Foresenic Evidence Discussion

[Athena]

Originally posted by rashomon

I too don't think that JB ever made it to bed that night. But I thought in terms of maybe toilet rage being at the origin of the tragedy: a wetting accident doesn't necessarily mean it was been a BEDwetting accident, so maybe this happened while JB was still up.
But then why would her bladder still have shed urine via post-mortem release?

But wasn't the Ramseys' story that they had put a sleeping JB straight to bed? I don't recall exactly, for they have changed parts of their story so often (imo they did this to make it fit the evidence, which points to their guilt).
Does anyone remember if Patsy said JB wet the bed on that night?

No -- and it has not been proven that JRB wet her bed. It all started with Thomas' book.

Excerpt from Thomas' book and his depo:

16 "Later JonBenet awakened after

17 wetting her bed, as indicated by the plastic

18 sheets, the urine stains, the pull-up diaper

19 package hanging halfway out of a cabinet, and

20 the balled-up turtleneck found in the

21 bathroom. I concluded that the little girl

22 had worn the red turtleneck to bed, as her

23 mother originally said, and that it was

24 stripped off when it got wet.




10 Q. I'm sorry, when do you believe

11 this event took place where Meyer was going

12 through the autopsy findings where Henry Lee

13 was present?

14 A. I believe this was in 1997 at the

15 Boulder Police Department.

16 Q. Do you know when in 1997?

17 A. My best guess would be maybe

18 March, February.

19 Q. Reading on. "Were there

20 corresponding stains on the bed sheets? We

21 didn't know, although when the crime became a

22 murder instead of a kidnapping, those sheets

23 should have been promptly collected for

24 testing." Have I read that correctly?

25 A. Yes.

278

1 Q. Well, you didn't know in February,

2 are you telling me that you found out

3 subsequent in time that the sheets were wet?

4 When did you find out,

5 Mr. Thomas --

6 MR. DIAMOND: Go ahead.

7 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Let me -- why

8 don't you just tell me, when did you first

9 find out that the sheets were wet?

10 A. I do not think the sheets were

11 collected promptly. I think it was after the

12 fact. And one of the questions of this

13 investigation was that no one had checked the

14 bed on the morning of the 26th prior to a

15 wet bed possibly drying whether or not the

16 bed was wet. But the sheets nonetheless were

17 collected and described to me as being urine

18 stained and just recently saw something

19 corroborating that when Mr. Smit appeared on

20 the Today Show and there was a comment from

21 the CBI about that.

22 Q. Traces of creatinine were found;

23 is that what you're talking about?

24 A. I don't think that is what they

25 said on the NBC show.

279

1 Q. What did they say?

2 A. I think it said a CBI source said

3 the sheets were or appeared to be urine

4 stained.

5 Q. Let's go back and find out not so

6 much what NBC was talking about. Let's find

7 out what the police knew. Were the sheets

8 collected on December 26th, 1996 or not?

9 A. They were -- I don't know. I

10 wasn't there.

11 Q. What did you find out about it?

12 A. That at some point during the ten

13 days subsequent to December 26, 1996, when

14 the house was a crime scene, those sheets

15 were collected.

16 Q. At such time as they would have,

17 if wet, been dry; is that what you're telling

18 me?

19 A. Possibly.

[Ames]

Originally posted by rashomon

I too don't think that JB ever made it to bed that night. But I thought in terms of maybe toilet rage being at the origin of the tragedy: a wetting accident doesn't necessarily mean it was been a BEDwetting accident, so maybe this happened while JB was still up.
But then why would her bladder still have shed urine via post-mortem release?

But wasn't the Ramseys' story that they had put a sleeping JB straight to bed? I don't recall exactly, for they have changed parts of their story so often (imo they did this to make it fit the evidence, which points to their guilt).
Does anyone remember if Patsy said JB wet the bed on that night?

Well, at first, John said that he read to her and that she was awake, and then they said that she was asleep when she got home from the party. So...I don't know which one it was. Still don't think that she made it to bed that night, either...though. IMO

[Athena]

Interesting article about enhanced DNA testing:

Last Updated: Wednesday, 4 October 2006, 12:11 GMT 13:11 UK

New DNA test to solve more cases

The test will allow about 40% more DNA samples to be identified
Tens of thousands of unsolved crimes could be cracked with a new forensic technique, it has been claimed.
The Forensic Science Service (FSS) is piloting a computer-based analysis system which can interpret previously unintelligible DNA samples.

http://tinyurl.com/jpj9n

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Ames



I am an RDI (just in case you couldn't tell). I read where Patsy said that they no longer used the plastic cover on JB's bed (I will try and find that link....I would not make that up, though...lol). If thats the case, though, the mattress would have been wet too. From what I have read, Patsy said that JB DID wet the bed, and that she changed her, though. You could be right about the long johns, which means that Patsy did NOT change her. Patsy could have been lying about that part...I believe that she has lied about alot of things. I USED to think that Patsy accidently killed JB for wetting the bed...the only thing that I found strange, is what Patsy said about the plastic cover not being used. Just thought that there would be NO way to dry the mattress (unless of course, they used a hair dryer on it). IMO

Again...there was a cover on her mattress:

ST: Was that the case on the night of the 25th.

