, that incest does happen every single day. I will get bashed for this, I am sure...but, John ....during his interviews...seemed like a cold hearted snake, to me. He has always looked "shady"...like he is hiding something. So, I know that he is involved...and I believe that Patsy is too. She could have KNOWN all along that John was molesting JB. IMO
JB's body showed signs of chronic sexual abuse. I believe it was John whom Patsy caught molesting JB, and that she directed her rage against JB instead of John.
And imo it was this common guilt which made them cover up for each other and tied them together in all the years to come.

sweetcharlotte

11-09-2006, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

JB's body showed signs of chronic sexual abuse.

JonBenet's body did not show signs of chronic sexual abuse.

WallyCleaver

11-09-2006, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Perhaps you'd like to start your own message board for RDIs only.

In the meantime, please don't attempt to talk down to the rest of the people posting here on this board. Old southern expression - bless your heart.

JMO

Bless your heart too.

WallyCleaver

11-09-2006, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

JB's body showed signs of chronic sexual abuse. I believe it was John whom Patsy caught molesting JB, and that she directed her rage against JB instead of John.
And imo it was this common guilt which made them cover up for each other and tied them together in all the years to come.

Not a bad theory, but you have to explain why they didn't get rid of the body.

thewhitewitch1

11-09-2006, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by shill
If you don't believe Patsy killed JB because she wet the bed, why did you post this?
It makes you look like you believe bedwetting was the motive.

I believe she wet the bed at some point during the night and got up. Something happened then. I don't know what. I think the head injury was an accident. Maybe Patsy got impatient while helping her change her clothes or something, yanked on her while removing an item of clothing, maybe and she fell and hit her head on the sink or the bathtub. Maybe it didn't happen that way or in the bathroom. Regardless, something did happen to cause the injury accidentally after JB wet the bed. I don't know what or how. I wasn't there. I only feel strongly that she did wet the bed that night due to reasons I stated before.
I do NOT believe Patsy bashed her in the head for wetting the bed. IMO

thewhitewitch1

11-09-2006, 10:02 PM

shill

11-09-2006, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Wow, docg. From your point of view JR pretty much set things up to frame his own wife. Nice. I smell a lawsuit docg

shill

11-09-2006, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I believe she wet the bed at some point during the night and got up. Something happened then. I don't know what. I think the head injury was an accident. Maybe Patsy got impatient while helping her change her clothes or something, yanked on her while removing an item of clothing, maybe and she fell and hit her head on the sink or the bathtub. Maybe it didn't happen that way or in the bathroom. Regardless, something did happen to cause the injury accidentally after JB wet the bed. I don't know what or how. I wasn't there. I only feel strongly that she did wet the bed that night due to reasons I stated before.
I do NOT believe Patsy bashed her in the head for wetting the bed. IMO Sorry! I forgot to add "accidently" in there.
Patsy should have accidently bashed her own head in since it was her mistake that JB wet the bed.

shill

11-09-2006, 10:50 PM

So does anyone know of prior physical abuse Patsy has done to JB for wetting her bed?

Anyone?

shill

11-09-2006, 10:53 PM

I guess you're all going to have to buy into docg's theory now.

MissOtisRegrets

11-09-2006, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Even though I can't imagine John molesting JB...(and I don't know WHY, because I don't even know him)...I can't get past those fibers that they found from his Isreali shirt. That, to me...sounds like something sinister was going on. IMO So, even though I couldn't imagine it, I know that incest happens every single day. So, John molesting JB is not all that farfetched. IMO

Did the Grand Jury hear about these fibers?

nuisanceposter

11-09-2006, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

JonBenet's body did not show signs of chronic sexual abuse.

Depends upon who you're asking. A child under seven years old who has gone through 5 or 6 vaginal exams in 3 years, not only wets the bed but also herself during the day, and has an eroded hymen and an enlarged vaginal opening appears to have been the victim of chronic sexual abuse to me.

And I'm not the only one. There is a nice long list of sexual abuse experts who concluded there was prior sexual abuse in JonBenet's case.

Please read post # 14 of this thread for more detail.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7869&page=2&pp=12

nuisanceposter

11-09-2006, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Did the Grand Jury hear about these fibers?

That's a good question. I'd really like to know myself. Is there any way we can find out exactly what evidence was covered in the GJ?

docg

11-09-2006, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Wow, docg. From your point of view JR pretty much set things up to frame his own wife. Nice.

Nah, there's no evidence he tried to frame her. But IMO he DID make sure nothing of HIS could be tied to the crime scene. I think he used Patsy's pad because he didn't want to use HIS pad. Same with her pen. And when he needed a stick, he used Patsy's paintbrush. He also used Burke's knife. Whatever, so long as it wasn't HIS.

I think it remarkable that NOTHING of John's was used in this crime -- don't you? Whether you're RDI or IDI, you gotta admit, that's quite a coincidence.

docg

11-09-2006, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by shill
I smell a lawsuit docg

One of my great ambitions is to be sued by Lin Wood over this case. But Lin's too smart to mess with docG. :seeya:

Ames

11-09-2006, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by docg

Nah, there's no evidence he tried to frame her. But IMO he DID make sure nothing of HIS could be tied to the crime scene. I think he used Patsy's pad because he didn't want to use HIS pad. Same with her pen. And when he needed a stick, he used Patsy's paintbrush. He also used Burke's knife. Whatever, so long as it wasn't HIS.

I think it remarkable that NOTHING of John's was used in this crime -- don't you? Whether you're RDI or IDI, you gotta admit, that's quite a coincidence.

I have read that a flashlight may have been use to cause the injury to her head. Who did the flashlight belong to?

thewhitewitch1

11-09-2006, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by docg

Nah, there's no evidence he tried to frame her. But IMO he DID make sure nothing of HIS could be tied to the crime scene. I think he used Patsy's pad because he didn't want to use HIS pad. Same with her pen. And when he needed a stick, he used Patsy's paintbrush. He also used Burke's knife. Whatever, so long as it wasn't HIS.

I think it remarkable that NOTHING of John's was used in this crime -- don't you? Whether you're RDI or IDI, you gotta admit, that's quite a coincidence.

Not so sure about that. We don't know who the tape, cord or flashlight belonged to.

thewhitewitch1

11-09-2006, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by shill
So does anyone know of prior physical abuse Patsy has done to JB for wetting her bed?

Anyone?

Why do you keep asking that? I don't think any RDI thinks Patsy physically abused JB for wetting the bed...ever.

docg

11-09-2006, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I have read that a flashlight may have been use to cause the injury to her head. Who did the flashlight belong to?

Oh, the intruder! For sure. John denied the flashlight in the photo was his. Looked like his. And his was nowhere to be found. But it WASN'T his, no way.

Also, the thing had been wiped clean, not only the outside, but the batteries too.

Athena

11-09-2006, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

That's a good question. I'd really like to know myself. Is there any way we can find out exactly what evidence was covered in the GJ?

They read 30-40,000 pages of evidence. I would think the fibers were part of the evidence. The Ramseys clothes were turned over in December 1997 - the grand jury convened in September 1998 for 13 months. What would have been left? The little tidbits of info that are out there on the GJ say they wanted more DNA evidence. JMO

nuisanceposter

11-10-2006, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Why do you keep asking that? I don't think any RDI thinks Patsy physically abused JB for wetting the bed...ever.

Housekeeper LHP said she heard Patsy abusing JonBenet for wetting herself. She said Patsy would take her in the bathroom and close the door, and she could hear Patsy yelling and JonBenet crying and screaming. Who knows if that's true or not...

There was one abuse expert who said that the evidence of abuse seen in the autopsy is more consistent with punishment than with abuse for sexual gratification. I can't remember the details, so I'll go look for more info that and who said it tomorrow.

docg

11-10-2006, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Not so sure about that. We don't know who the tape, cord or flashlight belonged to.

Exactly! But we DO know who the pad, pen, paintbrush and knife belonged to.

Ames

11-10-2006, 12:19 AM

Athena

11-10-2006, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Housekeeper LHP said she heard Patsy abusing JonBenet for wetting herself. She said Patsy would take her in the bathroom and close the door, and she could hear Patsy yelling and JonBenet crying and screaming. Who knows if that's true or not...

There was one abuse expert who said that the evidence of abuse seen in the autopsy is more consistent with punishment than with abuse for sexual gratification. I can't remember the details, so I'll go look for more info that and who said it tomorrow.

LHP worked for Schiller for over a year while he wrote his book. According to PMPT he quoted her as saying the bedwetting incidents were "no big deal" to Patsy.

Ames

11-10-2006, 12:23 AM

Ames

11-10-2006, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by Athena

LHP worked for Schiller for over a year while he wrote his book. According to PMPT he quoted her as saying the bedwetting incidents were "no big deal" to Patsy.

Well, how else does anyone expect her to act...when it comes to JB bedwetting? She knew, of course, that was one of the theories...so of course she is going to act like the bedwetting was "no big deal". Bedwetting by a six year old, IS a big deal...do you have any idea how much pee their bladder holds?? I am sure you do, if you have children. My point is...Patsy had to have gotten a little bit upset having to get up night after night with JB, to change her sheets....what a pain in the butt. The whole bed was probably saturated...we are not talking about a baby or a toddler peeing on the bed...but a six year old.

shill

11-10-2006, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Wow, docg. From your point of view JR pretty much set things up to frame his own wife. Nice. He used Patsy as a patsy.

shill

11-10-2006, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Why do you keep asking that? I don't think any RDI thinks Patsy physically abused JB for wetting the bed...ever. So why would a GJ believe that she suddenly snapped that night
over JB's bed wetting, leading her to cause harm to JB.
Why would Steve Thomas develop this theory?
Why do you need to ask when it's obvious?

thewhitewitch1

11-10-2006, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Athena

They read 30-40,000 pages of evidence. I would think the fibers were part of the evidence. The Ramseys clothes were turned over in December 1997 - the grand jury convened in September 1998 for 13 months. What would have been left? The little tidbits of info that are out there on the GJ say they wanted more DNA evidence. JMO

The Ramseys clothes that they wore on Dec 25 were not turned over to the police until one year later. How messed up is that?

New lab tests on Ramseys' clothing raise hopes in case

News Staff and wire reports

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOULDER -- The encouraging new lab test results Boulder police alluded to recently in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation involved clothing worn by the victim's parents, a television network reported Friday.

Fox Television quoted sources as saying an examination of clothes worn by John and Patsy Ramsey on the eve of the 6-year-old's killing is giving investigators new hope of solving the case.

The slain child's parents remain under suspicion. The former Little Miss Colorado was found beaten and strangled in the family's home on Dec. 26, 1996. Both parents have maintained their innocence.

Police and the Boulder district attorney's office would not comment Friday.

Boulder police asked the Ramseys to turn over the clothes they were wearing on Dec. 25, 1996.

The autopsy performed on the child found clothing fibers in the pelvic area, the investigation sources told Fox.

Detective Division Cmdr. Mark Beckner alluded to "exciting" new information following a two-day police presentation of the case earlier this month to District Attorney Alex Hunter and a team of experts. The test results had only become available a few days earlier.

But in an interview later, Beckner said the new information by itself would not be enough to seek an arrest warrant.

Fox also reported laboratory tests confirmed that a Sharpie pen found in the Ramsey home was used to write the ransom note Mrs. Ramsey said she found the day the child's body was discovered in the basement of the family's home.

Hunter is considering whether he will take the case to the grand jury. He has said he was "leaning" toward convening the grand jury.

Hal Haddon, the Ramsey's attorney, said Friday that police seized a number of items of clothing from the parents during an eight-day search of their former home in December 1996. He said police one year later requested clothing the couple was wearing the day before the murder.

June 13, 1998

thewhitewitch1

11-10-2006, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Well, how else does anyone expect her to act...when it comes to JB bedwetting? She knew, of course, that was one of the theories...so of course she is going to act like the bedwetting was "no big deal". Bedwetting by a six year old, IS a big deal...do you have any idea how much pee their bladder holds?? I am sure you do, if you have children. My point is...Patsy had to have gotten a little bit upset having to get up night after night with JB, to change her sheets....what a pain in the butt. The whole bed was probably saturated...we are not talking about a baby or a toddler peeing on the bed...but a six year old.

C'mon, Ames. Patsy was a Saint. She never got mad about anything and she and John NEVER had a fight. Ever. :rolleyes:

WallyCleaver

11-10-2006, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by docg

Oh, the intruder! For sure. John denied the flashlight in the photo was his. Looked like his. And his was nowhere to be found. But it WASN'T his, no way.

Also, the thing had been wiped clean, not only the outside, but the batteries too.

No, no of course it wasn't thiers. It happened to be in their home and it looked just like the one JAR had given them, but it wasn't theirs.

Strange the intruder remembered to put away the partial role of duct tape, and re-spool the extra 83' of cord, but forgot his flashlight.

sweetcharlotte

11-10-2006, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

There is a nice long list of sexual abuse experts who concluded there was prior sexual abuse in JonBenet's case.
<snip>

Please read post # 14 of this thread for more detail.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7869&page=2&pp=12

Not one of these "experts" examined JonBenet and their opinion - IMO - is just that - an opinion.

I still say there is no proof of chronic sexual abuse.

JMO

nuisanceposter

11-10-2006, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Athena

LHP worked for Schiller for over a year while he wrote his book. According to PMPT he quoted her as saying the bedwetting incidents were "no big deal" to Patsy.

No, LHP said it was a big deal. In the book chapter she wrote (and I can scare that up for you if you want to see it), she described how Patsy got upset about it and yelled at JB about it behind the closed bathroom door. Apparently Burke said it was a big deal as well. Patsy is the one who said it wasn't a big deal.

rashomon

11-10-2006, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Not one of these "experts" examined JonBenet and their opinion - IMO - is just that - an opinion.

I still say there is no proof of chronic sexual abuse.

JMO
The experts had been shown slides of JB's damaged vaginal tissue and almost unanimously agreed that the child had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse. Among them was also Dr. McCann, a world-renowned pediatric expert on sexual abuse.
JB's hymen was only represented by a rim of tissue, structures of the vagina which are normally covered were exposed (the rugae), and irregularity at the edges of the hymen could be observed. JB's vaginal opening was twice the size normal for a child of her age, and there was chronic inflammation and reddening of the vaginal tissue. All these things combined led the experts to their conclusion.

sweetcharlotte

11-10-2006, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

The experts had been shown slides of JB's damaged vaginal tissue and almost unanimously agreed that the child had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse. Among them was also Dr. McCann, a world-renowned pediatric expert on sexaul abuse.
JB's hymen was only represented by a rim of tissue, structures of the vagina which are normally covered were exposed (the rugae), and irregularity at the edges of the hymen could be observed. JB's vaginal opening was twice the size normal for a child of her age, and there was chronic inflammation and redening of the vaginal tissue. All these things combined led the experts to their conclusion.

Were any of these experts asked to testify before the GJ?

rashomon

11-10-2006, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Were any of these experts asked to testify before the GJ?
Good question. There is very little known of what exactly happened at the GJ hearings, in fact not even a written report was ever issued.

rashomon

11-10-2006, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Not a bad theory, but you have to explain why they didn't get rid of the body.
Every RDI theory has to explain why the Ramseys didn't get rid of the body.
I think they indeed wanted to do this originally - dump JB's body somewhere outside - which is why they wrote the ransom note. But then they didn't dare to it for fear of being seen. But what should they do now? They have JB's dead body in their own home. A child with her head bashed in and whose body no doubt will reveal the signs of chronic sexual abuse when autopsied.
They decide to keep the note to point to an 'outside' element in their concocted story, and inflict the paintbrush injury to make it look as bizarre as possible.

rashomon

11-10-2006, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by shill
Because it's not rational.
He revealed to them all the incriminating details about this alleged evidence, there was nothing more to reveal. Nothing more would be revealed by showing proof of it's existence. Nothing would be compromised that already hadn't been, by revealing it's alleged existence.
Since he supplied no proof to his statement, it is therefore only hearsay and not admissible in court.

IMO if they had it, they would have swayed a GJ (and IDIs) to put the Ramseys on trial.
Suspects don't have any right to be shown the evidence against them if they haven't been indicted yet.
So the fact that Levin did not hold the CBI lab report under the Ramseys' nose does NOT make this hearsay evidence.

The problem with this case was: it is true that fibers both from John's and Patsy's clothing were found in VERY incriminating locations, which links BOTH Ramseys to the staging of the scene, but who of them killed JB?
Who of the suspects was the perp?
And since the GJ was unable to find this out, they couldn't indict them.
But the fact that the GJ did not indict them does not mean they were innocent.

Coloradokares

11-10-2006, 11:57 AM

sweetcharlotte

11-10-2006, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

Suspects don't have any right to be shown the evidence against them if they haven't been indicted yet.
So the fact that Levin did not hold the CBI lab report under the Ramseys' nose does NOT make this hearsay evidence.

The problem with this case was: it is true that fibers both from John's and Patsy's clothing were found in VERY incriminating locations, which links BOTH Ramseys to the staging of the scene, but who of them killed JB?
Who of the suspects was the perp?
And since the GJ was unable to find this out, they couldn't indict them.
But the fact that the GJ did not indict them does not mean they were innocent.

There is a footnote on page 135 of HB edition of Perfect Murder/Perfect Town which talks about what evidence being provided to defense. Also, mentions that the only time defense can participate in "testing" is when all of the evidence will be destroyed by the testing. Seems Whitehead, head of CBI, and Hunter didn't agree with what should be provided to Ramsey attorneys, but doesn't indicate the end result of their discussion.

Respectfully, with regard to your statement that fibers both from John's and Patsy's clothing - just one more time - what are you basing that on?

Something that puzzles me - I'm assuming the fibers were collected at autopsy. The Grand Jury disbanded (if that's a good word) October 1999. That is almost 3 years after JonBenet's death - and I've read that the GJ didn't have "fiber" evidence.
Does that seem possible? Three years?

docg

11-10-2006, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

The experts had been shown slides of JB's damaged vaginal tissue and almost unanimously agreed that the child had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse. Among them was also Dr. McCann, a world-renowned pediatric expert on sexual abuse.
JB's hymen was only represented by a rim of tissue, structures of the vagina which are normally covered were exposed (the rugae), and irregularity at the edges of the hymen could be observed. JB's vaginal opening was twice the size normal for a child of her age, and there was chronic inflammation and reddening of the vaginal tissue. All these things combined led the experts to their conclusion.

All that! And Thomas concluded PATSY killed her?

docg

11-10-2006, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

Every RDI theory has to explain why the Ramseys didn't get rid of the body.
I think they indeed wanted to do this originally - dump JB's body somewhere outside - which is why they wrote the ransom note. But then they didn't dare to it for fear of being seen. But what should they do now? They have JB's dead body in their own home. A child with her head bashed in and whose body no doubt will reveal the signs of chronic sexual abuse when autopsied.
They decide to keep the note to point to an 'outside' element in their concocted story, and inflict the paintbrush injury to make it look as bizarre as possible.

Read the note again. It provides the perfect excuse for one of them to be seen headed to or from some remote spot, where the body could be dumped, under the guise of delivering the ransom. All that was needed was to NOT call the police. And the note provided the perfect excuse for that as well. If in it together they had no reason at all to call the police before getting rid of the body and all the other evidence, including the original of the note itself.

And if for some reason they couldn't get rid of the body as planned, then the note becomes counterproductive and needs to be destroyed before the cops arrive. With the body in the house it would NOT point to an 'outside' element, because an intruder intent on molesting or killing would have no reason to write a phoney ransom note. Only an insider would. Also, let's not forget that if Patsy wrote it, the printing and prose style, which so many see as "obviously" hers, would have been strong evidence pointing in HER direction.

So if you simply must place Patsy in the driver's seat, she's got to have been the dumbest criminal in history.

docg

11-10-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

Suspects don't have any right to be shown the evidence against them if they haven't been indicted yet.
So the fact that Levin did not hold the CBI lab report under the Ramseys' nose does NOT make this hearsay evidence.

The problem with this case was: it is true that fibers both from John's and Patsy's clothing were found in VERY incriminating locations, which links BOTH Ramseys to the staging of the scene, but who of them killed JB?
Who of the suspects was the perp?
And since the GJ was unable to find this out, they couldn't indict them.
But the fact that the GJ did not indict them does not mean they were innocent.

Patsy's fibers can easily be explained as innocent transfer via the victim herself. Even the fibers entwined in the knots of the garotte can be explained, since JonBenet's hair was also entwined in the same knots. Since Patsy's fibers could easily have gotten into JonBenet's hair, they could just as easily have gotten into those knots. The fibers in the paint tray could have been transferred from Patsy to JonBenet to the attacker. Or, if the attacker was John, from Patsy to him, assuming a married couple might actually want to touch one another during the course of an evening.

John's fibers in his daughter's crotch are NOT so easily explained.

sweetcharlotte

11-10-2006, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by docg

<snip>

John's fibers in his daughter's crotch are NOT so easily explained.

Page 514 - Perfect Murder/Perfect Town:

"The police reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBenet's labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers did not match any clothes belonging to John or Patsy. The police were stumped."

In reading back it seems the timeframe for this was around the time Steve Thomas made his presentation which was June 1st 1998 - prior to the Grand Jury being seated September 15, 1998.

This may explain why no fiber evidence was presented to the GJ.

JMO

sweetcharlotte

11-10-2006, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

There is a footnote on page 135 of HB edition of Perfect Murder/Perfect Town which talks about what evidence being provided to defense. Also, mentions that the only time defense can participate in "testing" is when all of the evidence will be destroyed by the testing. Seems Whitehead, head of CBI, and Hunter didn't agree with what should be provided to Ramsey attorneys, but doesn't indicate the end result of their discussion.

Respectfully, with regard to your statement that fibers both from John's and Patsy's clothing - just one more time - what are you basing that on?

Something that puzzles me - I'm assuming the fibers were collected at autopsy. The Grand Jury disbanded (if that's a good word) October 1999. That is almost 3 years after JonBenet's death - and I've read that the GJ didn't have "fiber" evidence.
Does that seem possible? Three years?

To answer my own question - see post above.

It seems it was determined before the Grand Jury ever met that there was no fiber evidence that could be connected to John or Patsy.

JMO

Athena

11-10-2006, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

No, LHP said it was a big deal. In the book chapter she wrote (and I can scare that up for you if you want to see it), she described how Patsy got upset about it and yelled at JB about it behind the closed bathroom door. Apparently Burke said it was a big deal as well. Patsy is the one who said it wasn't a big deal.

She DEFINITELY was quoted as saying the bedwetting incidents were NO big deal in PMPT. Don't you think it odd that prior to the BPD telling her the Ramseys considered her and her family suspects she had absolutely nothing negative to say about them including her opinion of the bedwetting incident? In her book she also states that she did not believe an outsider killed JBR because NOONE knew about the wine cellar including herself - yet her, her husband, dauther and son-in-law moved the trees from that very room. :rolleyes: (this icon is not meant for you but for LHP's lies). JMO

sweetcharlotte

11-10-2006, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Athena

She DEFINITELY was quoted as saying the bedwetting incidents were NO big deal in PMPT. Don't you think it odd that prior to the BPD telling her the Ramseys considered her and her family suspects she had absolutely nothing negative to say about them including her opinion of the bedwetting incident? In her book she also states that she did not believe an outsider killed JBR because NOONE knew about the wine cellar including herself - yet her, her husband, dauther and son-in-law moved the trees from that very room. :rolleyes: (this icon is not meant for you but for LHP's lies). JMO

Page 181 - Perfect Murder/Perfect Town:

Quote from Linda Hoffman-Pugh

"In the summer of '96, JonBenet started wearing those diaper-type underpants - Pull-UPs. She even wore them to bed. There was always a wet one in the trash. By the end of the summer, Patsy was trying to get her to do without them. Then JonBenet started wetting the bed again. Almost every day I want there, there was a wet bed. Patsy said she wasn't going to use Pull-Ups again. She just put a plastic cover on the bed. No big deal to her. By the time I'd come in the morning, Patsy would have all the sheets off the bed and in the laundry. JonBenet's blanket would already be in the dryer. The Ramseys had two washer-dryers - one in the basement and a stackable unit in a closet just outside JonBenet's room."

thewhitewitch1

11-10-2006, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by docg

Patsy's fibers can easily be explained as innocent transfer via the victim herself. Even the fibers entwined in the knots of the garotte can be explained, since JonBenet's hair was also entwined in the same knots. Since Patsy's fibers could easily have gotten into JonBenet's hair, they could just as easily have gotten into those knots. The fibers in the paint tray could have been transferred from Patsy to JonBenet to the attacker. Or, if the attacker was John, from Patsy to him, assuming a married couple might actually want to touch one another during the course of an evening.

John's fibers in his daughter's crotch are NOT so easily explained.

It would seem to me that it would be more likely for Johns fibers to be in the garrote and in her hair, since he is the one who alledgedly carried her upstairs and put her to bed.
Then there is the question Ames has raised about how JBs hair was styled when she went to the Whites party. If Patsy had changed her hairstyle once they got home (which would be difficult to do if JB was asleep), then I can see fibers transfering to her hair and then to the garrote.
I don't think the fibers in the garrote, on the tape or in the paint tray can so easily be explained away as fiber transference.
Also, the fibers from Johns shirt could have gotten into her underwear if he is the one who changed her into the oversized Bloomies. Seems like something a man would do - putting the wrong size underwear on a kid. ;)
Still, even though it isn't a proven fact, I think NPs speculation that the underwear had been wrapped to give as a Christmas present sounds pretty valid and would explain the partially opened gift and the usage of those huge underwear. IMO

sweetcharlotte

11-10-2006, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Well, how else does anyone expect her to act...when it comes to JB bedwetting? She knew, of course, that was one of the theories...so of course she is going to act like the bedwetting was "no big deal". Bedwetting by a six year old, IS a big deal...do you have any idea how much pee their bladder holds?? I am sure you do, if you have children. My point is...Patsy had to have gotten a little bit upset having to get up night after night with JB, to change her sheets....what a pain in the butt. The whole bed was probably saturated...we are not talking about a baby or a toddler peeing on the bed...but a six year old.

"Perfect Murder/Perfect Town" - page 182 - statement from Linda Hoffman-Pugh

"........Patsy said she wasn't going to use Pull-Ups again. She just put a plastic cover on the bed. No big deal to her. By the time I'd come in the morning, Patsy would have all the sheets off the bed and in the laundry."

sweetcharlotte

11-10-2006, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

<snip>

Also, the fibers from Johns shirt could have gotten into her underwear if he is the one who changed her into the oversized Bloomies. Seems like something a man would do - putting the wrong size underwear on a kid. ;)

<snip>

Page 514 - Perfect Murder/Perfect Town:

"The police reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBent's labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers did not match any clothes belonging to John or Patsy. The police were stumped."

WallyCleaver

11-10-2006, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by docg

John's fibers in his daughter's crotch are NOT so easily explained.

Not if JB was put to bed as soon as they came home -because she was already asleep in the car- and it was PR who changed her and she needed no assistance in the middle of the night.

sweetcharlotte

11-10-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Not if JB was put to bed as soon as they came home -because she was already asleep in the car- and it was PR who changed her and she needed no assistance in the middle of the night.

PM/PT - page 514 -

"The police reported that they had been unble to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBenet's labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers did not match any clothes belonging to John or Patsy. The police were stumped."

sweetcharlotte

11-10-2006, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

You have no reason to dismiss the shirt fibers. No matter how badly you want this to be made up by the police, you simply don't know what the true story is. Just because they didn't turn over the evidence to Wood upon demand doesn't mean they made it up. You've lept to a conclusion for which you don't have a sound basis.

Just in case you missed this - page 514 PM/PT......

"The police reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBenet's labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers did not match any clothes belonging to John or Patsy. The police were stumped."

WallyCleaver

11-10-2006, 07:29 PM

LindaA

11-10-2006, 07:37 PM

Wally, could this be a paperback vs. hardback thing?

WallyCleaver

11-10-2006, 07:38 PM

Any one else see that quote on 514 of PMPT?

My hunch is that the context is prior to the development of the fiber evidence which I believe would have come in late '98.

Does anyone have the same edition as Sweetcharlotte?

sweetcharlotte

11-10-2006, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

My copy of PMPT doesn't have that quote on page 514. Do I have a different edition that you? Is there any significant difference between editions?

I'm looking for the context of the quote.

I'm reading from a HarperCollins 1st edition
- ISBN 0-06-019153-8

WallyCleaver

11-10-2006, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
Wally, could this be a paperback vs. hardback thing?

Very possible.

I have a paperback, printed in '99. ISBN0-06-109696-2

Mine is broken up into Part One, Two, Three, and Four. What part did you find the quote in?

sweetcharlotte

11-10-2006, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Very possible.

I have a paperback, printed in '99. ISBN0-06-109696-2

Mine is broken up into Part One, Two, Three, and Four. What part did you find the quote in?

Part Four - Destruction Derby, Charter 5

Note:

Author's Note -
Lawrence Schiller
January 1999

WallyCleaver

11-10-2006, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Part Four - Destruction Derby, Charter 5

Note:

Author's Note -
Lawrence Schiller
January 1999

Thank you. I find the quote on p 664 of my edition. It appears that it's in the context of a presentation given in '98. It's my understanding that the question to JR to which he reacted angrily came later, in 2000. Can anyone confirm or deny this? If I'm correct, that would mean that fiber evidence could have been developed after the presentation being discussed in Chapter 5 of part Four of PMPT.

As an aside, chapter 5 is in many ways unfavorable to IDI theory. Too many particulars to list, though I will do so if anyone doesn't have the book and would like to know.

Ames

11-10-2006, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

C'mon, Ames. Patsy was a Saint. She never got mad about anything and she and John NEVER had a fight. Ever. :rolleyes:

Yeah apparently the IDI's think that she never did anything wrong in her entire life. She was "perfect"...Just like the book..."Perfect Murder, Perfect Town". They should write one called "Perfect Patsy, Perfect Family".

Ames

11-10-2006, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

Good question. There is very little known of what exactly happened at the GJ hearings, in fact not even a written report was ever issued.

Ames

11-10-2006, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

Good question. There is very little known of what exactly happened at the GJ hearings, in fact not even a written report was ever issued.

Apparently not a whole lot happened at that GJ hearing....my guess is, they didn't hear all of the evidence...or maybe they did...but, decided not to indict the Ramsey's anyway. The Ramsey's had alot of pull in that community. Everybody knew who they were. (IMO)

Athena

11-11-2006, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Thank you. I find the quote on p 664 of my edition. It appears that it's in the context of a presentation given in '98. It's my understanding that the question to JR to which he reacted angrily came later, in 2000. Can anyone confirm or deny this? If I'm correct, that would mean that fiber evidence could have been developed after the presentation being discussed in Chapter 5 of part Four of PMPT.

As an aside, chapter 5 is in many ways unfavorable to IDI theory. Too many particulars to list, though I will do so if anyone doesn't have the book and would like to know.

Hi Wally -- The interview did take place in 2000 however the clothing the Ramseys wore were turned over to the BPD 12/97. In addition to that the fibers that were found in her private area were NEVER described as being black and Meyer believed she had been wiped down with a dark cloth I believe the color was said to be blue. The presentation was made just a couple of months before the Grand Jury convened in 1998 - and this publication of Schiller's book was released November 1999.

I do find it totally unacceptable that the BPD did not collect their clothes immediately. If the Ramseys did do this the BPD investigators are totally responsible for messing this up and I have to think they made up stories about the evidence. One thing for sure I believe it was Levin? that said the fibers were identical and fibers can NEVER be asserted as identical unless there is no other fiber that exists in the world like it and that is highly improbable. This is why the term "consistent with" is used. In a court of law "identical" would never be allowed. JMO

Coloradokares

11-11-2006, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

To answer my own question - see post above.

It seems it was determined before the Grand Jury ever met that there was no fiber evidence that could be connected to John or Patsy.

JMO
AGrand jury was sealed how did you find this out and please those links if you have found out the sealed opinion regarding any evidence reviewed. They only offered an opinion. All other matters were sealed.

rashomon

11-11-2006, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Just in case you missed this - page 514 PM/PT......

"The police reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBenet's labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers did not match any clothes belonging to John or Patsy. The police were stumped."
Just for clarification - very important:
these were NOT the fibers from John's shirt which were found in the crotch area of JB's size 12 underpants. The fibers in the crotch area could be sourced to John's shirt.

The fibers on her labia and inner thighs probably came from a cloth JB had been wiped with.
Remember also that Schiller admitted to several inaccuracies in his book. He was way more sloppy than for example Steve Thomas, who was far more acribic in his book.

rashomon

11-11-2006, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by docg

All that! And Thomas concluded PATSY killed her?
JB's chronic abuser needn't necessarily have been her killer.

rashomon

11-11-2006, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by docg

Read the note again. It provides the perfect excuse for one of them to be seen headed to or from some remote spot, where the body could be dumped, under the guise of delivering the ransom. All that was needed was to NOT call the police. And the note provided the perfect excuse for that as well. If in it together they had no reason at all to call the police before getting rid of the body and all the other evidence, including the original of the note itself.

And if for some reason they couldn't get rid of the body as planned, then the note becomes counterproductive and needs to be destroyed before the cops arrive. With the body in the house it would NOT point to an 'outside' element, because an intruder intent on molesting or killing would have no reason to write a phoney ransom note. Only an insider would. Also, let's not forget that if Patsy wrote it, the printing and prose style, which so many see as "obviously" hers, would have been strong evidence pointing in HER direction.

So if you simply must place Patsy in the driver's seat, she's got to have been the dumbest criminal in history.
There are far dumber criminals in history than Patsy Ramsey -after all, she got away with it. Despite all the blunders in their staging, no Ramsey was ever charged.

It would have been extremely difficult to get rid of the body. For the RN told the Ramseys to wait until 10 am for their call. So if we go along with your scenario, they would have had to dump the body in broad daylight, in order to keep up their faked story.
For it would have looked very bad for the Ramseys if for example they decided to get rid of the body earlier, around 3 or 4 am or so. Suppose an eye-witness saw their car pulling out of the driveway then. Forget it. They couldn't do this. Far too risky.

And what should they have told the police? "The kidnappers didn't call at 10 am, which is why one of us drove around aimlessly afterward?"

Or: "They kidnappers called at 10 am, told us to drive to location X, etc"
Wouldn't the police have checked the Ramseys' phone record to find out if this was true?