PR: I don’t remember.

ST: Do you know which bed that Burke normally slept in, in his room. Was it the . . .

PR: First one in, the . . .

ST: Okay.

PR: Right as you go in the door.

ST: And if, on occasion, JonBenet would go sleep in Burke’s room would she get into the other bed.

PR: She’d be in, yeah.

ST: Okay. Um, what would cause that? That she got scared at night or . . .

PR: No, just, I mean, that happened very seldom and uh, I think, oh, I think one time when I reading to Burke and, she and Burke in Burke’s room and she feel asleep in that bed so I just let her sleep there or something, but I didn’t, you know, usually I’d get her back in her bed cause she would, occasionally wet the bed and her bed had a plastic wrap on it and that one didn’t so I . . .

ST: Move her to the other bed.

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Again...there was a cover on her mattress:

ST: Was that the case on the night of the 25th.

PR: I don’t remember.

ST: Do you know which bed that Burke normally slept in, in his room. Was it the . . .

PR: First one in, the . . .

ST: Okay.

PR: Right as you go in the door.

ST: And if, on occasion, JonBenet would go sleep in Burke’s room would she get into the other bed.

PR: She’d be in, yeah.

ST: Okay. Um, what would cause that? That she got scared at night or . . .

PR: No, just, I mean, that happened very seldom and uh, I think, oh, I think one time when I reading to Burke and, she and Burke in Burke’s room and she feel asleep in that bed so I just let her sleep there or something, but I didn’t, you know, usually I’d get her back in her bed cause she would, occasionally wet the bed and her bed had a plastic wrap on it and that one didn’t so I . . .

ST: Move her to the other bed.

She meant at that particular time...she said "HAD". It was either the housekeeper or Patsy...cannot remember which...that said that the plastic covers were not being used at the time of her death. I have no idea why, and I will try and find the link....IMO

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Athena


No -- and it has not been proven that JRB wet her bed. It all started with Thomas' book.

Excerpt from Thomas' book and his depo:

16 "Later JonBenet awakened after

17 wetting her bed, as indicated by the plastic

18 sheets, the urine stains, the pull-up diaper

19 package hanging halfway out of a cabinet, and

20 the balled-up turtleneck found in the

21 bathroom. I concluded that the little girl

22 had worn the red turtleneck to bed, as her

23 mother originally said, and that it was

24 stripped off when it got wet.




10 Q. I'm sorry, when do you believe

11 this event took place where Meyer was going

12 through the autopsy findings where Henry Lee

13 was present?

14 A. I believe this was in 1997 at the

15 Boulder Police Department.

16 Q. Do you know when in 1997?

17 A. My best guess would be maybe

18 March, February.

19 Q. Reading on. "Were there

20 corresponding stains on the bed sheets? We

21 didn't know, although when the crime became a

22 murder instead of a kidnapping, those sheets

23 should have been promptly collected for

24 testing." Have I read that correctly?

25 A. Yes.

278

1 Q. Well, you didn't know in February,

2 are you telling me that you found out

3 subsequent in time that the sheets were wet?

4 When did you find out,

5 Mr. Thomas --

6 MR. DIAMOND: Go ahead.

7 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Let me -- why

8 don't you just tell me, when did you first

9 find out that the sheets were wet?

10 A. I do not think the sheets were

11 collected promptly. I think it was after the

12 fact. And one of the questions of this

13 investigation was that no one had checked the

14 bed on the morning of the 26th prior to a

15 wet bed possibly drying whether or not the

16 bed was wet. But the sheets nonetheless were

17 collected and described to me as being urine

18 stained and just recently saw something

19 corroborating that when Mr. Smit appeared on

20 the Today Show and there was a comment from

21 the CBI about that.

22 Q. Traces of creatinine were found;

23 is that what you're talking about?

24 A. I don't think that is what they

25 said on the NBC show.

279

1 Q. What did they say?

2 A. I think it said a CBI source said

3 the sheets were or appeared to be urine

4 stained.

5 Q. Let's go back and find out not so

6 much what NBC was talking about. Let's find

7 out what the police knew. Were the sheets

8 collected on December 26th, 1996 or not?

9 A. They were -- I don't know. I

10 wasn't there.

11 Q. What did you find out about it?

12 A. That at some point during the ten

13 days subsequent to December 26, 1996, when

14 the house was a crime scene, those sheets

15 were collected.

16 Q. At such time as they would have,

17 if wet, been dry; is that what you're telling

18 me?

19 A. Possibly.






Originally posted by Athena


No -- and it has not been proven that JRB wet her bed. It all started with Thomas' book.

Excerpt from Thomas' book and his depo:

16 "Later JonBenet awakened after

17 wetting her bed, as indicated by the plastic

18 sheets, the urine stains, the pull-up diaper

19 package hanging halfway out of a cabinet, and

20 the balled-up turtleneck found in the

21 bathroom. I concluded that the little girl

22 had worn the red turtleneck to bed, as her

23 mother originally said, and that it was

24 stripped off when it got wet.




10 Q. I'm sorry, when do you believe

11 this event took place where Meyer was going

12 through the autopsy findings where Henry Lee

13 was present?

14 A. I believe this was in 1997 at the

15 Boulder Police Department.

16 Q. Do you know when in 1997?

17 A. My best guess would be maybe

18 March, February.

19 Q. Reading on. "Were there

20 corresponding stains on the bed sheets? We

21 didn't know, although when the crime became a

22 murder instead of a kidnapping, those sheets

23 should have been promptly collected for

24 testing." Have I read that correctly?

25 A. Yes.

278

1 Q. Well, you didn't know in February,

2 are you telling me that you found out

3 subsequent in time that the sheets were wet?

4 When did you find out,

5 Mr. Thomas --

6 MR. DIAMOND: Go ahead.

7 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Let me -- why

8 don't you just tell me, when did you first

9 find out that the sheets were wet?

10 A. I do not think the sheets were

11 collected promptly. I think it was after the

12 fact. And one of the questions of this

13 investigation was that no one had checked the

14 bed on the morning of the 26th prior to a

15 wet bed possibly drying whether or not the

16 bed was wet. But the sheets nonetheless were

17 collected and described to me as being urine

18 stained and just recently saw something

19 corroborating that when Mr. Smit appeared on

20 the Today Show and there was a comment from

21 the CBI about that.

22 Q. Traces of creatinine were found;

23 is that what you're talking about?

24 A. I don't think that is what they

25 said on the NBC show.

279

1 Q. What did they say?

2 A. I think it said a CBI source said

3 the sheets were or appeared to be urine

4 stained.

5 Q. Let's go back and find out not so

6 much what NBC was talking about. Let's find

7 out what the police knew. Were the sheets

8 collected on December 26th, 1996 or not?

9 A. They were -- I don't know. I

10 wasn't there.

11 Q. What did you find out about it?

12 A. That at some point during the ten

13 days subsequent to December 26, 1996, when

14 the house was a crime scene, those sheets

15 were collected.

16 Q. At such time as they would have,

17 if wet, been dry; is that what you're telling

18 me?

19 A. Possibly.
Thanks for providing the source Athena.

So it seems there were urine stains found on the bedsheet, but by the time the sheet was collected as evidence, any fresh urine from that night would already have been dry.
And since urine stains are expected on the bed of a chronic bedetter, it is impossible to tell if JB wet her bed on that fatal night.

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Again...there was a cover on her mattress:

ST: Was that the case on the night of the 25th.

PR: I don’t remember.

ST: Do you know which bed that Burke normally slept in, in his room. Was it the . . .

PR: First one in, the . . .

ST: Okay.

PR: Right as you go in the door.

ST: And if, on occasion, JonBenet would go sleep in Burke’s room would she get into the other bed.

PR: She’d be in, yeah.

ST: Okay. Um, what would cause that? That she got scared at night or . . .

PR: No, just, I mean, that happened very seldom and uh, I think, oh, I think one time when I reading to Burke and, she and Burke in Burke’s room and she feel asleep in that bed so I just let her sleep there or something, but I didn’t, you know, usually I’d get her back in her bed cause she would, occasionally wet the bed and her bed had a plastic wrap on it and that one didn’t so I . . .

ST: Move her to the other bed.

It seems you are right...the link that I had read before, stating that there was NO plastic sheet on JB bed at the time of her death, must have been misinformation. I did find this article from 1997 Vanity Fair...to be QUITE interesting....

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09161997vanityfair.htm

IMO

[brad55]

Originally posted by Ames


It seems you are right...the link that I had read before, stating that there was NO plastic sheet on JB bed at the time of her death, must have been misinformation. I did find this article from 1997 Vanity Fair...to be QUITE interesting....

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09161997vanityfair.htm

IMO

As a father of three young girls, I think it should be pointed out that it is very unlikely that a parent of a "chronic bed wetter" would ever put a child to bed without either a pullup or plastic cover for the mattress or at the very least making the child go "potty" before bed. You learn very quickly that failure to do this leads to an accident.

Also, carrying a sleeping child out of a car up stairs almost always wakes them up.


JMO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Ames


It seems you are right...the link that I had read before, stating that there was NO plastic sheet on JB bed at the time of her death, must have been misinformation. I did find this article from 1997 Vanity Fair...to be QUITE interesting....