WallyCleaver

11-11-2006, 05:38 AM

Sweetcharlotte

The quote you've put up from page 514 of your editon of PMPT is in the context of a presentation made in 1998.

The question about JR's fibers being in JB's panties - the one to which JR answeres "bull****", was from an August 2000 interview -

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-John-Interview-Complete.htm

So, you can't use Shiller's statement made in reference to a 98 presentation to "prove" there was no fiber evidence when JR was asked about it in an interview in 2000.

I'm not accusing you of being intentionally misleading, as it's a complex case with lots of interviews and it's hard to keep track of what was said when. I am going to say that what you quoted does not in any way refute the notion that JR's shirt fibers may have been in JBs panties.

WallyCleaver

11-11-2006, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

There are far dumber criminals in history than Patsy Ramsey -after all, she got away with it. Despite all the blunders in their staging, no Ramsey was ever charged.

It would have been extremely difficult to get rid of the body. For the RN told the Ramseys to wait until 10 am for their call. So if we go along with your scenario, they would have had to dump the body in broad daylight, in order to keep up their faked story.
For it would have looked very bad for the Ramseys if for example they decided to get rid of the body earlier, around 3 or 4 am or so. Suppose an eye-witness saw their car pulling out of the driveway then. Forget it. They couldn't do this. Far too risky.

And what should they have told the police? "The kidnappers didn't call at 10 am, which is why one of us drove around aimlessly afterward?"

Or: "They kidnappers called at 10 am, told us to drive to location X, etc"
Wouldn't the police have checked the Ramseys' phone record to find out if this was true?

The call was to come between 8-10 (or earlier if the kidnapper(s) monitored JR getting the money earlier - an absurdity I'll come back to)

But yes, basically you're correct that they couldn't very well be seen leaving earlier than the appointed time for the rasnom call.

docg however believes that the call was to come on the 27th, not the 26th- if I understand his theory correctly. That would mean 8-10 am on the 27th.

Getting back to getting the money earlier - the only way the money could be gotten earlier than 8am on the 27th would be to get it on the 26th. That means JR would have to arrange to get the money, and place a fake call to his home so the phone records would show he recieved a ransom call. Basically then, he could have done this any time on the 26th after getting the money. Basically he had 24 hours to take care of the body from the time the RN was "found" the morning of the 26th.

sweetcharlotte

11-11-2006, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

AGrand jury was sealed how did you find this out and please those links if you have found out the sealed opinion regarding any evidence reviewed. They only offered an opinion. All other matters were sealed.

Colorado - I've been posting here a long time. Maybe you'd better re-read what I posted.

sweetcharlotte

11-11-2006, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
Sweetcharlotte

The quote you've put up from page 514 of your editon of PMPT is in the context of a presentation made in 1998.

The question about JR's fibers being in JB's panties - the one to which JR answeres "bull****", was from an August 2000 interview -

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-John-Interview-Complete.htm

So, you can't use Shiller's statement made in reference to a 98 presentation to "prove" there was no fiber evidence when JR was asked about it in an interview in 2000.

I'm not accusing you of being intentionally misleading, as it's a complex case with lots of interviews and it's hard to keep track of what was said when. I am going to say that what you quoted does not in any way refute the notion that JR's shirt fibers may have been in JBs panties.

It doesn't matter when the interview was done. The "evidence" was gathered at autopsy, many of the Ramseys clothes were collected immediately following the murder, the clothes they were wearing on the 25th were not collected until the first of 1998, but at least 7 months prior to the beginning of the Grand Jury (Sept 1998). Sufficient time for analysis prior to start of GJ - and most definitely sufficient time prior to the close of the GJ investigation Oct 1999.

Levin was on a fishing expedition prompted by the BPD.

JMO JMO

WallyCleaver

11-11-2006, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

It doesn't matter when the interview was done. The "evidence" was gathered at autopsy, many of the Ramseys clothes were collected immediately following the murder, the clothes they were wearing on the 25th were not collected until the first of 1998, but at least 7 months prior to the beginning of the Grand Jury (Sept 1998). Sufficient time for analysis prior to start of GJ - and most definitely sufficient time prior to the close of the GJ investigation Oct 1999.

Levin was on a fishing expedition prompted by the BPD.

JMO JMO

How can you possibly know what they came up with between 98 and 2000?

The fact that the interview question comes in 2000 suggests to me they didn't have it in time for the GJ, but developed it later.

Other than the fact that you don't want to believe it, you have no proof it was a fishing expedition.

sweetcharlotte

11-11-2006, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

Just for clarification - very important:
these were NOT the fibers from John's shirt which were found in the crotch area of JB's size 12 underpants. The fibers in the crotch area could be sourced to John's shirt.

The fibers on her labia and inner thighs probably came from a cloth JB had been wiped with.
Remember also that Schiller admitted to several inaccuracies in his book. He was way more sloppy than for example Steve Thomas, who was far more acribic in his book.

Link for fibers in crotch area sourced to John's shirt, please.

(Please don't tell me to read the interviews. Levin asking the question does not make it fact. Fishing trip - IMO)

Why would there be two sets of fiber evidence analysis on the evidence taken from JonBenet's body at time of autopsy?

sweetcharlotte

11-11-2006, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

How can you possibly know what they came up with between 98 and 2000?

The fact that the interview question comes in 2000 suggests to me they didn't have it in time for the GJ, but developed it later.

Other than the fact that you don't want to believe it, you have no proof it was a fishing expedition.

From the time of the murder - December 1996- to the end of the GJ - October 1999 is almost three years. Long time for analysis on fibers collected at time of autopsy.

JMO

WallyCleaver

11-11-2006, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

From the time of the murder - December 1996- to the end of the GJ - October 1999 is almost three years. Long time for analysis on fibers collected at time of autopsy.

JMO

Two years from the time the Rs gave the police the clothes.

Of course we don't know how long the police had the info. Just because they asked the question in 2000 doesn't mean they didn't have a lab report in 97 or 98.

Face it, you have no proof it was a fishing expedition. I'm not saying I can prove there is evidence of JR's shirt fibers in JBs panties, I'm just pointing out to you that you have no proof for what you've decided is the truth. You can continue with flat denial or quotes taken out of context, but it doesn't change the fact that w/o something more, no one can say definitively that it was or wasn't a fishing expedition.

LindaA

11-11-2006, 09:08 AM

C'mon, wally, she said it was her opinion. There's a lot here no one can prove either way. I think she made a very good point and defended it admirably. JMO, MOO, IMHO!!!!

sweetcharlotte

11-11-2006, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Two years from the time the Rs gave the police the clothes.

Of course we don't know how long the police had the info. Just because they asked the question in 2000 doesn't mean they didn't have a lab report in 97 or 98.

Face it, you have no proof it was a fishing expedition. I'm not saying I can prove there is evidence of JR's shirt fibers in JBs panties, I'm just pointing out to you that you have no proof for what you've decided is the truth. You can continue with flat denial or quotes taken out of context, but it doesn't change the fact that w/o something more, no one can say definitively that it was or wasn't a fishing expedition.

Let's say they had the lab report in 97 and 98. If that is the case don't you think - and I realize we don't know - that this information was presented to the GJ? That being the "case" obviously, the GJ did not consider it substantial evidence for an indictment?

The only "proof" we have of this fiber evidence - to my knowledge - are the questions Levin attempted to ask John Ramsey. We both know how that works - Levin was asking the questions for the BPD - he probably didn't know if there was/was not evidence. Didn't matter - IF he could get the desired response from JR.

I have taken nothing out of context. IMO - there is no fiber evidence from JR's shirt.

You are entitled to your opinion, but "where's the proof" that this evidence exists?

JMO

sweetcharlotte

11-11-2006, 09:44 AM

To be fair here is an article that says some of the evidence was
developed after the GJ disbanded BUT it doesn't say what that evidence was.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/08/28/ramsey.meeting.02/index.html

docg

11-11-2006, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Apparently not a whole lot happened at that GJ hearing....my guess is, they didn't hear all of the evidence...or maybe they did...but, decided not to indict the Ramsey's anyway. The Ramsey's had alot of pull in that community. Everybody knew who they were. (IMO)

The GJ was never given the opportunity to rule on the case. DA Hunter pulled the plug on his own, apparenty because he himself didn't feel there was enough evidence to mount an effective prosecution. I agree. There is now new evidence that IMO does make it possible to mount a very powerful circumstantial case -- against John.

docg

11-11-2006, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

JB's chronic abuser needn't necessarily have been her killer.

No, not necessarily. But when you have evidence of chronic abuse and evidence potentially tying that abuse to the father, and NO evidence that the mother harmed the child in any way for any reason, least of all bedwetting, WHY on God's Earth go after the mother first, last and always, giving the father "a pass"?????

docg

11-11-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

>There are far dumber criminals in history than Patsy Ramsey -after all, she got away with it. Despite all the blunders in their staging, no Ramsey was ever charged.

She got away with it because there was never any real evidence against her. No Ramsey was ever charged because the one who DID do it had been "ruled out" as writer of the note by "experts" who didn't even see the document we've all seen that looks so much like the note.

>It would have been extremely difficult to get rid of the body. For the RN told the Ramseys to wait until 10 am for their call. So if we go along with your scenario, they would have had to dump the body in broad daylight, in order to keep up their faked story.

Read the note again. It says the call was to come "tomorrow."

>Wouldn't the police have checked the Ramseys' phone record to find out if this was true?

John could easily have called his cell phone from a phone booth near the bank, thus placing a call from "the kidnapper" in his phone records.

LindaA

11-11-2006, 11:14 AM

[
Originally posted by rashomon

John could easily have called his cell phone from a phone booth near the bank, thus placing a call from "the kidnapper" in his phone records. [/QUOTE]

They could have easily checked his cell phone records.

Athena

11-11-2006, 11:30 AM

Athena

11-11-2006, 01:32 PM

All of these, and Mr. Schiller himself, got lost in the murk. Even the real heavy hitters, the "dream team" task force that Mr. Hunter assembled late in the game, couldn't make the thousands of crime-scene pieces fit. And that's where the case seems to have broader implications for forensics. And even empiricism itself. It sometimes seems that the closer and harder one looks at the material world, the fewer answers it provides.

Henry Lee, the charismatic crime scene analyst with the air of dispassionate command — "I'm the day shift, the night shift and the graveyard shift," is his motto on Court TV's Web site for his show "Trace Evidence" — sweeps onto the screen, presumably to save the day with his micro-analysis, but nothing doing. The bits of rope, cord, tape, hair, footprint, blood, paper, ink, pineapple and no fewer than 4,000 fibers: they just don't create a coherent story. Dr. Lee almost seems to relish the evidentiary miscues. The physical world is a mysterious place.

Perhaps, as the uses and abuses of DNA evidence are beginning to suggest quantifiable stuff is even more obscure in this case than its psychological aspects. After all, the psychology of Mrs. Ramsey, a devoted stage mother and former beauty queen herself, may not have been entirely savory, but at least it was legible: she had a serious investment in her little daughter's prettiness and even sexiness. But what that has to do with homicide when some evidence points to her and some away. Well, you try to figure it out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/arts/television/29rams.html?ex=1309233600&en=8930a181dc7a7b05&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

WallyCleaver

11-11-2006, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

...

You are entitled to your opinion, but "where's the proof" that this evidence exists?

JMO

I've already stated there is no proof the evidence exists. That's the difference between us - you believe something based on absolutely nothing. I don't believe one way or the other. You reject it because it doesn't fit your theory. I don't reject it, nor do I claim it's true.

This isn't a matter of expressing an opinion, we're talking about how opinions are formed.

sweetcharlotte

11-11-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I've already stated there is no proof the evidence exists. That's the difference between us - you believe something based on absolutely nothing.
<snip>

No, I believe that if there had been fiber from John's shirt in JonBenet's crotch area - the BPD wouldn't have stopped their questioning about this at one try.

It has been 6 years since the 2000 interviews!

JMO

WallyCleaver

11-11-2006, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

No, I believe that if there had been fiber from John's shirt in JonBenet's crotch area - the BPD wouldn't have stopped their questioning about this at one try.

It has been 6 years since the 2000 interviews!

JMO

What sense is there in continuing to interview them? They aren't under indictment. Ten years from now it'll be 16 years since the 2000 interviews, and we won't be any closer to knowing whether or not there is evidence of fibers from JR's Israeli made shirt in JB's panties - unless reports are made public, or unless there is an admission that no reports exist. I don't expect either.

rashomon

11-11-2006, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

docg however believes that the call was to come on the 27th, not the 26th- if I understand his theory correctly. That would mean 8-10 am on the 27th.

Getting back to getting the money earlier - the only way the money could be gotten earlier than 8am on the 27th would be to get it on the 26th. That means JR would have to arrange to get the money, and place a fake call to his home so the phone records would show he recieved a ransom call. Basically then, he could have done this any time on the 26th after getting the money. Basically he had 24 hours to take care of the body from the time the RN was "found" the morning of the 26th.
Docg believes that John wrote the bogus ransom note to frame Patsy.
But then he can't theorize at the same time that the RN gave a time frame for the Ramseys to dispose of the body.
This doesn't make sense from the point of logic.

rashomon

11-11-2006, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Athena

All of these, and Mr. Schiller himself, got lost in the murk. Even the real heavy hitters, the "dream team" task force that Mr. Hunter assembled late in the game, couldn't make the thousands of crime-scene pieces fit. And that's where the case seems to have broader implications for forensics. And even empiricism itself. It sometimes seems that the closer and harder one looks at the material world, the fewer answers it provides.

Henry Lee, the charismatic crime scene analyst with the air of dispassionate command — "I'm the day shift, the night shift and the graveyard shift," is his motto on Court TV's Web site for his show "Trace Evidence" — sweeps onto the screen, presumably to save the day with his micro-analysis, but nothing doing. The bits of rope, cord, tape, hair, footprint, blood, paper, ink, pineapple and no fewer than 4,000 fibers: they just don't create a coherent story. Dr. Lee almost seems to relish the evidentiary miscues. The physical world is a mysterious place.

Perhaps, as the uses and abuses of DNA evidence are beginning to suggest quantifiable stuff is even more obscure in this case than its psychological aspects. After all, the psychology of Mrs. Ramsey, a devoted stage mother and former beauty queen herself, may not have been entirely savory, but at least it was legible: she had a serious investment in her little daughter's prettiness and even sexiness. But what that has to do with homicide when some evidence points to her and some away. Well, you try to figure it out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/arts/television/29rams.html?ex=1309233600&en=8930a181dc7a7b05&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
I am trying to figure it out. That's why I'm posting here.

The only evidence which points away from Patsy are John's shirt fibers in the crotch area of JB's underwear.
Evidence which points to her are the fibers found in the paint tray, in the garrote wrappings, on the duct tape and on the blanket.
Then there is the ransom note (Patsy was among the few people which could not be eliminated as the author).

IDIs are aware of this very damaging piece of evidence, which is why some of them are trying to explain it away by alleging that the intruder had studied Patsy's handwriting and mimicked it, lol. Yeah, right. The intruder did all this, only to ask for a measly $118,000. Priceless.

rashomon

11-11-2006, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by docg

When RDI's keep beating their heads against the same brick wall, trying strenously to make a case for an out of control mother, an accident, bedwetting as motive, Patsy as "over the top" and the ransom note likewise, Patsy as drama queen, Patsy peeking through her fingers at the cop, Patsy as demonic pageant mom, Patsy's pad, Patsy's pen, Patsy's handwriting, Patsy's paintbrush, Patsy's wearing the same outfit the next day -- as though anyone would be so dumb as to leave so many "clues" pointing to herself while staging a kidnapping intended to point away from herself -- then it does make sense that the IDI's would find it laughable, yes. A jury would too. Which is why there was never any attempt to indict.

Meanwhile, John is sitting off to the side, watching the action, no doubt with great amusement.
I have never had the feeling of beating my head against a brick wall when it comes to Patsy's involvement in JB's death.

You absolutely want to exclude Patsy because she doesn't fit in your theory. It is you beating his head against a brick wall, trying to play down the fiber evidence against Patsy while at the same time pointing out the fiber evidence against John.

Docg, jmpo, but I think you are approaching this issue way too much from a true crime poster's point of view, assuming that the Ramseys would know as much about fiber and other circumstantial evidence as regular posters on true crime message boards.
But chances are that, unless the Ramseys were very interested in true crime cases or true crime fiction, they would have known very little about possibly incriminating evidence (fiber or otherwise) they were going to leave behind.

For example, it is a fact that a police officer reported he had seen Pasty watch him peeking through her fingers.
People doing that want to test the reaction of the other person, simple as that. You can't explain that away.

And just think of Patsy's reaction after JB's body was brought up from the basement and put on the living room floor.
Remember that Patsy had remained frozen while the search was going on, but as soon as JB's body was put down on the living room floor, hey presto, the woman suddenly switched gear, pulling off her dramatic 'Lazarus' performance as if on cue, throwing herself on the body, intoning "Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead, raise my baby from the dead!"
Now if that wasn't a stage performance, I don't know what is.

Patsy knew that JB's dead body was in the wine cellar. Thereis no question about it imo. And John knew it too.
The sum total of the forensic and other circumstantial evidence (the Ramseys' ir behavior for example) point to both of them being involved.