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09161997vanityfair.htm

IMO

I wonder why, if there was a plastic cover on JonBenets mattress Christmas night, the police didn't take it into evidence. They took 8 sheets, several comforters and 2 pillow cases into evidence, but NO plastic sheet or mattress cover.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-inventory.htm

Since Steve Thomas's big "theory" was that Patsy became so enraged after JonBenet wet her bed on Christmas night, that she killed her, why NOT take the plastic mattress cover into evidence...if there was one on the bed that night?

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by brad55


As a father of three young girls, I think it should be pointed out that it is very unlikely that a parent of a "chronic bed wetter" would ever put a child to bed without either a pullup or plastic cover for the mattress or at the very least making the child go "potty" before bed. You learn very quickly that failure to do this leads to an accident.

Also, carrying a sleeping child out of a car up stairs almost always wakes them up.


JMO

I know I'd be sure to use a mattress protector, pullup, or something to protect the mattress of a child that wet the bed, even occasionally. But, I was amazed to learn just the other day that a friend, with a 3 year old son that wets the bed almost ever night, had never even heard of waterproof matress covers. They just let his matress dry out every moring than sprayed it with Fabreeze and kept his bedroom door shut because it smelled so bad. They bought a new mattress every few months when the old one got too bad.

I only learned it because she mentioned they were going to have to buy a another new mattress for him, and she asked me what the best way to keep the new one from stinking so bad after a few days was. I asked her if she checked to see if the waterproof cover she had on the old one had sprung a leak and she might need a new one. She said "What's that?" Whan I told her, she said she'd never even heard of one before.

I almost fell over! :D

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Ames


She meant at that particular time...she said "HAD". It was either the housekeeper or Patsy...cannot remember which...that said that the plastic covers were not being used at the time of her death. I have no idea why, and I will try and find the link....IMO

Ames...of course she said "had"...all this is now past tense. What other word would she use??
Patsy also mentioned taking some of the "Pull-ups" with them on their trip on "the Big Red Boat" so that JB wouldn't ruin the mattress if she had an accident. Stands to reason that she was still wetting the bed and so still had to have the mattress cover on. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


I wonder why, if there was a plastic cover on JonBenets mattress Christmas night, the police didn't take it into evidence. They took 8 sheets, several comforters and 2 pillow cases into evidence, but NO plastic sheet or mattress cover.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-inventory.htm

Since Steve Thomas's big "theory" was that Patsy became so enraged after JonBenet wet her bed on Christmas night, that she killed her, why NOT take the plastic mattress cover into evidence...if there was one on the bed that night?

How do we know that we are even seeing all of the search warrents and their contents? We don't. Also, several things are blacked out in the ones that we do see.

[Ames]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


I wonder why, if there was a plastic cover on JonBenets mattress Christmas night, the police didn't take it into evidence. They took 8 sheets, several comforters and 2 pillow cases into evidence, but NO plastic sheet or mattress cover.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-inventory.htm

Since Steve Thomas's big "theory" was that Patsy became so enraged after JonBenet wet her bed on Christmas night, that she killed her, why NOT take the plastic mattress cover into evidence...if there was one on the bed that night?

I agree. And I have read it both ways...that there WASN'T a plastic sheet, and now I am seeing where it says there WAS a plastic sheet. I have NO idea. I had read where she had stopped using it....(as a mother of two kids my own self...I wouldn't know why she would stop if JB was still wetting the bed..unless she decided that Pull-Ups were less trouble).

IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Ames...of course she said "had"...all this is now past tense. What other word would she use??
Patsy also mentioned taking some of the "Pull-ups" with them on their trip on "the Big Red Boat" so that JB wouldn't ruin the mattress if she had an accident. Stands to reason that she was still wetting the bed and so still had to have the mattress cover on. IMO

BUT..we are not 100 percent sure just exactly what she meant. She didn't specifically say, "On Dec. 25-26, JB had a plastic sheet on her bed". I am sure that it was on there at some time, but how do we know for certain that it was on there that night? I thought that she had pull ups on, why have a plastic sheet AND pull-ups....they are pretty absorbent. I have read TWO different stories concerning that darn plastic sheet. IMO

[Athena]

According to Linda Hoffman Pugh there was a plastic mattress protector on the bed:

From PMPT p 237

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 was 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. It was no big deal to her.