Ames

11-11-2006, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

JB's chronic abuser needn't necessarily have been her killer.

I read...and I don't know how true it is....that her maternal grandfather had been molesting her. And that the 911 hang up call, was related to that. Again....I don't know how true this is....its just something that I read. (IMO)

WallyCleaver

11-11-2006, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

I have never had the feeling of beating my head against a brick wall when it comes to Patsy's involvement in JB's death.

You absolutely want to exclude Patsy because she doesn't fit in your theory. It is you beating his head against a brick wall, trying to play down the fiber evidence against Patsy while at the same time pointing out the fiber evidence against John.

Docg, jmpo, but I think you are approaching this issue way too much from a true crime poster's point of view, assuming that the Ramseys would know as much about fiber and other circumstantial evidence as regular posters on true crime message boards.
But chances are that, unless the Ramseys were very interested in true crime cases or true crime fiction, they would have known very little about possibly incriminating evidence (fiber or otherwise) they were going to leave behind.

For example, it is a fact that a police officer reported he had seen Pasty watch him peeking through her fingers.
People doing that want to test the reaction of the other person, simple as that. You can't explain that away.

And just think of Patsy's reaction after JB's body was brought up from the basement and put on the living room floor.
Remember that Patsy had remained frozen while the search was going on, but as soon as JB's body was put down on the living room floor, hey presto, the woman suddenly switched gear, pulling off her dramatic 'Lazarus' performance as if on cue, throwing herself on the body, intoning "Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead, raise my baby from the dead!"
Now if that wasn't a stage performance, I don't know what is.

Patsy knew that JB's dead body was in the wine cellar. Thereis no question about it imo. And John knew it too.
The sum total of the forensic and other circumstantial evidence (the Ramseys' ir behavior for example) point to both of them being involved.

PR looking through her fingers bothers me too. And I agree that most people wouldn't be thinking about fiber transfer.

thewhitewitch1

11-11-2006, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

I have never had the feeling of beating my head against a brick wall when it comes to Patsy's involvement in JB's death.

You absolutely want to exclude Patsy because she doesn't fit in your theory. It is you beating his head against a brick wall, trying to play down the fiber evidence against Patsy while at the same time pointing out the fiber evidence against John.

Docg, jmpo, but I think you are approaching this issue way too much from a true crime poster's point of view, assuming that the Ramseys would know as much about fiber and other circumstantial evidence as regular posters on true crime message boards.
But chances are that, unless the Ramseys were very interested in true crime cases or true crime fiction, they would have known very little about possibly incriminating evidence (fiber or otherwise) they were going to leave behind.

For example, it is a fact that a police officer reported he had seen Pasty watch him peeking through her fingers.
People doing that want to test the reaction of the other person, simple as that. You can't explain that away.

And just think of Patsy's reaction after JB's body was brought up from the basement and put on the living room floor.
Remember that Patsy had remained frozen while the search was going on, but as soon as JB's body was put down on the living room floor, hey presto, the woman suddenly switched gear, pulling off her dramatic 'Lazarus' performance as if on cue, throwing herself on the body, intoning "Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead, raise my baby from the dead!"
Now if that wasn't a stage performance, I don't know what is.

Patsy knew that JB's dead body was in the wine cellar. Thereis no question about it imo. And John knew it too.
The sum total of the forensic and other circumstantial evidence (the Ramseys' ir behavior for example) point to both of them being involved.

I agree with all you said. I was particularly disturbed by the "Lazarus" speech. That sounded absolutely "rehearsed". If it had been my child, I would have had no words, let alone a mini speech. IMO

Athena

11-11-2006, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I read...and I don't know how true it is....that her maternal grandfather had been molesting her. And that the 911 hang up call, was related to that. Again....I don't know how true this is....its just something that I read. (IMO)

I thought this had been resolved? Fleet White admitted accidentally dialing "911" instead of "411". JMO

Ames

11-11-2006, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

PR looking through her fingers bothers me too. And I agree that most people wouldn't be thinking about fiber transfer.

Yep, that one bugs the heck outta me too! She was making sure that the investigator was buying her performance. IMO

Ames

11-11-2006, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I agree with all you said. I was particularly disturbed by the "Lazarus" speech. That sounded absolutely "rehearsed". If it had been my child, I would have had no words, let alone a mini speech. IMO

Yeah, that was just crazy. I would have been totally speechless too. Afterall, she supposedly had "no idea" that JB was even still in the house...because an "intruder" had taken her and left a "ransom letter". She should have been in complete shock when John brought her dead body up from the basement. I think that the Lazarus speech was rehearsed too. She was probably going over it in her head, figuring out what she was going to say.. as she wrote the ransom note. IMO

Ames

11-11-2006, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I thought this had been resolved? Fleet White admitted accidentally dialing "911" instead of "411". JMO

I had never heard that before...do you have a link? TIA And its just something that I had read...I said that I didn't know how true it was. Did Fleet ever say why he was calling information? IMO

shill

11-12-2006, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I agree with all you said. I was particularly disturbed by the "Lazarus" speech. That sounded absolutely "rehearsed". If it had been my child, I would have had no words, let alone a mini speech. IMO You're not her and it didn't happen to your child.
When it does happen to you, you can tell us how one reacts in that situation.

Zoey

11-12-2006, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I agree with all you said. I was particularly disturbed by the "Lazarus" speech. That sounded absolutely "rehearsed". If it had been my child, I would have had no words, let alone a mini speech. IMO

Thewhitewitch1, were you at the Ramsey home when John Ramsey brought up his daughter? The reason I ask this is, you say this sounded absolutely "rehearsed". How do you know what it sounded like? Did you personally hear Patsy Ramsey? How can any of us say what something sounded like unless we were right there, which I don't think any of us were. IMO

Athena

11-12-2006, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Ames

I had never heard that before...do you have a link? TIA And its just something that I had read...I said that I didn't know how true it was. Did Fleet ever say why he was calling information? IMO

For the past couple of days I have been having a problem on the board doing a search so I would have posted a link had I been able to. Anyone else having a problem doing a search? This is the response I get:

There seems to have been a slight problem with the Courttv.com Message Boards database.
Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser.
An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, who you can also contact if the problem persists.

We apologise for any inconvenience.

Athena

11-12-2006, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Zoey

Thewhitewitch1, were you at the Ramsey home when John Ramsey brought up his daughter? The reason I ask this is, you say this sounded absolutely "rehearsed". How do you know what it sounded like? Did you personally hear Patsy Ramsey? How can any of us say what something sounded like unless we were right there, which I don't think any of us were. IMO

This is one issue I have with some RDI theories. Opinions are based on what someone said or "how" they acted when noone would know what they would do under those circumstances unless you've been there. And even if you have been through it reactions may still have been different but perhaps better understood :shrug: JMO

WallyCleaver

11-12-2006, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Athena

This is one issue I have with some RDI theories. Opinions are based on what someone said or "how" they acted when noone would know what they would do under those circumstances unless you've been there. And even if you have been through it reactions may still have been different but perhaps better understood :shrug: JMO

I disagree. I think there are some reactions which we can say most people would have -this would be based on observations of police and others familiar with crime investigation.

For example, in a genuine kidnapping, authorities repeatedly find that a husband and wife will stay close together, giving each other support. The Rs didn't do that. It's all well and good to go on about individual differences, and the fact they didn't support each other during the day isn't, by itself, proof of guilt, it is certainly suspicious. This isn't the way most parents act in that situation.

I don't see anyting inappropriate with noting when their actions seemed unusual.

MissOtisRegrets

11-12-2006, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Athena

For the past couple of days I have been having a problem on the board doing a search so I would have posted a link had I been able to. Anyone else having a problem doing a search? This is the response I get:

There seems to have been a slight problem with the Courttv.com Message Boards database.
Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser.
An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, who you can also contact if the problem persists.

We apologise for any inconvenience.

I've had that problem, Athena. One time I was able to get where I was attempting to go by clicking 'refresh', but only that one time. I think they're trying to update the software without closing the board.

Athena

11-12-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

I've had that problem, Athena. One time I was able to get where I was attempting to go by clicking 'refresh', but only that one time. I think they're trying to update the software without closing the board.

Thanks MsO. I believe I started getting this on Friday so hopefully they are doing it over the weekend when not as busy.

Athena

11-12-2006, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I disagree. I think there are some reactions which we can say most people would have -this would be based on observations of police and others familiar with crime investigation.

For example, in a genuine kidnapping, authorities repeatedly find that a husband and wife will stay close together, giving each other support. The Rs didn't do that. It's all well and good to go on about individual differences, and the fact they didn't support each other during the day isn't, by itself, proof of guilt, it is certainly suspicious. This isn't the way most parents act in that situation.

I don't see anyting inappropriate with noting when their actions seemed unusual.

On a side note I have a daughter that drives not only a car but drives me nuts. She has gotten better since I spoke to her but when I don't hear from her I get very emotional and think the worst. When I get like that my husband tells me I'm overreacting and disappears and I do know we are in a good marriage.

I tend to refrain from passing judgement on people's behavior. The same people who appear supportive of each other I find out they are preparing for a divorce -- so you just don't know. Everything is not what it appears to be. JMO

Ames

11-12-2006, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Athena

For the past couple of days I have been having a problem on the board doing a search so I would have posted a link had I been able to. Anyone else having a problem doing a search? This is the response I get:

There seems to have been a slight problem with the Courttv.com Message Boards database.
Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser.
An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, who you can also contact if the problem persists.

We apologise for any inconvenience.

Hey, that's okay...thanks for trying, though. I believe you...
I just wondered if anyone knew why he was trying to call information...I guess it really doesn't matter. I was just wondering..thats all.

Ames

11-12-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I disagree. I think there are some reactions which we can say most people would have -this would be based on observations of police and others familiar with crime investigation.

For example, in a genuine kidnapping, authorities repeatedly find that a husband and wife will stay close together, giving each other support. The Rs didn't do that. It's all well and good to go on about individual differences, and the fact they didn't support each other during the day isn't, by itself, proof of guilt, it is certainly suspicious. This isn't the way most parents act in that situation.

I don't see anyting inappropriate with noting when their actions seemed unusual.

I agree with you. Their behavior was not NORMAL for someone that had a kidnapped child. Patsy didn't even help search for her..when John and Fleet did. She just sat on the couch and didn't move, until the body was brought up. I think that she was scared to death. Because she knew that John most likely would be bringing JB's body up...she probably just sat there, trying to figure out how to react. Just a few of the weird things were...the way they didn't cling to each other...Patsy looking through splayed fingers at the investigator, and John, after bringing up JB's body, grabbing it..and then looking around to see who all was watching. That was strange....IMO Those are just to name to FEW. IMO

docg

11-12-2006, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I agree with you. Their behavior was not NORMAL for someone that had a kidnapped child. Patsy didn't even help search for her..when John and Fleet did. She just sat on the couch and didn't move, until the body was brought up. I think that she was scared to death. Because she knew that John most likely would be bringing JB's body up...she probably just sat there, trying to figure out how to react. Just a few of the weird things were...the way they didn't cling to each other...Patsy looking through splayed fingers at the investigator, and John, after bringing up JB's body, grabbing it..and then looking around to see who all was watching. That was strange....IMO Those are just to name to FEW. IMO

Fleet White's behavior has not been normal. Bill McReynolds' behavior wasn't normal. His wife wrote a play that looked very suspicious to some. Chris Wolfe's behavior the day after the crime wasn't exactly normal either. Linda Pugh and her family aren't exactly normal -- neither was her book project, where she did a total about-face on Patsy. Helgoth was hardly normal, nor is Gigax, who sells nazi paraphernalia on the internet. Not to mention John, the "confessor," Karr. Maybe all of them collaborated with Patsy to commit this crime, but I doubt it.

People don't always behave as we "normal" folk might expect them to. That doesn't make them killers. Or commiters of fatal "accidents." ;)

Ames

11-12-2006, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by docg

Fleet White's behavior has not been normal. Bill McReynolds' behavior wasn't normal. His wife wrote a play that looked very suspicious to some. Chris Wolfe's behavior the day after the crime wasn't exactly normal either. Linda Pugh and her family aren't exactly normal -- neither was her book project, where she did a total about-face on Patsy. Helgoth was hardly normal, nor is Gigax, who sells nazi paraphernalia on the internet. Not to mention John, the "confessor," Karr. Maybe all of them collaborated with Patsy to commit this crime, but I doubt it.

People don't always behave as we "normal" folk might expect them to. That doesn't make them killers. Or commiters of fatal "accidents." ;)

Ah come on..you can't tell me that you think that their actions were not at least a little bit suspicious...:D

shill

11-12-2006, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by docg

Fleet White's behavior has not been normal. Bill McReynolds' behavior wasn't normal. His wife wrote a play that looked very suspicious to some. Chris Wolfe's behavior the day after the crime wasn't exactly normal either. Linda Pugh and her family aren't exactly normal -- neither was her book project, where she did a total about-face on Patsy. Helgoth was hardly normal, nor is Gigax, who sells nazi paraphernalia on the internet. Not to mention John, the "confessor," Karr. Maybe all of them collaborated with Patsy to commit this crime, but I doubt it.

People don't always behave as we "normal" folk might expect them to. That doesn't make them killers. Or commiters of fatal "accidents." ;) Don't forget the guy nicknamed "The Prophet" and the guy with the poems in an envelope taped shut with black duct tape who had a candycane from the front lawn.
4 and 9 are not near each other on the phone. But if you wanted to see how long it takes for the police to respond to a 911 call from the Ramseys, you call 911 from the Ramsies. FW behavior about this call is suspicious.

docg

11-12-2006, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by shill
Don't forget the guy nicknamed "The Prophet" and the guy with the poems in an envelope taped shut with black duct tape who had a candycane from the front lawn.
4 and 9 are not near each other on the phone. But if you wanted to see how long it takes for the police to respond to a 911 call from the Ramseys, you call 911 from the Ramsies. FW behavior about this call is suspicious.

Oh yeah, they are ALL "suspicious." But there's no evidence any of them were involved. Same with Patsy.

WallyCleaver

11-13-2006, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by docg

Oh yeah, they are ALL "suspicious." But there's no evidence any of them were involved. Same with Patsy.

So basically the IDIs are relying heavily on abnormal behavior as well. Glad we're all in agreement then, abnormal behavior makes one suspicious.

Same with Patsy but not with John?

nuisanceposter

11-13-2006, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

So basically the IDIs are relying heavily on abnormal behavior as well. Glad we're all in agreement then, abnormal behavior makes one suspicious.

Same with Patsy but not with John?

And as far as speculating what behavior a person might undertake, there's a lot of speculation from the IDIs about how this perp behaved and what he did and why. That's the same as speculation about the Rs, only even more reaching, since they don't even know who this person they're saying was a young, inexperienced man with anger management problems who sifted through the R house and patched together info for that RN is.

These people like Helgoth and Gigax and this Prophet dude have been checked out, and they aren't the killer. The police did not just focus on the Ramseys and not investigate anyone else - they spent hundreds of hours tracking down all leads and tips. They interviewed all possible suspects. They all kept checking out, and the evidence kept leading them back to the Rs.

The fiber evidence links Patsy directly to this crime, even more so than John. Patsy's fibers were in even more questionable locations as John's, such as tied into the knot and on the tape and paint tray.

docg

11-13-2006, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

The fiber evidence links Patsy directly to this crime, even more so than John. Patsy's fibers were in even more questionable locations as John's, such as tied into the knot and on the tape and paint tray.

The fiber evidence tells us that Patsy was present in the house. Which we already know. It tells us that Patsy was in close contact with her daughter. Which we already know. Her fibers tied into the knot sound incriminating ONLY when we ignore the fact that tufts of JonBenet's hair were also tied into the knot. If Patsy was in close contact with her daughter, then fibers from her sweater could easily have gotten all over JonBenet's hair -- as well as other parts of her body. Fibers from sweaters shed liberally. Just as there are innocent explanations for the DNA evidence, there are innocent explanations for Patsy's fibers being found at the crime scene. All of them could have been transferred to the knots via the victim's hair and to other places via transfer from the victim to her attacker. If her attacker was John, Patsy's fibers could already have been on him. Remember, fibers from a sweater shed much more than those from a shirt.

All the so-called "evidence" against Patsy is of this sort. There is evidence that can be LINKED to Patsy, such as the pad, pen and paintbrush handle, but no evidence she actually handled any of these items at any time on the night of the crime. Since all were in the house, all were just as available to John as they were to Patsy or anyone else in the house that night.

On the other hand, it is NOT so easy to explain the presence of John's fibers IN JONBENET's crotch. Nor is it so easy to explain why John would see an open, broken, window, with a suitcase propped underneath it and debris from the well on the floor beneath it, along with pieces of glass, and NOT report that to the police immediately as a possible entry point for an intruder.

LindaA

11-13-2006, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by DocG

snip
>On the other hand, it is NOT so easy to explain the presence of John's fibers IN JONBENET's crotch. Nor is it so easy to explain why John would see an open, broken, window, with a suitcase propped underneath it and debris from the well on the floor beneath it, along with pieces of glass, and NOT report that to the police immediately as a possible entry point for an intruder.<

This is admittedly odd, but it seems to me that JR would have been eager to point it out if he were guilty as the possible entry point of an inturder -- especiallyl if it were part of the staging.

As to the fibers, I don't believe we know that those fibers were truly from his shirt. How was it determined she had been wiped down with a dark wash cloth? Were there 2 types of dark fibers in her genital area?

docg

11-13-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

So basically the IDIs are relying heavily on abnormal behavior as well. Glad we're all in agreement then, abnormal behavior makes one suspicious.

Same with Patsy but not with John?

There are things Patsy did and said that seem suspicious, yes. But there are things all the many "characters" who've been looked at also did and said that made each and every one of them seem suspicious. What this tells us is that innocent people can do and say things that make them seem suspicious. It does NOT help us determine who committed this crime.

There is no real evidence against any of these people, including Patsy (see my comments on the fiber evidence, above). The only evidence we have points to John:

1. His fibers found in JonBenet's crotch.

2. The clear signs of prior sexual abuse.

3. His failure to report the suspicious looking scene at the basement window, indicating that he himself probably staged that scene -- and then decided to unstage it when it became clear the police hadn't seen any footprints in the snow and frost outside and were about to see through his deception.

4. His patently absurd story about losing his key and breaking in months earlier, again consistent with a staging, unstaging scenario (see above).

5. The fact that the document appearing on Brugnatell's website, along with 9 pages showing strong similarities with the ransom note, was NEVER SEEN by the "experts" who ruled John out -- indicating he may have deliberately provided an incomplete sampling of his printing to the authorities.

6. The fact that John was not asked about the ransom note in the polygraph both of them took and "passed" -- indicating that he probably failed that part of the polygraph in the initial phases of the test.

sweetcharlotte

11-13-2006, 11:53 AM

I have asked several times and still haven't seen any proof that fibers from John's shirt were found in JonBenet's crotch area.

I also think chronic sexual abuse was not proven.

JMO

LindaA

11-13-2006, 12:14 PM

While I find his failure to report the window strange, I don't know how he would have known the lack of footprints was an issue. (And was it actually? I thought it was proved that there was ample ground that was uncovered by snow for someone to have gotten to that window as well as to several entrances to the house.

I think that if he had staged it he would have reported it right away.

I don't find his breaking the window to get in strange. Even forgetting he had done it is not all that strange to me. I know lots of people like that. Seems to me the whole Ramsey family was rather lacsidaisical about safety and housekeeping. IMO

I also don't believe we know the fiber evidence and the prior abuse to be fact at this time.

IMO

sweetcharlotte

11-13-2006, 12:26 PM

I think to John the window "was what it was." He could have (subconscioulsy) reasoned its being open or closed to be the norm since he did remember breaking it earlier in the year. JMO

LindaA

11-13-2006, 12:51 PM

It seems to be the RDIs vacillate between the Rs were panaicked and therefore did some stupid things that the police just couldn'dt prove to on the opposite extreme -- they were very clever and avoided detection by being shrewd. Of course we are all inconsistant, but it seems that whichever position they take, when challenged, they answer with the opposite point of view. Like Athena said, I don't see how anyone can be 100% sure of anything in this case. IMO

docg

11-13-2006, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I have asked several times and still haven't seen any proof that fibers from John's shirt were found in JonBenet's crotch area.

I also think chronic sexual abuse was not proven.

JMO

What consitutes "proof" for you? A tabloid report? A report in the mainstream press? A report citing "sources close to the case"? Something reported by someone on the internet?

Most of the "information" discussed on the forums comes from one or more of the above. The information regarding John's fibers comes from an official police report. What more proof do you need? I can't supply the actual investigative report, that's not available. Nor are most of the other reports. The report ruling John out as writer of the note is not availalbe. Nor is the report describing and analyzing the DNA. The coroner's report is available. The police interviews are available. That type of information can be regarded as solid. That's the type of information we have on John's fibers. That's as close to proof as any of us has on any aspect of this case. If you're bothered by something John's lawyer said, then you have a problem, because the suspect's lawyer is NOT a reliable source of anything.

Coloradokares

11-13-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
It seems to be the RDIs vacillate between the Rs were panaicked and therefore did some stupid things that the police just couldn'dt prove to on the opposite extreme -- they were very clever and avoided detection by being shrewd. Of course we are all inconsistant, but it seems that whichever position they take, when challenged, they answer with the opposite point of view. Like Athena said, I don't see how anyone can be 100% sure of anything in this case. IMO

LindaA I think that was an intentional element designed by the perp from the beginning of this case. Here is a personal observation only. I think the Ramseys did alot of of things that were odd maybe even suspicious. Not that there is normal at a time like that. However if the oddities ended there, then they set out to do their best to cooperate with the police furnish the clothing immediately and sit down and do the interviews I'd of had no 2nd thoughts.

This has been a 9 year and 10 month reorchestration of events at least that is the local public sentiment to those who have seen it play out in the local headlines. Thats why we need a special prosecutor and our new Gov elect Bill Ritter may bring good things to this Cold Case. Lets hope so. Maybe we'll finally put this murder to rest. Intruder exposed or murderer or co conspirator in coverup brought to justice... it isn't important to be right. IDI vs RDI It is important to see that justice is served.

sweetcharlotte

11-13-2006, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by docg

<snip>

The information regarding John's fibers comes from an official police report. What more proof do you need? I can't supply the actual investigative report, that's not available. Nor are most of the other reports. The report ruling John out as writer of the note is not availalbe. Nor is the report describing and analyzing the DNA. The coroner's report is available. The police interviews are available. That type of information can be regarded as solid. That's the type of information we have on John's fibers. That's as close to proof as any of us has on any aspect of this case. If you're bothered by something John's lawyer said, then you have a problem, because the suspect's lawyer is NOT a reliable source of anything.

I don't buy it. If there was "proof" it wouldn't have been dropped. And all the interview said to me was that they didn't have anything to back up that line of questioning and they did they most reasonable thing they could do - they backed off.

JMO

docg

11-13-2006, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I don't buy it. If there was "proof" it wouldn't have been dropped. And all the interview said to me was that they didn't have anything to back up that line of questioning and they did they most reasonable thing they could do - they backed off.

JMO

They didn't back off. They wanted to give John the opportunity to explain how his fibers could have gotten into JonBenet's pants innocently, for example via the laundry. Lin Wood went ballistic and carried on a LONG time over this, making it clear he would not allow John to answer any question touching on that topic. So the interviewers moved on to something else. Wood gave them no choice. There is no reason to assume the interviewers made anything up. It's clear from the contex that they weren't trying to intimidate John, it wasn't a grilling or anything close to that.

The fibers never came up again in the media because the transcript only became available to the public years after the interview -- and only a few people have bothered to read these transcripts with any degree of care.

thewhitewitch1

11-13-2006, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I think to John the window "was what it was." He could have (subconscioulsy) reasoned its being open or closed to be the norm since he did remember breaking it earlier in the year. JMO

So how did he not notice the suitcase under it and put 2 and 2 together?

Coloradokares

11-13-2006, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I don't buy it. If there was "proof" it wouldn't have been dropped. And all the interview said to me was that they didn't have anything to back up that line of questioning and they did they most reasonable thing they could do - they backed off.

JMO

I want to say... again... that I don't think the information was dropped only held off till presented at trial which didn't occur. Bill Ritter is the Gov. elect now Maybe things are about to break loose as I sensed. We have investigative reporters out and about again. New books and specials and not just since JMK. It has been explained on this forum numerous times that the prosecution has no burden to provide proof to the suspects attorney until discovery phase and not until charges are filed.
If the fibers ever existed and its my opinion they did they didn't just toss em out ....they are waiting to be provided in a trial should that day come. Some of us are just keeping our eyes open and waiting cause we already smell the rain, now we are waiting to hear thunder. Recognize the name Bill RItter? It may not bring the break we hope but I provided the link to ForumsforJustice already and could do so once again upon request so all could see it might make a real difference.

WallyCleaver

11-13-2006, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by docg

They didn't back off. They wanted to give John the opportunity to explain how his fibers could have gotten into JonBenet's pants innocently, for example via the laundry. Lin Wood went ballistic and carried on a LONG time over this, making it clear he would not allow John to answer any question touching on that topic. So the interviewers moved on to something else. Wood gave them no choice. There is no reason to assume the interviewers made anything up. It's clear from the contex that they weren't trying to intimidate John, it wasn't a grilling or anything close to that.

The fibers never came up again in the media because the transcript only became available to the public years after the interview -- and only a few people have bothered to read these transcripts with any degree of care.

Well said .

WallyCleaver

11-13-2006, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by docg

What consitutes "proof" for you? A tabloid report? A report in the mainstream press? A report citing "sources close to the case"? Something reported by someone on the internet?

Most of the "information" discussed on the forums comes from one or more of the above. The information regarding John's fibers comes from an official police report. What more proof do you need? I can't supply the actual investigative report, that's not available. Nor are most of the other reports. The report ruling John out as writer of the note is not availalbe. Nor is the report describing and analyzing the DNA. The coroner's report is available. The police interviews are available. That type of information can be regarded as solid. That's the type of information we have on John's fibers. That's as close to proof as any of us has on any aspect of this case. If you're bothered by something John's lawyer said, then you have a problem, because the suspect's lawyer is NOT a reliable source of anything.

Well said.

WallyCleaver

11-13-2006, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by docg

The fiber evidence tells us that Patsy was present in the house. Which we already know. It tells us that Patsy was in close contact with her daughter. Which we already know. Her fibers tied into the knot sound incriminating ONLY when we ignore the fact that tufts of JonBenet's hair were also tied into the knot. If Patsy was in close contact with her daughter, then fibers from her sweater could easily have gotten all over JonBenet's hair -- as well as other parts of her body. Fibers from sweaters shed liberally. Just as there are innocent explanations for the DNA evidence, there are innocent explanations for Patsy's fibers being found at the crime scene. All of them could have been transferred to the knots via the victim's hair and to other places via transfer from the victim to her attacker. If her attacker was John, Patsy's fibers could already have been on him. Remember, fibers from a sweater shed much more than those from a shirt.

But there are fibers from her jacket, rather than her sweater, in places they shouldn't be - unless I'm confused. She didn' paint with her jacket on.

All the so-called "evidence" against Patsy is of this sort. There is evidence that can be LINKED to Patsy, such as the pad, pen and paintbrush handle, but no evidence she actually handled any of these items at any time on the night of the crime. Since all were in the house, all were just as available to John as they were to Patsy or anyone else in the house that night.

And all that applies with equal force to JR.

On the other hand, it is NOT so easy to explain the presence of John's fibers IN JONBENET's crotch.

Actually it is. He could have wiped her down after she had gone to the bathroom. Of course he didn't tell us about that, but enough things were "remembered" later that we can't make too much of a fuss about one more.

Nor is it so easy to explain why John would see an open, broken, window, with a suitcase propped underneath it and debris from the well on the floor beneath it, along with pieces of glass, and NOT report that to the police immediately as a possible entry point for an intruder.

Now that I have to agree with.

WallyCleaver

11-13-2006, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
While I find his failure to report the window strange, I don't know how he would have known the lack of footprints was an issue. (And was it actually? I thought it was proved that there was ample ground that was uncovered by snow for someone to have gotten to that window as well as to several entrances to the house.

I think that if he had staged it he would have reported it right away.

I don't find his breaking the window to get in strange. Even forgetting he had done it is not all that strange to me. I know lots of people like that. Seems to me the whole Ramsey family was rather lacsidaisical about safety and housekeeping. IMO

I also don't believe we know the fiber evidence and the prior abuse to be fact at this time.

IMO

What I find very very strange about the broken window story is that the window remains both broken, and uncovered for months. I live in a place that gets cold in the winter -as does Boulder- and I can tell you few people would fail to fix the window. If not with new glass, then some plastic tapped over it, or some plywood nailed over it, or some cardboard.....

We might as well call the window story what it really is - BALONEY!

MaryD

11-13-2006, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

What I find very very strange about the broken window story is that the window remains both broken, and uncovered for months. I live in a place that gets cold in the winter -as does Boulder- and I can tell you few people would fail to fix the window. If not with new glass, then some plastic tapped over it, or some plywood nailed over it, or some cardboard.....

We might as well call the window story what it really is - BALONEY!

Does anyone know how broken this window was? Was it a full pane? A hole or what? Another question is didn't the Rams say they gave keys to different people, if so why didn't they call one of them to ask for a spare key if they got locked out?

docg

11-13-2006, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

>But there are fibers from her jacket, rather than her sweater, in places they shouldn't be - unless I'm confused. She didn' paint with her jacket on.

It was HER paint tote. There are all sorts of ways those fibers could have got in it, whether she painted in her jacket or not. And if we find so many fibers from that jacket in so many places then it doesn't matter whether it was a sweater or not, it's clearly a fabric that easily shed. If John was the attacker, he could have transferred fibers from her jacket onto all parts of the crime scene. We can assume he might have put his arm around his wife, if only when pictures were being taken, no?

>And all that applies with equal force to JR.

Not really. HIS fibers were found in a place he had no business being. And if you're suggesting they could have been transferred there via Patsy, then how come fibers from her jacket-that-shed-all-over-everything weren't also found in the same place?

>Actually it is. He could have wiped her down after she had gone to the bathroom. Of course he didn't tell us about that, but enough things were "remembered" later that we can't make too much of a fuss about one more.

The questioner gave him the opportunity to explain and he refused. It seems clear from the very theatrical over-reaction of both John and his lawyer that there WAS no innocent explanation. If there was, it would have been provided.

sweetcharlotte

11-13-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by docg
Originally posted by WallyCleaver

<snip>

The questioner gave him the opportunity to explain and he refused. It seems clear from the very theatrical over-reaction of both John and his lawyer that there WAS no innocent explanation. If there was, it would have been provided.

Seems like a good time for the PD to say, "Mr. Ramsey, if you can't provide us an explanation, then I'm afraid we have no choice but to place you under arrest for the murder of your daughter."

Excellent opportunity for the BPD to call both John Ramsey's and the Boulder DA's bluff.

JMO

WallyCleaver

11-13-2006, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by docg
Originally posted by WallyCleaver

It was HER paint tote. There are all sorts of ways those fibers could have got in it, whether she painted in her jacket or not. And if we find so many fibers from that jacket in so many places then it doesn't matter whether it was a sweater or not, it's clearly a fabric that easily shed. If John was the attacker, he could have transferred fibers from her jacket onto all parts of the crime scene. We can assume he might have put his arm around his wife, if only when pictures were being taken, no?

Right, and HER jacket, which she wasn't very likely to wear while painting. It does matter whether it was a jacket or not, because the jacket would have been taken off before painting.

I do agree the fibers could have transfered to JR, then to the tray, the garrotte, etc.

The questioner gave him the opportunity to explain and he refused. It seems clear from the very theatrical over-reaction of both John and his lawyer that there WAS no innocent explanation. If there was, it would have been provided.

That's almost as bad as the IDIs insisting that if there were proof of JR's shirt fibers in the panties the lab reports would have been turned over immediately.

You can't call JR's reaction theatrical and at the same time downplay PR's theatrics.

Coloradokares

11-13-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Seems like a good time for the PD to say, "Mr. Ramsey, if you can't provide us an explanation, then I'm afraid we have no choice but to place you under arrest for the murder of your daughter."

Excellent opportunity for the BPD to call both John Ramsey's and the Boulder DA's bluff.

JMO

Many to this day wonder why the cuffs were not put on but they could only hold them so many hours. Unless the DA was going to indict. Steve Thomas always had that arrest warrant on him at all time. Their names were the only names on it. The DA is who gives the order to pick them up. Time will actually tell if it was a bluff. I believe it was no bluff and that is why Lin Wood was ballistic. You believe it was bluff city Boulder City Boulder County Colorad USA. Hopefully time will tell?

bullmoose

11-13-2006, 05:17 PM

Here we go again with the vampire fibers, the undead fibers that will not rest in peace; I will say again: it was a fishing expedition to try to get John Ramsey to trip himself up trying to explain nonexistant fibers. As to Twisting Thomas, I would be willing to bet that he had that warrant under his pillow at night so that he could read it before he went to sleep each and every night. CK, I've read his book, he was the source of information to the Globe; a professional investigator would not have been leaking inside details to the press. But then, he was not professional in his conduct or his book. IMO

WallyCleaver

11-13-2006, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
Here we go again with the vampire fibers, the undead fibers that will not rest in peace; I will say again: it was a fishing expedition to try to get John Ramsey to trip himself up trying to explain nonexistant fibers. As to Twisting Thomas, I would be willing to bet that he had that warrant under his pillow at night so that he could read it before he went to sleep each and every night. CK, I've read his book, he was the source of information to the Globe; a professional investigator would not have been leaking inside details to the press. But then, he was not professional in his conduct or his book. IMO

And I will say again, you have no basis at all - other than what you desire to believe- to dismiss it as a fishing expedition.

sweetcharlotte

11-13-2006, 05:29 PM

And I will say it again. If the BPD had any fiber evidence that connected John Ramsey that closely to the death of his daughter we would have seen add'l action taken in the past 6 years.

JMO

bullmoose

11-13-2006, 05:38 PM

Wally: I myself having been through police interrogations on several occasion have that as the basis for my belief that it was a deep-sea fishing expedition: throw out the hook and see if anything catches on it ; cops and investigators constantly try to throw questionees off balance with repetitive questions and deceptive questions. They will lie through their teeth every time their lips move; but its okay, because they are supposedly the good guys. Lieing to a suspect is what they are taught to do. My own experience is the basis of my statements. IMO if there had been actual damning evidence as they were claiming, they would have shown it to Lin Wood. But they didn't.