From PMPT pg. 237

[harz]

While Patsy used to bedwetting, as its may be normal for children to wet their bed that Patsy doesn't get furious about. But it possible all things added up such as Patsy's frustration sex life with John, stress from Christmas plans, JB's pageant, cancer experiences, fly to Michigan in morning, and more little things got to Patsy's nerves which got her snapped. She might got fed up when she saw JB as 6 years old that JB should had learned to control it since she didnt have problem learning the pageant talents. Patsy might just lost it, not because of bedwetting, it just everything were eating Patsy. JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Did you guys know that the toilet in JBs' bathroom had been used and not flushed? The LE took a photo of it. Wonder what, if anything, that may mean. Could mean JB was up that night and used it. Or maybe not and it just went unflushed all day. :shrug:

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Did you guys know that the toilet in JBs' bathroom had been used and not flushed? The LE took a photo of it. Wonder what, if anything, that may mean. Could mean JB was up that night and used it. Or maybe not and it just went unflushed all day. :shrug:

I don't remember hearing that before.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by Athena
Another excerpt from the Forensic Science website. Note how the word victory is used.

Lady this also falls into line with the profiling that JD did in TCTHU re: the age:

Why Criminals Commit

Committing serious crimes usually start at around the mid to late twenties. Being able to manipulate victims and show a sense of power and domination is a main drive for criminals, as well sexual motives. Murdering victims gives them the sense of success and control that they have never felt in their lives. Some criminals have also found that they need to relive that sense of victory that was felt during the committing of the crime, so they take something from their victims, for example, jewelry, clothing and even body parts.

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/text_nts_psychological_profiling.htm

Good night all. :seeya: see you tomorrow. Sorry, Althena...I just got around to reading this post....I agree with you that the killer is somehow connected to John....wonder where he is today...and does he still have part of the paint brush in his possession?

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by rashomon

And I am so convinced that the Ramseys placed exactly the amount of John's bonus in the ransom note to direct suspicion either to:
a) a disgruntled AccessGraphics employee who happened to know John's bonus
or
b) the housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh, who happened to see John's payslip lying around on his desk.
It sticks out like a sore thumb what they were up to when puttting that ridiculously low sum in their ransom note. If John was the writer of that note..he would have made it short and sweet imho...he would have simply put...I have your daughter, do not contact LE..and requested a huge sum of money...but you are right, Rash, the amount sticks out like a sore thumb...I believe the killer gave away much info on himself in that note...he knew about the $118,000...he watched a lot of movies, etc....I do believe that BPD could have solved this case right from the start if they had not had such tunnel vision....everyone imo that JR was connected with should have been investigated thoroughly....BPD should have asked for assistance on this case from the FBI.....imho

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Did you guys know that the toilet in JBs' bathroom had been used and not flushed? The LE took a photo of it. Wonder what, if anything, that may mean. Could mean JB was up that night and used it. Or maybe not and it just went unflushed all day. :shrug:

Actually in the crime scene inventory it does actually list "liquid from toilet"

TWW: Do you remember where you read about the toilet in JBR's room?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


Actually in the crime scene inventory it does actually list "liquid from toilet"

TWW: Do you remember where you read about the toilet in JBR's room?

Yep...it was in the '98 interview with Patsy. There was a picture of it, which she was shown. I believe the toilet in the basement bathroom was also unflushed.

[edna mode]

It makes sense the killer may have known John and had a gripe with him. But, killing his daughter in this fashion for hatred alone doesn't make sense to me. Why not kill her fast and get out?

While I agree this crime was done out of hatred and possibly jealousy....I do believe porn and filming were involved. There is no other explanation for the garotte and tied wrists, etc.

It appears John was unlucky enough to have a sick, jealous friend who also dabbled in child sexual abuse and porn.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by rashomon

And I am so convinced that the Ramseys placed exactly the amount of John's bonus in the ransom note to direct suspicion either to:

a) a disgruntled AccessGraphics employee who happened to know John's bonus
or

b) the housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh, who happened to see John's payslip lying around on his desk.

It sticks out like a sore thumb what they were up to when puttting that ridiculously low sum in their ransom note.

ITA.

[Athena]

Originally posted by rashomon

And I am so convinced that the Ramseys placed exactly the amount of John's bonus in the ransom note to direct suspicion either to:
a) a disgruntled AccessGraphics employee who happened to know John's bonus
or
b) the housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh, who happened to see John's payslip lying around on his desk.
It sticks out like a sore thumb what they were up to when puttting that ridiculously low sum in their ransom note.

I firmly believe the $118K was a message to John not a ransom request. The amount was to specifically draw John's attention to it. Would have been pretty stupid of John to use an amount that pointed directly to him and I don't think the man is stupid. JMO

[harz]

Originally posted by Athena


I firmly believe the $118K was a message to John not a ransom request. The amount was to specifically draw John's attention to it. Would have been pretty stupid of John to use an amount that pointed directly to him and I don't think the man is stupid. JMO

"I don't think the man is stupid" which man you are refering to? John or the killer? If John, then the killer would already have been caught if John figured it out himself or John is protecting this killer. Otherwise, he could be just a plain obtuse. IMO

[harz]

Originally posted by harz


"I don't think the man is stupid" which man you are refering to? John or the killer? If John, then the killer would already have been caught if John figured it out himself or John is protecting this killer. Otherwise, he could be just a plain obtuse. IMO