WallyCleaver

11-13-2006, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
Wally: I myself having been through police interrogations on several occasion have that as the basis for my belief that it was a deep-sea fishing expedition: throw out the hook and see if anything catches on it ; cops and investigators constantly try to throw questionees off balance with repetitive questions and deceptive questions. They will lie through their teeth every time their lips move; but its okay, because they are supposedly the good guys. Lieing to a suspect is what they are taught to do. My own experience is the basis of my statements. IMO if there had been actual damning evidence as they were claiming, they would have shown it to Lin Wood. But they didn't.

As docg has pointed out, this wasn't anything even close to a standard police "grilling". Their lawyer was present every moment to tell them whehter or not to answer. They were treated with kid gloves.

Your opinion that lab reports would have been turned over to Lin Wood upon demand is w/o basis.

docg

11-13-2006, 05:57 PM

WallyCleaver

11-13-2006, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
And I will say it again. If the BPD had any fiber evidence that connected John Ramsey that closely to the death of his daughter we would have seen add'l action taken in the past 6 years.

JMO

How do we know the GJ didn't hear about it? This is a GJ that doesn't even want to hear the parents tell their story, so I woudn't be suprised if they discounted the evidence, even if presented.

If it had been presented, the fact that the GJ didn't indict is a pretty good explanation why nothing has been done for several years.

sweetcharlotte

11-13-2006, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose

<snip>

IMO if there had been actual damning evidence as they were claiming, they would have shown it to Lin Wood. But they didn't.

And we would have heard more about it in the past 6 years....

JMO

sweetcharlotte

11-13-2006, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

How do we know the GJ didn't hear about it? This is a GJ that doesn't even want to hear the parents tell their story, so I woudn't be suprised if they discounted the evidence, even if presented.

If it had been presented, the fact that the GJ didn't indict is a pretty good explanation why nothing has been done for several years.

Did we go through this yesterday? Here is a link that talks about forensic evidence discovered after the GJ disbanded, but it doesn't say what the evidence was.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/08/28/ramsey.meeting.02/index.html

bullmoose

11-13-2006, 06:11 PM

If is such a small word, but has so much meaning. If there was any such evidence; if the GJ discounted the evidence, if there was any; if the evidence was presented and discounted if there was any; if, if, if.The Grand Jury didn't call the Ramseys; however the reason they didn't, when they were in session for a year, isproblematic. IF there was actually damning fiber evidence,then why was there no indictment, of anyone. If only that could be explained.

WallyCleaver

11-13-2006, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Did we go through this yesterday? Here is a link that talks about forensic evidence discovered after the GJ disbanded, but it doesn't say what the evidence was.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/08/28/ramsey.meeting.02/index.html

Right, so we don't know what the GJ heard, which is what I was pointing out.

WallyCleaver

11-13-2006, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
If is such a small word, but has so much meaning. If there was any such evidence; if the GJ discounted the evidence, if there was any; if the evidence was presented and discounted if there was any; if, if, if.The Grand Jury didn't call the Ramseys; however the reason they didn't, when they were in session for a year, isproblematic. IF there was actually damning fiber evidence,then why was there no indictment, of anyone. If only that could be explained.

If only you could explain why the GJ didn't even want to hear the Ramseys tell their story. That's the point - this GJ wasn't much inclined to indict. They weren't even inclined to hear the principal suspects.

But the fact remains they didn't indict, so it's hardly suprising the police havn't done anyting with the evidence since '99. What would they do with it?

bullmoose

11-13-2006, 06:34 PM

If they did what they seemed best at, leaking damaging information to the tabloids would be what they would have done to get their side out. Twisting Thomas surely showed everyone the phone numbers of the Globe, Enquirer, etc. I mean, if there was all this evidence: fibers,etc that was ignored by the Grand Jury; what better way to get some action than appealing to the tabloids for justice, BPD style, one more time? I think that the tabloid reporters would crawl out of their slimepits to again take the cry' Justice for Jonbenet[and the BPD]'. I really doubt that if the evidence was so damaging that they would have sat on it. Twisting Thomas certainly did not; but oddly, with his genius on display in his book, still there was no indictments, no arrests.

sweetcharlotte

11-13-2006, 06:53 PM

and not even a request to share his knowledge with the GJ......

docg

11-13-2006, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
>While I find his failure to report the window strange, I don't know how he would have known the lack of footprints was an issue. (And was it actually? I thought it was proved that there was ample ground that was uncovered by snow for someone to have gotten to that window as well as to several entrances to the house.

He may well have heard the police discussing the lack of footprints. That was noticed very early on. He might then have realized that without such prints or any other sign of anyone being outside the house that night, his staging wasn't going to fly. And if it didn't, he could be arrested that day.

The issue of what the lack of prints meant, whether or not it had been snowing all night, whether an intruder could have used the walkways, etc., all that became a topic of discussion much later and would not have had a bearing on John's thought processes on the morning of the 26th.

>I think that if he had staged it he would have reported it right away.

I think that if he had staged it -- and then heard the police discussing the lack of prints or any other sign of a breakin -- he'd have realized he needed to UNstage it. If he were perfectly innocent and looking for clues, as he'd claimed, he certainly would have reported seeing an open window, with glass and debris on the floor and a suitcase propped under it.

>I don't find his breaking the window to get in strange. Even forgetting he had done it is not all that strange to me. I know lots of people like that. Seems to me the whole Ramsey family was rather lacsidaisical about safety and housekeeping. IMO

Breaking a window to get into ones house is not strange. Not being able to recall when this event occured, or why he didn't have his key, or why he didn't get a copy from a neighbor, how he entered the window well or how he broke the window, or why he couldn't have broken in via a 1st floor window, so he wouldn't have to take his clothes off, which he did, now THAT is strange.

Coloradokares

11-13-2006, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
Here we go again with the vampire fibers, the undead fibers that will not rest in peace; I will say again: it was a fishing expedition to try to get John Ramsey to trip himself up trying to explain nonexistant fibers. As to Twisting Thomas, I would be willing to bet that he had that warrant under his pillow at night so that he could read it before he went to sleep each and every night. CK, I've read his book, he was the source of information to the Globe; a professional investigator would not have been leaking inside details to the press. But then, he was not professional in his conduct or his book. IMO

Then what would you have to say about Shapiro and our DA?

Coloradokares

11-13-2006, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
And I will say it again. If the BPD had any fiber evidence that connected John Ramsey that closely to the death of his daughter we would have seen add'l action taken in the past 6 years.

JMO

And I will say it again. You don't know Boulder. You don't know his pull and you didn't know our DA Alex Hunter or those who were under him. Keenan and Lacey..........

Coloradokares

11-13-2006, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
If is such a small word, but has so much meaning. If there was any such evidence; if the GJ discounted the evidence, if there was any; if the evidence was presented and discounted if there was any; if, if, if.The Grand Jury didn't call the Ramseys; however the reason they didn't, when they were in session for a year, isproblematic. IF there was actually damning fiber evidence,then why was there no indictment, of anyone. If only that could be explained.

Because a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband or visa versa. You can plead the 5th for yourself and no DNA that was a complete profile....... They created reasonable doubt with the staging within the staging that was done........it wasn't airtight> Did you think Hunter was lying when he said he would not prosecute unless it was airtight or a confession. You don't know BOULDER.

Ames

11-13-2006, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

How do we know the GJ didn't hear about it? This is a GJ that doesn't even want to hear the parents tell their story, so I woudn't be suprised if they discounted the evidence, even if presented.

If it had been presented, the fact that the GJ didn't indict is a pretty good explanation why nothing has been done for several years.

I totally agree with you on this!! I have been saying this all along.

shill

11-14-2006, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

As docg has pointed out, this wasn't anything even close to a standard police "grilling". Their lawyer was present every moment to tell them whehter or not to answer. They were treated with kid gloves.

Your opinion that lab reports would have been turned over to Lin Wood upon demand is w/o basis. Wally,
Why did they tell them about the fibers?

shill

11-14-2006, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

How do we know the GJ didn't hear about it? This is a GJ that doesn't even want to hear the parents tell their story, so I woudn't be suprised if they discounted the evidence, even if presented.

If it had been presented, the fact that the GJ didn't indict is a pretty good explanation why nothing has been done for several years. Seems like the prosecution didn't want the GJ to hear the Ramseys story. IMO because it would weaken their case.

shill

11-14-2006, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Right, so we don't know what the GJ heard, which is what I was pointing out.
The evidence has not been proven to exist.
It may exist, but all we know for sure is it's hearsay.

You need to explain how they could have such damning evidence, a smoking gun IMO, but have not pressed charges on John.

shill

11-14-2006, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

If only you could explain why the GJ didn't even want to hear the Ramseys tell their story. That's the point - this GJ wasn't much inclined to indict. They weren't even inclined to hear the principal suspects.

But the fact remains they didn't indict, so it's hardly suprising the police havn't done anyting with the evidence since '99. What would they do with it? Could the explanation be that the case against the Ramseys is a lot weaker then you think it is, and the GJ din't see the evidence the way you see it, and believe it to be weak.
Oh, but wait, that's what people have been trying to tell you by posting here, but you have your horse blinders on.

WallyCleaver

11-14-2006, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by shill
Could the explanation be that the case against the Ramseys is a lot weaker then you think it is, and the GJ din't see the evidence the way you see it, and believe it to be weak.
Oh, but wait, that's what people have been trying to tell you by posting here, but you have your horse blinders on.

Yes that's possible. It's too bad we aren't privy to the evidence the GJ saw. Still, one has to wonder why they didn't even have the Rs testify. That does seem pretty basic when a child has died in her own home - having the parents testify.

lucky13

11-14-2006, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Yes that's possible. It's too bad we aren't privy to the evidence the GJ saw. Still, one has to wonder why they didn't even have the Rs testify. That does seem pretty basic when a child has died in her own home - having the parents testify.

The Ramseys probably didn't want to testify. (They always got whatever THEY wanted) Too many versions of their story to choose from. Plus, they conveniently forget a lot of crucial facts. It's all just too confusing for them- best they keep quiet. shhh
MOO

sweetcharlotte

11-14-2006, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by lucky13

The Ramseys probably didn't want to testify. (They always got whatever THEY wanted) Too many versions of their story to choose from. Plus, they conveniently forget a lot of crucial facts. It's all just too confusing for them- best they keep quiet. shhh
MOO

If the Grand Jury had asked to hear from John or Patsy they would have been called. Not the Ramsey choice to make. JMO

LindaA

11-14-2006, 09:09 AM

Colorado, the police didn't even ask for the garments until a year later. This has been posted numerous time on many threads of this board. You make it sound as if the Rs waited a year after they wre asked to surrender them. That is not the case.

docg

11-14-2006, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by shill

The evidence has not been proven to exist.
It may exist, but all we know for sure is it's hearsay.

You need to explain how they could have such damning evidence, a smoking gun IMO, but have not pressed charges on John.

They weren't looking for a smoking gun to pin on John, they wanted one to pin on Patsy. John was "ruled out" remember? If they argued that John was molesting JonBenet, then they'd have to explain why Patsy would go to such lengths to support him, including the writing of a phoney ransom note. While certain bizarre interpretations of this case have had great appeal for many internet posters, all could easily be picked to pieces by any competent defense attorney. Hunter realized that and refused to prosecute on the basis of a case that made no sense.

sweetcharlotte

11-14-2006, 10:04 AM

How would asking John about "fibers from his shirt found in JonBenet's crotch" help pin anything on Patsy? (We're talking about the 2000 interviews, aren't we?)

docg

11-14-2006, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Yes that's possible. It's too bad we aren't privy to the evidence the GJ saw. Still, one has to wonder why they didn't even have the Rs testify. That does seem pretty basic when a child has died in her own home - having the parents testify.

The presentation of evidence was controlled by DA Hunter, NOT the members of the GJ. And the decision not to indict was made by Hunter, NOT the GJ. Hunter never permitted the GJ to make a decision. He pre-empted them by aborting the whole proceeding. Wisely, IMO, because the only case they had at that time was Patsy dunnit over bedwetting, in other words: nada.

docg

11-14-2006, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
How would asking John about "fibers from his shirt found in JonBenet's crotch" help pin anything on Patsy? (We're talking about the 2000 interviews, aren't we?)

Excellent question! If you read the transcript carefully you'll see that, far from confronting John with that fiber match, they were hoping he could provide an innocent explanation for it. They needed an innocent explanation because the scenario they had in mind was Patsy accidently killing JonBenet and John covering for her. So the fibers needed to be explained away, NOT used as a smoking gun to pin it all on John.

By far the strangest aspect of this case is NOT the murder itself but the investigation. :(

nuisanceposter

11-14-2006, 10:36 AM

Yeah, it wasn't as if this investigation was being run by the books with officials that weren't corrupt. Hunter had long-term connections with Hal Haddon, who was JR's defense attorney.

There's a reason people suggest Hunter should be brought up on charges of obstruction of justice and malfeasance in the Ramsey investigation. His conduct in the GJ alone is questionable at best.

JR couldn't even come with an innocent explanation as to how any fibers could be there - his response is indignation at even being asked such a question. I'd be a lot more likely to believe he wasn't involved if he had given an explanation for why any fibers from any of his clothing would be in his daughter's underwear and on her pubic area - after she had been wiped down, in a pair of brand new unwashed underwear that she had never worn before.

The IDI have to reject the fiber evidence, even though there's no reason to think the lawyer was lying, because they can't explain it. Not even John could explain it.

sweetcharlotte

11-14-2006, 10:36 AM

Do you think that even after Steve Thomas left the BPD the prevailing belief throughout the BPD was that Patsy accidently killed JonBenet?

nuisanceposter

11-14-2006, 10:53 AM

I'm not sure, I've never spoken to anyone in the BPD. I think anyone who can look at the evidence objectively would conclude that Patsy was the most likely killer, since fibers microscopically and chemically consistent with her clothing was found tied into the knot, on the back of the tape, and in the paint tray - plus there is a distinct lack of forensic evidence of anyone else in the house or crime scene, and she could not be ruled out as author of the note. Not to mention the inconsistent stories the Rs told coupled with their connections to the right people who bent over backwards to make non-standard allowances for them for 10 years. Judge Carnes did not get to see 40,000 pages of police documentation or she may have ruled differently.

Thomas wasn't the only person who thought RDI. He had some very impressive experts agreeing with his conclusion. I'm willing to bet there are officers on the BPD today who subscribe to RDI.

LindaA

11-14-2006, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

What I find very very strange about the broken window story is that the window remains both broken, and uncovered for months. I live in a place that gets cold in the winter -as does Boulder- and I can tell you few people would fail to fix the window. If not with new glass, then some plastic tapped over it, or some plywood nailed over it, or some cardboard.....

We might as well call the window story what it really is - BALONEY!

Apparently they basement sayed quite warm, so the broken window might have been overlooked. People whose minds are occupied with other things tend to forget some things. I believe he told PR to get it fixed, the forgot all about it. Not baloney. Sounds quite believable to me. IMO.

Athena

11-14-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

Apparently they basement sayed quite warm, so the broken window might have been overlooked. People whose minds are occupied with other things tend to forget some things. I believe he told PR to get it fixed, the forgot all about it. Not baloney. Sounds quite believable to me. IMO.

I know I posted this before and think what you will but I had a broken window also that we did not get fixed for almost two years and it certainly wasn't for lack of money to get it fixed. We didn't go in the room all that often so it was no big deal - not important. It was finally fixed when we replaced all of the windows. I live in NY and winters are cold here too.

Out of sight; out of mind. JMO

rashomon

11-14-2006, 05:18 PM

sweetcharlotte

11-14-2006, 05:21 PM

Coloradokares

11-14-2006, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I get the idea that the Ramseys didn't sweat the small stuff.

JMO

Patsy was all about creating image and giving the perfect Impression. Doing things for the credit given. IMAGE. Yet for all the perfection she tried to portray. They had a maid who was complaining about the messes they made. I think LHP said dirty dishs stacked everywhere kids messes everwhere. The reason the knife was taken from Burke was he whittled wood wherever. Not over a basket etc. Yet it was all about the beaurty queen perfect family image.

Zoey

11-14-2006, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Patsy was all about creating image and giving the perfect Impression. Doing things for the credit given. IMAGE. Yet for all the perfection she tried to portray. They had a maid who was complaining about the messes they made. I think LHP said dirty dishs stacked everywhere kids messes everwhere. The reason the knife was taken from Burke was he whittled wood wherever. Not over a basket etc. Yet it was all about the beaurty queen perfect family image.

Isn't that why one has a maid, to clean up after them? Seems like the maid didn't do her work, if dirty dishes were stacked up, kids messes everywhere. Granted, Burke should not have been whitteling everywhere, but guess the maid should have done a better job of cleaning up. IMO.

Coloradokares

11-14-2006, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Zoey

Isn't that why one has a maid, to clean up after them? Seems like the maid didn't do her work, if dirty dishes were stacked up, kids messes everywhere. Granted, Burke should not have been whitteling everywhere, but guess the maid should have done a better job of cleaning up. IMO.