If you meant the killer, using $118,000 as decoy, then who knew about John's bonus or how? Did John really leave his stubs lying around on his office table? If the ransom note was a decoy, then this killer has to be a pedophile if he wanted JB for himself. Pedophiles are usually repeat offenders, so far, where the connection to other victims? Then, I don't think JB's murder was a vengeance. If it was vengeance, then what point of $118,000 decoy? I understand pedophiles usually stalk young girls, which this killer might had learned as much information about the parents, lay out of the house, best time to do it, and where the Ramsey’s things were. Only way if this killer could do that without having any connection to the Ramseys by visiting Ramsey’s Christmas decorate shows in their open house. One way to suspect how this killer came to stalk JB was from her pageant shows, and we would need to track whose the males went and attended to her pageants. Unfortunately, I don’t see any information anywhere about JB’s pageant details such as who attended, host, foundation, etc. Was there admission fee or guestbook of whom sign into? JMO

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by harz


<snip>

Only way if this killer could do that without having any connection to the Ramseys by visiting Ramsey’s Christmas decorate shows in their open house.

Then he waited an entire year to act. The Ramsey house was featured in the Boulder Parade of Homes Tour in 1995, not 1996.

This author of the RN has too much inside info on JR to have been a complete stranger, and matched Patsy's handwriting and style of speech too closely.

Police said there was no check stub, bank book, etc lying about with JR's bonus on it - they didn't learn that his bonus had been that close to the ransom amount until JR's secretary mentioned it to them.

I think that was a move meant to direct suspicion toward an employee. That is a ridiculously low sum for a kidnapper to demand, especially when he didn't even take the victim to be ransomed with him. he could have at least gotten that amount for the return of her body. Kidnappers don't stop and molest their victims before they get them out of the house (with the parents asleep upstairs), and they don't waste time getting the victim out either.

A kidnapper would never wake a kid up, feed her pineapple, then wait around for an hour or two while it digests, then stop to sexually assault the child, and then leave with out even taking her along for the ransom he committed the crime for in the first place. This breed of criminal does not exist. A pedophile would take her and leave immediately and molest her later, and a kidnapper would take her and leave immediately and follow up on the ransom. These crimes are exclusive of each other, and do not cross over.

As for LHP...she had asked Patsy for a check to cover the money she needed, and Patsy said she would. There was no reason for LHP to kidnap JonBenet at all - and certainly not to assault and strangle her and bludgeon her on the head.

*sigh* There's no forensic evidence of an intruder (nothing - no prints, no hair, no fibers), but there's fiber evidence of both John and Patsy on the body and in the crime scene. How do people still think they couldn't have been involved?

[lucky13]

nuisanceposter, what a great post! You essentially said what I was thinking. And your last paragraph is one that I've stated many times before. ......*sigh*..... I know!!!

[nuisanceposter]

Thank you. I would love to be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the evidence points directly at the Rs and only at the Rs. I'm one of those RDIs that will shoot down individual evidence, because I can see the big picture, and how all of the evidence fits together - and how it keeps leading right back to the Ramseys. Piece by piece, it may appear as though someone other than an R was the perp, but when you look it all together and connect it all up, the intruder theory doesn't hold water.

[harz]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Then he waited an entire year to act. The Ramsey house was featured in the Boulder Parade of Homes Tour in 1995, not 1996.

This author of the RN has too much inside info on JR to have been a complete stranger, and matched Patsy's handwriting and style of speech too closely.

Police said there was no check stub, bank book, etc lying about with JR's bonus on it - they didn't learn that his bonus had been that close to the ransom amount until JR's secretary mentioned it to them.

I think that was a move meant to direct suspicion toward an employee. That is a ridiculously low sum for a kidnapper to demand, especially when he didn't even take the victim to be ransomed with him. he could have at least gotten that amount for the return of her body. Kidnappers don't stop and molest their victims before they get them out of the house (with the parents asleep upstairs), and they don't waste time getting the victim out either.

A kidnapper would never wake a kid up, feed her pineapple, then wait around for an hour or two while it digests, then stop to sexually assault the child, and then leave with out even taking her along for the ransom he committed the crime for in the first place. This breed of criminal does not exist. A pedophile would take her and leave immediately and molest her later, and a kidnapper would take her and leave immediately and follow up on the ransom. These crimes are exclusive of each other, and do not cross over.

As for LHP...she had asked Patsy for a check to cover the money she needed, and Patsy said she would. There was no reason for LHP to kidnap JonBenet at all - and certainly not to assault and strangle her and bludgeon her on the head.

*sigh* There's no forensic evidence of an intruder (nothing - no prints, no hair, no fibers), but there's fiber evidence of both John and Patsy on the body and in the crime scene. How do people still think they couldn't have been involved?

Ah I didn’t know it was 1995 tour, not in 1996, and not a check stub of $118,000 bonus laying out in open that IDI people here claimed. That’s important for us to know. I agree if it was an intruder who worked at JR’s business, why the killer would demand $118,000 which it would point directly back to employees at JR’s business. It only makes sense if one of Ramsey wrote the note in their attempt to repeal the monkeys off their backs. I believe on RDI, but I am up to challenge determining how an intruder could have done it, since not one of IDI theories here haven’t satisfied me yet. IMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by Ames


Maybe I am wrong here...but, I thought that Patsy had said that JB wet the bed that night, and that she had changed the sheets and JB....apparently thats when she was changed into the long johns...I don't know, though. But, IF she did say that...where were the wet sheets? And if she no longer used the plastic covering under the sheets, AND she wet the bed...why wasn't the mattress wet? Why was her bladder full enough to expel urine after her death? IMO

Patsy did NOT say JBR wet the bed that night. She changed her pants into the long johns while she was asleep.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by brad55


As a father of three young girls, I think it should be pointed out that it is very unlikely that a parent of a "chronic bed wetter" would ever put a child to bed without either a pullup or plastic cover for the mattress or at the very least making the child go "potty" before bed. You learn very quickly that failure to do this leads to an accident.

Also, carrying a sleeping child out of a car up stairs almost always wakes them up.


JMO

Patsy said it was her usual custom to go to JonBenet's room around midnight and get her up to use the toilet. She also said that the night JonBenet was murdered was the only night in which she didn't go in and get JonBenet up to use the toilet.

How convenient. I don't buy it. I don't think JonBenet ever made it to bed that night, either. That bed doesn't quite look like it was slept in to me.

Burke Ramsey told interviewers that JonBenet was asleep in the car, then woke up when they stopped to drop off presents at a family friend's house, and was awake when they arrived at home, walking into the house in front of his mother. Given that much detail, I think he's remembered it clearly and isn't mistaken.

The Ramseys originally told police she was awake and they tucked her in bed, only to change thier story four months later.

JonBenet's undies and long johns were urine-stained in the crotch and in the front, indicating that her bladder had urine in it when she was strangled, and that she was strangled facedown. There is no sign of a struggle, no defense wounds indicating she did not fight her killer. The head wound was fully developed with her brain swollen to the point of pressing against her skull, which takes at least 10 minutes to an hour to develop. The lack of surface bleeding is not uncommon in a head injury, and there were three layers of pooled blood inside JB's brain, at least one of them covered almost the entire hemisphere.

[sweetcharlotte]

I have to point out again that even Steve Thomas said the initial account was that JonBenet was asleep when they got home and that Burke did say in an interview that JonBenet was awake he (ST) thought Burke was confused.


http://www.acandyrose.com/12261996-911.htm

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I have to point out again that even Steve Thomas said the initial account was that JonBenet was asleep when they got home and that Burke did say in an interview that JonBenet was awake he (ST) thought Burke was confused.


http://www.acandyrose.com/12261996-911.htm

Also, John Douglas' book "The Cases That Haunt Us" states that the Ramsey said she was asleep and that their story never changed.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I have to point out again that even Steve Thomas said the initial account was that JonBenet was asleep when they got home and that Burke did say in an interview that JonBenet was awake he (ST) thought Burke was confused.


http://www.acandyrose.com/12261996-911.htm

Where did Thomas say that? Why would he go and make a pointing of showing that John contradicted himself about JonBenet being asleep? That's clearly his point in relating John's contradiction - to point out that John contradicted himself and the reports of three independent police officers.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Also, John Douglas' book "The Cases That Haunt Us" states that the Ramsey said she was asleep and that their story never changed.

Douglas needs to re-read the police reports then. JR told three different officers that he read to the kids and went to bed.

John Douglas lost a lot of respect from his colleagues for his paid participation in the Ramsey case. He even went against some of his own teachings.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Douglas needs to re-read the police reports then. JR told three different officers that he read to the kids and went to bed.

John Douglas lost a lot of respect from his colleagues for his paid participation in the Ramsey case. He even went against some of his own teachings.

I haven't read the police reports either, but the accounts I have read say that the Ramseys said she was asleep when they got home and even Steve Thomas said that was their initial account. JMO

[nuisanceposter]

I quoted to you page number and text where Thomas says, in his book, that the Ramseys changed their story.

I've asked for a link to Thomas saying the R's initial story was that JB was asleep. The text I've copied for you from Thomas's book says, in his own words, that JR changed his story between 12/26/96 and 4/30/97 about JB being asleep.



Here it is:

ST's book, hb, page 23

Officers reconstructed some of the timeline of the previous night from the parents' recollection. John Ramsey said the family returned home from the party about ten o'clock, and he read to both children before they went to sleep. He confirmed to Arndt that he had read to JonBenet after tucking her in. He would later deny these statements as well.