LHP didn't work every day. I think 3 days a week. She'd come get it all picture perfect . Next time would be worse than the time before. I happen to know a maid service where if that happens with them they will no longer contract with you. Your on your own. Not from my own home. But I got a friend whose grandkids are mmmmm without boundaries. She has lost 3 services now. The last one she interviewed refused to even start. I think because there are time limitations etc. I am not sure since I have not ever had need for that service myself.

rashomon

11-14-2006, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by docg
Originally posted by WallyCleaver

>But there are fibers from her jacket, rather than her sweater, in places they shouldn't be - unless I'm confused. She didn' paint with her jacket on.

It was HER paint tote. There are all sorts of ways those fibers could have got in it, whether she painted in her jacket or not.
Yeah right, Patsy must have done some painting with her Christmas party jacket on.
And four fibers from that same jacket got on the duct tape which covered her dead child's mouth.
Not to mention the fibers from this jacket which were found in the wrappings of the garrote handle.
Not hard to figure out what happened.

How would you interpret such totally damaging fiber evidence if your favorite suspect John Ramsey had left it behind, docg?

And btw, you're also totally wrong in your assumption that John Ramsey was confronted with his damaging shirt fiber evidence found in JB's panties only because the investigators considered him as a mere helper in the crime scene staging.
The investigators of course suspected him of being JB's sexual abuser - that was what they were getting at with their question.
They knew that a panel of top-flight experts had found signs of chronic sexual abuse on JB's body.

You may not have got the interviewer's message, but John Ramseys sure did: he went ballistic and accused Levin of "trying to disgrace the relationship with his daughter".

WallyCleaver

11-14-2006, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I get the idea that the Ramseys didn't sweat the small stuff.

JMO

Wasn't their house in the Parade of Homes? I know the MI house was, but I thought I'd heard of the CO house being on the Parade as well.

I ask, because someone anxious to show off their house would likely have the broken windows fixed. Of course, it might not have been Parade season.

Just a thought.

sweetcharlotte

11-14-2006, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Wasn't their house in the Parade of Homes? I know the MI house was, but I thought I'd heard of the CO house being on the Parade as well.

I ask, because someone anxious to show off their house would likely have the broken windows fixed. Of course, it might not have been Parade season.

Just a thought.

I don't think they took people to the basement. :)

shill

11-14-2006, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

You may not have got the interviewer's message, but John Ramseys sure did: he went ballistic and accused Levin of "trying to disgrace the relationship with his daughter". Well it worked, because there are definitly people who think he molested his daughter because of this accusation.
So the investigator did "disgrace the relationship with his daughter." Then and in hindsight, John was right.

Zoey

11-14-2006, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by shill
Well it worked, because there are definitly people who think he molested his daughter because of this accusation.
So the investigator did "disgrace the relationship with his daughter." Then and in hindsight, John was right.

I couldn't agree more.

Coloradokares

11-14-2006, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Zoey

I couldn't agree more.

Neither could I. However only one difference. If John did this and that is not proven at this time, but what if at some point later on proven or confessed... what then. You cannot stop short when there is concern and even the slightest evidence is there, you don't ignore that. What about the kids that are hideously abused.

How many parents when questioned say your right I sexually abused my child? Lets at least be reasonable and say if the evidence led you to that question and you didn't ask the question and it was later proven beyond all doubt, there would be a rucus from the rooftops FOUL!! you'd say the prosecutor was not doing his job and there would be a public outcry regarding that.

What if.....Our Children are molested all the time cause no one is stopping it. We are not asking enough questions when we see the danger signs and we are leaving them vulnerable unprotected and scared with no way out of the abuse. Most abusers also control the child with threats of I'll kill your mommy or daddy or your family. I'll kill you if you tell. So we have to ask the questions when there is even the slightest concern. And you can say what you want there was evidence that led to that line of questioning. Just because you choose not to believe it does not mean the evidence was not in existence.

docg

11-14-2006, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I know I posted this before and think what you will but I had a broken window also that we did not get fixed for almost two years and it certainly wasn't for lack of money to get it fixed. We didn't go in the room all that often so it was no big deal - not important. It was finally fixed when we replaced all of the windows. I live in NY and winters are cold here too.

Out of sight; out of mind. JMO

Well, that's the difference between you and the Ramseys, Athena. You remembered whether or not your window was repaired. Neither of them could. Not in 1997 -- nor when they were questioned about it in '98. If the window HAD been repaired prior to their daughter's murder, that would have been HUGE. But neither was interested in learning more about it.

docg

11-14-2006, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Patsy was all about creating image and giving the perfect Impression. Doing things for the credit given. IMAGE. Yet for all the perfection she tried to portray. They had a maid who was complaining about the messes they made. I think LHP said dirty dishs stacked everywhere kids messes everwhere. The reason the knife was taken from Burke was he whittled wood wherever. Not over a basket etc. Yet it was all about the beaurty queen perfect family image.

Is THAT why you think she killed her daughter? To polish her image?

Ames

11-14-2006, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by docg

Well, that's the difference between you and the Ramseys, Athena. You remembered whether or not your window was repaired. Neither of them could. Not in 1997 -- nor when they were questioned about it in '98. If the window HAD been repaired prior to their daughter's murder, that would have been HUGE. But neither was interested in learning more about it.

Well, in your theory, Patsy was not involved at all in JB's murder, right? I wonder then, why she wasn't interested in finding out if the window had been repaired or not, considering it would have been vital information? Doesn't make sense, if she was NOT involved, to not want to find out more about when and if that window was repaired....that to me, sounds simple enough to find out. They could take the phone book and call around and check for window repair people, in Boulder...there would not have been all that many...and see if one of them has a file on them. How hard could that have been? I am sorry...if Patsy wasn't involved in some sort of way, she would have been asking questions about that window. I, too...would have remembered if I had of had a window in my home repaired. Yet, another suspicious act by BOTH of the Ramseys...IMO

Coloradokares

11-14-2006, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by docg

Is THAT why you think she killed her daughter? To polish her image?

Docg Please find me one just one forum posting here or other forums where I have ever said I think Patsy Ramsey is the one who killed JonBenet. I will say this one more time. I am content to leave it to a courtroom to decide this matter. A jury of peers. I'd have to see all the evidence same as anyone else before I would be comfortable in saying something like that. I knew people who knew Patsy pretty well. Patsy also had a reputation in Boulder for being charming, she could charm the honeysuckle right off the vine. And being a firebrand to contend with .... you don't get it do you guys. JonBenet died and they have not found even a smidget of proof of your intruder yet.

docg

11-14-2006, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

>Yeah right, Patsy must have done some painting with her Christmas party jacket on.

You're suggesting she came into contact with her paint tote ONLY when she was painting? I suppose you feel the same way about her prints on the pineapple bowl? She had that in her hands only when eating pineapple with her daughter prior to killing her? Just maybe, she might have arranged her paintbrushes one day while wearing the jacket. Or after handling the jacket, putting it away? Or maybe John came into contact with the jacket at some point that evening? You're saying JonBenet could only have come in contact with it while being murdered?

>And four fibers from that same jacket got on the duct tape which covered her dead child's mouth.
Not to mention the fibers from this jacket which were found in the wrappings of the garrote handle.
Not hard to figure out what happened.

Patsy was in close contact with JonBenet all evening. Why wouldn't fibers from a jacket that obviously shed very easily be all over her? Why wouldn't some of them have transferred to the crime scene? Why wouldn't some have transferred to John?

>How would you interpret such totally damaging fiber evidence if your favorite suspect John Ramsey had left it behind, docg?

Since the evidence isn't even mildly damaging, I wouldn't bother with it. John's fibers in JonBenet's pants are far more interesting.

>And btw, you're also totally wrong in your assumption that John Ramsey was confronted with his damaging shirt fiber evidence found in JB's panties only because the investigators considered him as a mere helper in the crime scene staging.
The investigators of course suspected him of being JB's sexual abuser - that was what they were getting at with their question.
They knew that a panel of top-flight experts had found signs of chronic sexual abuse on JB's body.

Steve Thomas gave John "a pass." I think his thinking reflects the thinking of the Keystone Kops generally. They were totally focused on Patsy, as you are. If that were not the case, they'd have taken a much harder look at that ridiculous decision to rule him out.

shill

11-15-2006, 12:34 AM

shill

11-15-2006, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

.... you don't get it do you guys. JonBenet died and they have not found even a smidget of proof of your intruder yet. Sounds like the Ramseys spent to much time on staging everything but an intruder entering the house.
Maybe they wanted to frame themselves.
Do you think John and Patsy discussed whether they needed to make it look like someone broke into the house, but decided not to so they would look suspicious?
I guess I don't get it.

MissOtisRegrets

11-15-2006, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by shill
Sounds like the Ramseys spent to much time on staging everything but an intruder entering the house.
Maybe they wanted to frame themselves.
Do you think John and Patsy discussed whether they needed to make it look like someone broke into the house, but decided not to so they would look suspicious?
I guess I don't get it.

Let's see......garrotting and molestation of our daughter to suggest pschotic perv outsider. Inappropriate underpants and ransom note from small foreign faction threatening to behead our daughter and written on my stationary to sugget same. A stun gun they'll never find and we wouldn't have to use. I can't think of anything else to point away from us and towards an intruder, can you, dear?

No, I think that's it. We've covered all the bases.

MissOtisRegrets

11-15-2006, 12:56 AM

If the Ramseys were staging an intruder, why would John tell them he had broken the window, himself?

docg

11-15-2006, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Well, in your theory, Patsy was not involved at all in JB's murder, right? I wonder then, why she wasn't interested in finding out if the window had been repaired or not, considering it would have been vital information? Doesn't make sense, if she was NOT involved, to not want to find out more about when and if that window was repaired....that to me, sounds simple enough to find out. They could take the phone book and call around and check for window repair people, in Boulder...there would not have been all that many...and see if one of them has a file on them. How hard could that have been? I am sorry...if Patsy wasn't involved in some sort of way, she would have been asking questions about that window. I, too...would have remembered if I had of had a window in my home repaired. Yet, another suspicious act by BOTH of the Ramseys...IMO

You have a point, sure. But if Patsy WAS involved, there's no way she'd have called 911 knowing the body was in the basement. I can't buy any intruder theory. And I can't buy John's story about breaking in earlier. Am I therefore stuck? And shouldn't you be stuck too, assuming you take this matter seriously and want to consider ALL the evidence?

If Patsy being both innocent and lying makes no sense, then how does Patsy being guilty and calling the police on herself make sense?

My solution to this mess is to go with what I know for sure. I know Patsy called 911, and I know when she made the call. I can't imagine how that call could have been made at that time if she either wrote the note or even knew about its existence. Because that call simply destroyed the whole effect of the kidnap staging and made the note into a liability.

I also feel sure Patsy lied. But I CAN imagine she could have been manipulated into lying in order to avoid coming into conflict with John and in effect calling HIM a liar. While IMO she has lied more than once, it has always been to back up John's version of what happened.

Do I think she really forgot whether the window was ever repaired? No, I feel sure the window had NOT been broken earlier and obviously she knew that. So what could have been going through Patsy's mind? Remember, John was "ruled out" as writer of the note, which for her would be proof positive of his innocence. Which would have made it easy for him to manipulate her. If the window hadn't been broken earlier and John was, in her mind, innocent, then the ONLY explanation that would have made any sense to her was that it HAD to have been broken by "the intruder."

Perhaps John convinced her the police would accuse THEM of staging the window breakin unless she backed up his story about breaking it earlier. That story is his alibi. Without it, the police would have assumed that either he or Patsy had broken that window on the night of the murder, and maybe that's how he was able to manipulate her into lying to back him up.

I don't know. I have no way of knowing what might have gone on between them after the crime and after John had been "ruled out." But I DO know for sure that NO one could possibly have written that "ransom note" and then called 911 first thing in the AM. And there was no intruder, that's for sure. So I guess I'm falling back on Sherlock Holmes' old dictum:

When you've eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

shill

11-15-2006, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
If the Ramseys were staging an intruder, why would John tell them he had broken the window, himself? I was thinking that earlier. Probably John didn't think the police suspected him and the police were leaning towards an intruder, so John lied and said he broke the window to throw them off the path of the intruder and onto him.

shill

11-15-2006, 03:37 AM

Have any of you RDI people even read this courtTV crime library story?
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/evidence_2.html

WallyCleaver

11-15-2006, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
If the Ramseys were staging an intruder, why would John tell them he had broken the window, himself?

Because no one in the neighborhood reported hearing glass breaking, and no one saw a suspicious person skulking around outside the R's home. An already broken window offers the perfect point of entry.

WallyCleaver

11-15-2006, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by docg

You have a point, sure. But if Patsy WAS involved, there's no way she'd have called 911 knowing the body was in the basement. I can't buy any intruder theory. And I can't buy John's story about breaking in earlier. Am I therefore stuck? And shouldn't you be stuck too, assuming you take this matter seriously and want to consider ALL the evidence?

If Patsy being both innocent and lying makes no sense, then how does Patsy being guilty and calling the police on herself make sense?

My solution to this mess is to go with what I know for sure. I know Patsy called 911, and I know when she made the call. I can't imagine how that call could have been made at that time if she either wrote the note or even knew about its existence. Because that call simply destroyed the whole effect of the kidnap staging and made the note into a liability.

I also feel sure Patsy lied. But I CAN imagine she could have been manipulated into lying in order to avoid coming into conflict with John and in effect calling HIM a liar. While IMO she has lied more than once, it has always been to back up John's version of what happened.

Do I think she really forgot whether the window was ever repaired? No, I feel sure the window had NOT been broken earlier and obviously she knew that. So what could have been going through Patsy's mind? Remember, John was "ruled out" as writer of the note, which for her would be proof positive of his innocence. Which would have made it easy for him to manipulate her. If the window hadn't been broken earlier and John was, in her mind, innocent, then the ONLY explanation that would have made any sense to her was that it HAD to have been broken by "the intruder."

Perhaps John convinced her the police would accuse THEM of staging the window breakin unless she backed up his story about breaking it earlier. That story is his alibi. Without it, the police would have assumed that either he or Patsy had broken that window on the night of the murder, and maybe that's how he was able to manipulate her into lying to back him up.

I don't know. I have no way of knowing what might have gone on between them after the crime and after John had been "ruled out." But I DO know for sure that NO one could possibly have written that "ransom note" and then called 911 first thing in the AM. And there was no intruder, that's for sure. So I guess I'm falling back on Sherlock Holmes' old dictum:

When you've eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

If they were in on it together, but for some reason couldn't dump the body, then it would make sense for one of them to call. It wouldn't really matter which one.

Why couldn't they dump the body? I don't know. Emotionally, they just might not have been able. Or they may have feared nieghbors seeing them leave - wouldn't look good if JR got the car out at 3:30 am, comes back at 5:30 and then they make the call at 5:45.

shill

11-15-2006, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Because no one in the neighborhood reported hearing glass breaking, and no one saw a suspicious person skulking around outside the R's home. An already broken window offers the perfect point of entry. So the window was already broken like John said , or someone would have heard it.
And your right, it is a perfect point of entry.
Weird how it all makes sense.

sweetcharlotte

11-15-2006, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Let's see......garrotting and molestation of our daughter to suggest pschotic perv outsider. Inappropriate underpants and ransom note from small foreign faction threatening to behead our daughter and written on my stationary to sugget same. A stun gun they'll never find and we wouldn't have to use. I can't think of anything else to point away from us and towards an intruder, can you, dear?

No, I think that's it. We've covered all the bases.

Yep......and all in one short evening.........

LindaA

11-15-2006, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

Imo RDIs don't 'vacillate' between those scenarios but try to take everything into account which may have motivated the Ramseys' actions on that tragic night. For example, the fact that the Ramseys were panic-driven doesn't rule out that they tried to throw others under the bus, like the housekeeper. In fact, their panic may actually have driven them to consider such a possibility and act accordingly.

I was speaking strictly of their behavior on the night the crime was committed, not what they did later. And, IMO, the RDIs switch back and forth between the two approaches whenever it promotes the RDI theory.

LindaA

11-15-2006, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by MaryD

Does anyone know how broken this window was? Was it a full pane? A hole or what? Another question is didn't the Rams say they gave keys to different people, if so why didn't they call one of them to ask for a spare key if they got locked out?

The phone was locked inside the house and JR didn't have their numbers programmed into his cell?

rashomon

11-15-2006, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by docg
Steve Thomas gave John "a pass." I think his thinking reflects the thinking of the Keystone Kops generally. They were totally focused on Patsy, as you are. If that were not the case, they'd have taken a much harder look at that ridiculous decision to rule him out. [/B]
Docg,

Steve Thomas gave John a pass just like you give Patsy a pass. You are not that different from Steve Thomas in that respect, only that you are as focused on John as he was on Patsy. I think it is a ridiculous decision to rule any of the parents out.

Patsy's fibers in so many incriminating places at the crime scene itself can't be explained away, however hard you try.
These fibers imo are far more damaging than Patsy's fingerprints on the bowl, to answer your question.
Sure one can try to explain away this fiber evidence.
But the same goes for John's fibers in JB's underwear. I don't want to give the IDIs any fodder, lol, but if I were an IDI, I'd of course say: "We know that JonBenet asked all kinds of people to wipe her after she used the toilet, therefore John's fibers could have gotten there as he helped her with that." See what I mean?

You can always try to explain something "away". But how probable and convincing is such an explanation? How probable is it that someone would even come near e. g. her paint tote when she had her Christmas party clothes on? The last thing I'd want to come in contact with when wearing my party clothes would be my paint tote.
Pasty also said she was never down in the wine cellar on that tragic night, so how on earth did they get in the paint tote?

You say all the of Patsy's fibers were transferred to John and that's why they were found in the garrote, etc.
Ok, but the same then could be said of John's fibers in JB's underpants of course.
Let's see: "Patsy came in contact with John's shirt and then Patsy transferred the fibers to JB's underwear."

This was just an little demonstration in logic to show you that it works both ways.

But I don't think any secondhand fiber transfer theory will pass the 'Occam's Razor' test: OR tells us always to look for the simplest explanantion first. And per Occam's Razor, the fibers were a direct transfer from BOTH Patsy and John.

And don't forget that Patsy was among the few people who could not be ruled out as the writer of the ransom note.

sweetcharlotte

11-15-2006, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by LindaA

The phone was locked inside the house and JR didn't have their numbers programmed into his cell?

And it was JR - not "they."

Patsy had a key hidden outside - she would have known how to get in the house.

JMO

rashomon

11-15-2006, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by LindaA

I was speaking strictly of their behavior on the night the crime was committed, not what they did later. And, IMO, the RDIs switch back and forth between the two approaches whenever it promotes the RDI theory.

I was speaking of their behavior on that same night too. I think they already directed suspicion on the housekeeper when writing the ransnom note, since they had no choice but to write the note on pen and paper from their own home.
And I think the $118,000 was taken to point to soemeone at Access Graphics, Jeff Merrick maybe who had had a conflict with John Ramsey.
In their ransom note, the Ramseys just threw everything in the mix, hoping that some at least some would be swallowed by the investigators.
Which is why the note is such a jumbled mess, and it was the Ramseys which produced such a jumbled mess, not the RDIs, who have analyzed this jumbled mess and pointed out its inherent contradictions.

MissOtisRegrets

11-15-2006, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by shill
I was thinking that earlier. Probably John didn't think the police suspected him and the police were leaning towards an intruder, so John lied and said he broke the window to throw them off the path of the intruder and onto him.

Of course. More staging. Very clever. :D

rashomon

11-15-2006, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by shill
So the window was already broken like John said , or someone would have heard it.
And your right, it is a perfect point of entry.
Weird how it all makes sense.
Sure it would make sense for the Ramseys to choose the basement for all their crime scene staging if they had window there which was already broken. :)

Remember that ridiculous picture where that scrawny little man Lou Smit hardly managed to sqeeze himself through this window? Priceless.
But wait - maybe the intruder was Spiderman? To bad his alibi has never been checked by the Blunder Police Department! :D

LadyFisher

11-15-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

Sure it would make sense for the Ramseys to choose the basement for all their crime scene staging if they had window there which was already broken. :)

Remember that ridiculous picture where that scrawny little man Lou Smit hardly managed to sqeeze himself through this window? Priceless.
But wait - maybe the intruder was Spiderman? To bad his alibi has never been checked by the Blunder Police Department! :D ....................I am more inclined to believe the perp was the "GREEN GOBLIN", DR. OCTOPUS, or VENOM than I am the Ramseys! The goblin left the house with the remaining duct tape, cord, gloves, cloth he wiped JB down with, & STUN GUN, but left behind DNA & pubic hair! :seeya:

docg

11-15-2006, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

>If they were in on it together, but for some reason couldn't dump the body, then it would make sense for one of them to call. It wouldn't really matter which one.

But it would NOT make sense for them to hand the police a now pointless "ransom note," printed by one of them. That would be handing them evidence pointing directly to whomever wrote it. If the call had never been made, it would have been easy for them to both dump the body and get rid of the note, after making a copy to give the authorities. With the body still in the house the whole point of the note is lost, and it looks very much like what it was, staging.

>Why couldn't they dump the body? I don't know. Emotionally, they just might not have been able. Or they may have feared nieghbors seeing them leave - wouldn't look good if JR got the car out at 3:30 am, comes back at 5:30 and then they make the call at 5:45.

I thought you were familiar with my theory, Wally. If they didn't call the police, they could have cancelled their travel plans and would have had a full 24 hours to dump the body and get rid of all evidence, including the note itself. No need to call them at 5:45 AM on the 26th or at any time that day. The note gave them the perfect excuse, in case their car had been spotted near where the body would ultimately be found: they were delivering the ransom. Which is, IMO, what John was planning to do on his own before an obviously innocent Patsy called the police and shredded his plan.

docg

11-15-2006, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by shill
So the window was already broken like John said , or someone would have heard it.
And your right, it is a perfect point of entry.
Weird how it all makes sense.

It's obvious to me that the window was broken the night of the crime, NOT before. It's not difficult to quietly break a window. It was only a small break anyhow, described as "baseball size."

It had to have been a fresh break when the investigators examined the glass. If not, no one would have bothered to question both Patsy and John about it at such length, not only in '97 but also '98. If the break had been old, with a layer of dirt and dust on the edges of the glass, John's story about breaking it earlier would have been accepted and there'd have been no need to question them further about it.

Moreover, John's story is simply not credible. He can't recall when or how or what or where or why. If he'd forgotten his key he could easily have gotten one of the many copies in the hands of various friends, the Whites, the Barnhills, etc.

Why would he lie about it? Well, according to my theory, he had a plan that got foiled when Patsy called the police while the body was still in the house. The police arrived long before he expected them to. I think he broke the window as part of an intruder staging, but his staging wasn't yet complete. When the police noticed no prints outside he must have panicked and decided to unstage. That's consistent with his not reporting it when he initially saw the window open and then closed it. He closed the window and later claimed he'd broken it earlier. Classic misdirection. Very clever. Very manipulative. Very effective.

sweetcharlotte

11-15-2006, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by docg

<snip>

Very clever. Very manipulative. Very effective.

Too clever, too manipulative for a 1st time killer - especially of his own daughter. Sorry I don't buy it.

JMO

docg

11-15-2006, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Too clever, too manipulative for a 1st time killer - especially of his own daughter. Sorry I don't buy it.

JMO

And you know he's a first time killer how? Because he was a "respectable businessman"? John Ramsey spent a great deal of his time away from home, on various "business trips." He even spent the best part of Xmas day away from home, at the airport. He was obviously NOT the type of dad he's been portrayed as, focused on home, wife, family and kids. We actually know very little about him, especially since he spent so much of his time abroad.

Far too many assumptions have been made regarding this family and this case. I prefer to stick with the evidence.

sweetcharlotte

11-15-2006, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by docg

And you know he's a first time killer how? Because he was a "respectable businessman"? John Ramsey spent a great deal of his time away from home, on various "business trips." He even spent the best part of Xmas day away from home, at the airport. He was obviously NOT the type of dad he's been portrayed as, focused on home, wife, family and kids. We actually know very little about him, especially since he spent so much of his time abroad.

Far too many assumptions have been made regarding this family and this case. I prefer to stick with the evidence.

I don't know what you've read about John Ramsey that makes you think he isn't what he has been portrayed to be, but he sounds like a typical businessman/CEO/husband/father to me.

The bit about so much time abroad is interesting. Specifically what time abroad?

nuisanceposter

11-15-2006, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by docg

And you know he's a first time killer how? Because he was a "respectable businessman"? John Ramsey spent a great deal of his time away from home, on various "business trips." He even spent the best part of Xmas day away from home, at the airport. He was obviously NOT the type of dad he's been portrayed as, focused on home, wife, family and kids. We actually know very little about him, especially since he spent so much of his time abroad.

Far too many assumptions have been made regarding this family and this case. I prefer to stick with the evidence.

That's a very good point. He wasn't there at the home with the fam all that much. He wasn't with Patsy when she was facing her cancer ordeal. He wasn't at home when JonBenet cried to the gardener about how she missed her daddy. He wasn't there helping JonBenet ride her new bike on Christmas Day. How do kids spell love, John? T-I-M-E.

We don't know what he was doing all those times when he wasn't around.

sweetcharlotte

11-15-2006, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

That's a very good point. He wasn't there at the home with the fam all that much. He wasn't with Patsy when she was facing her cancer ordeal. He wasn't at home when JonBenet cried to the gardener about how she missed her daddy. He wasn't there helping JonBenet ride her new bike on Christmas Day. How do kids spell love, John? T-I-M-E.

We don't know what he was doing all those times when he wasn't around.

Have we worn out fibers, etc.?

Are we going to start concentrating now on John and all of his failures as a husband/dad?

Let's not forget that we haven't see him crying in public and that he seems cold.......

And be sure and re-hash the bit about the scarf he put in JonBenet's casket........

JMO

nuisanceposter

11-15-2006, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I don't know what you've read about John Ramsey that makes you think he isn't what he has been portrayed to be, but he sounds like a typical businessman/CEO/husband/father to me.

The bit about so much time abroad is interesting. Specifically what time abroad?

He's proven himself to be a liar. He's changed his story and contradicted himself more than once. He's the type of man who will cheat on his wife and sneak around behind her back until he gets caught.

Here is some insight into JR that doesn't come from the RST:

http://www.supportramseytruth.com/index2.htm

sweetcharlotte

11-15-2006, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

He's proven himself to be a liar. He's changed his story and contradicted himself more than once. He's the type of man who will cheat on his wife and sneak around behind her back until he gets caught.

Here is some insight into JR that doesn't come from the RST:

http://www.supportramseytruth.com/index2.htm

Oh, PLEAs................

nuisanceposter

11-15-2006, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Have we worn out fibers, etc.?

Are we going to start concentrating now on John and all of his failures as a husband/dad?

Let's not forget that we haven't see him crying in public and that he seems cold.......

And be sure and re-hash the bit about the scarf he put in JonBenet's casket........

JMO

Well, you do get to a stalemate at a certain point, so...yes. I could go and retrieve all the info I have about signs of previous molestation in JonBenet and write a big long post, but I've already put it all up on this board before (I'm sure you could find it easily enough with a search), and I highly doubt you would be swayed to change your opinion.

I'd like my time spent on crime MBs to be somewhat enjoyable. I like this JBR board because the IDI here are good at standing their ground and present a challenge, but I don't want to become stressed about conversation here. When it looks like we're just going in circles, I'd prefer to agree to disagree and move on to another topic. There's so much evidence here to discuss anyway.

WallyCleaver

11-15-2006, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by shill
So the window was already broken like John said , or someone would have heard it.
And your right, it is a perfect point of entry.
Weird how it all makes sense.

I've always wondered about the fact that no one heard the glass break. That's a fair point.

And yet, there were a few glass fragments on the floor, and one would suppose they'd have been swept up over the course of a several months. An intruder wouldn't have come through the window frame where the glass was broken, he'd simply have reached in and unlatched the window and then swing it open. It opened inwards. Of course, if it was already unlatched, then there'd be no need for a broken window to reach through.

And of course there is the housekeeper's denial that the window was broken, or that she ever helped PR clean up glass.

As for point of entry, we know that no one went through the window. It's been discussed endlesly on this and other boards. The marks that would have been made by someone dragging their fanny across that sill just weren't there. And then there's the spider web. But no sense going over all that again, IDIs will see it one way, RDI the other, and never the twain shall meet.

rashomon

11-15-2006, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Of course. More staging. Very clever. :D
But John Ramsey was not nearly as clever as the real intruder, who imitated Patsy's handwriting to perfection and even used pen and paper from her own home. And who, diabolically clever that guy I must say , pinched fibers from her jacket and entwined it in incriminating locations. And then he did the same with the fibers from John's shirt. :D

WallyCleaver

11-15-2006, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

Docg,

...

You can always try to explain something "away". But how probable and convincing is such an explanation? How probable is it that someone would even come near e. g. her paint tote when she had her Christmas party clothes on? The last thing I'd want to come in contact with when wearing my party clothes would be my paint tote.
Pasty also said she was never down in the wine cellar on that tragic night, so how on earth did they get in the paint tote?
...

A fair point, you must admit. Wouldn't want to take a chance on getting paint on good clothes.

...

You say all the of Patsy's fibers were transferred to John and that's why they were found in the garrote, etc.
Ok, but the same then could be said of John's fibers in JB's underpants of course.
Let's see: "Patsy came in contact with John's shirt and then Patsy transferred the fibers to JB's underwear." ...

I think he's got you there doc. If fibers transfer that easily, then it should be no problem for them to jump from JR's shirt, to PR's jacket to JB when PR wiped her after she went potty. And I think it was you who mentioned they probably stood close together for photos at the party.

I do think the IDIs have one valid question concerning the shrit fibers - are these supposed to be the same dark fibers originally thought to be blue, and from a washcloth?

rashomon

11-15-2006, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Have we worn out fibers, etc.?
JMO
IDIs don't like to discuss the fiber evidence, for obvious reasons because it implicates both Ramseys.
But the fiber evidence is pivotal in this case. It is hard evidence whose significance can't be stressed enough.
The fiber evidence is just as much the 'big bugaboo' in this case as the pineapple, if not even more so.

WallyCleaver

11-15-2006, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by docg
Originally posted by WallyCleaver

>If they were in on it together, but for some reason couldn't dump the body, then it would make sense for one of them to call. It wouldn't really matter which one.

But it would NOT make sense for them to hand the police a now pointless "ransom note," printed by one of them. That would be handing them evidence pointing directly to whomever wrote it. If the call had never been made, it would have been easy for them to both dump the body and get rid of the note, after making a copy to give the authorities. With the body still in the house the whole point of the note is lost, and it looks very much like what it was, staging.

>Why couldn't they dump the body? I don't know. Emotionally, they just might not have been able. Or they may have feared nieghbors seeing them leave - wouldn't look good if JR got the car out at 3:30 am, comes back at 5:30 and then they make the call at 5:45.

I thought you were familiar with my theory, Wally. If they didn't call the police, they could have cancelled their travel plans and would have had a full 24 hours to dump the body and get rid of all evidence, including the note itself. No need to call them at 5:45 AM on the 26th or at any time that day. The note gave them the perfect excuse, in case their car had been spotted near where the body would ultimately be found: they were delivering the ransom. Which is, IMO, what John was planning to do on his own before an obviously innocent Patsy called the police and shredded his plan.

I'm largely in agreement with you. I'm not trying to tear apart your theory - it's a good one. I'm just trying to get you to admit that it's possible that it didn't go down exactly as you've theorized.

It does make more sense that a RN would be part of a plan that included getting rid of the body. I'm just asking you to suppose that for some reason the couldn't get rid of the body. Now what? They could destroy the note, and have no evidence at all of an intruder, or keep it and have something that just might be sold to a jury - reasonable doubt. IMO they had to have some kind of note.

I know what your saying about time, but consider that they still might be seen leaving, and even with the "perfect excuse" someone of a suspicious turn of mind might have found the excuse too convienient. If they had done as you suggest, wouldn't someone right now be saying - "Well, they might have faked the RN to give them time to dump the body, and give them an excuse for driving away for 3 or 4 hours." IOW I'm not sure it's all that perfect an excuse. Police might still be very suspicious, given the lack of intruder evidence. In addition, if there car had been seen in a certain area, then it might not have taken long for police to find the body.

I'm not sure kidnappers would want the ransom dropped near where the body was. So if the car was spotted in an area, and that area searched, and the body found, that would look pretty bad.

They (or one of them) had two decisions to make. Dump the body or not, and when to call 911. If for some reason they decided not to dump the body, then there's no problem with PR making the call because it's got to be done and it makes no difference which one places the call, and no problem doing it at 5:45. In fact the earlier the better, as it coincides with when they had to get up in the morning.

rashomon

11-15-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
....................I am more inclined to believe the perp was the "GREEN GOBLIN", DR. OCTOPUS, or VENOM than I am the Ramseys! The goblin left the house with the remaining duct tape, cord, gloves, cloth he wiped JB down with, & STUN GUN, but left behind DNA & pubic hair! :seeya:
I think we should look for someone truly crazy. The Mad Hatter comes to mind, the one from Wonderland. He probably was mad at Patsy because she didn't order her hats from him, which is why he took revenge and then framed her. Mimicked her handwriting, wrote with her pen and paper and placed her fibers in the garrote. :seeya:

LindaA

11-15-2006, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

But John Ramsey was not nearly as clever as the real intruder, who imitated Patsy's handwriting to perfection

I don't think so.

and even used pen and paper from her own home.

Why not? It was handy, and would implicate her.

And who, diabolically clever that guy I must say, pinched fibers from her jacket and entwined it in incriminating locations.
No IDI ever claimed that. Don't be silly, to use Wall's favorite word

And then he did the same with the fibers from John's shirt.

They never claimed that either.

:D

shill

11-15-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by docg

I thought you were familiar with my theory, Wally. If they didn't call the police, they could have cancelled their travel plans and would have had a full 24 hours to dump the body and get rid of all evidence, including the note itself. No need to call them at 5:45 AM on the 26th or at any time that day. The note gave them the perfect excuse, in case their car had been spotted near where the body would ultimately be found: they were delivering the ransom. Which is, IMO, what John was planning to do on his own before an obviously innocent Patsy called the police and shredded his plan. I believe this is a possible explanation for the ransom note.
But why would John want to get rid of the note?