ST's book, hb, page 173

(JR is being interviewed by Thomas and Trujillo)

But even with that cursory reading, John Ramsey said he found "errors or misunderstandings." He said not only did he not check every door in the house the night before but he did not believe he checked any door. Also incorrect was the police notation that Ramsey said he read to the kids before going to bed. "That did not happen. I mean what happened was the kids went to bed and then I read."

I asked, "Do you attribute that simply to an officer's error in recollection, or might you have said that?"

"No, I wouldn't have said that. I think that maybe the way I said it was misinterpreted. I clearly did not read to the kids that night. JonBenet was asleep, we wanted Burke to get to sleep. We were going to get up early the next morning."

To believe him now, one would have to believe that three police officers - Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach - were all mistaken about what Ramsey had told them.




I copied that word for word right out of ST's book. He's clearly saying that John Ramsey changed his story. Now where's the link to him saying the initial story was that JB was asleep? He says here JR told Arndt he read to JonBenet!

[sweetcharlotte]

Enjoy posting with you, but I don't put much faith in anything Steve Thomas wrote. Sorry, don't want to hurt your feelings.

We're going around in circles so I think I'll take a break. :)

[rashomon]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Enjoy posting with you, but I don't put much faith in anything Steve Thomas wrote. Sorry, don't want to hurt your feelings.

We're going around in circles so I think I'll take a break. :)
Like Steve Thomas or not, but his book contains hard facts which are in the documented record: the Ramseys changed their story, period. That's what NP's post was about.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by rashomon

Like Steve Thomas or not, but his book contains hard facts which are in the documented record: the Ramseys changed their story, period. That's what NP's post was about.

And it was proven that some of Steve Thomas' "facts" weren't facts at all. Remember?

The Ramseys didn't change their stories enough to convince me that they were involved in the murder of their daughter. That's MO and I'm sticking to it.

[bullmoose]

Twisting Thomas' book is filled with hard facts: #1 Steve Thomas wrote the book; #2 He was with the BPD and was investigating Jonbenet's murder; hummm, I'll post the rest of the hard facts as soon as I get done rereading his 'tellall' book. Nothing else comes to my mind at the moment.:lol:

[Athena]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I quoted to you page number and text where Thomas says, in his book, that the Ramseys changed their story.

I've asked for a link to Thomas saying the R's initial story was that JB was asleep. The text I've copied for you from Thomas's book says, in his own words, that JR changed his story between 12/26/96 and 4/30/97 about JB being asleep.

Here it is:

ST's book, hb, page 23

Officers reconstructed some of the timeline of the previous night from the parents' recollection. John Ramsey said the family returned home from the party about ten o'clock, and he read to both children before they went to sleep. He confirmed to Arndt that he had read to JonBenet after tucking her in. He would later deny these statements as well.

ST's book, hb, page 173

(JR is being interviewed by Thomas and Trujillo)

But even with that cursory reading, John Ramsey said he found "errors or misunderstandings." He said not only did he not check every door in the house the night before but he did not believe he checked any door. Also incorrect was the police notation that Ramsey said he read to the kids before going to bed. "That did not happen. I mean what happened was the kids went to bed and then I read."

I asked, "Do you attribute that simply to an officer's error in recollection, or might you have said that?"

"No, I wouldn't have said that. I think that maybe the way I said it was misinterpreted. I clearly did not read to the kids that night. JonBenet was asleep, we wanted Burke to get to sleep. We were going to get up early the next morning."

To believe him now, one would have to believe that three police officers - Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach - were all mistaken about what Ramsey had told them.

I copied that word for word right out of ST's book. He's clearly saying that John Ramsey changed his story. Now where's the link to him saying the initial story was that JB was asleep? He says here JR told Arndt he read to JonBenet!


LOL Anytime you quote out of ST book it is questionable. He lied throughout.

Well here is JR's first actual interview? He is interviewed by ST and TT and that is probably the only thing he wrote in his book that was accurate. Don't forget ST was not assigned to this case until 2 days after the murder so he wouldn't have spoken to JR on the day of. Where does JR change his story? ST questions JR and it appears to me he there is a definite typo during transcribing the interview. The word "her" in the passage below should have been "for." All you need do is read this passage. This interview was done PRIOR to ST writing his book - ST has proven himself a liar over and over again. Alot of what is written in his book as fact is also contradicted during the taking of his depo. He totally discredits himself. JMO

TT: Thank you, John (inaudible). Our time is limited here, so I’m going to go right to December 25th; next kind of walk with you in chronological order, uh and kind give you the as far as it’s worth, for a minute there. Let’s kind of start, Patsy covered most of this, let’s cover from when you guys came home from the White’s house, actually when you guys left the White’s house that night. About what time, that kind of thing, just give me brief (inaudible) of what happen.

JR: Uh, it was probably 8:30 p.m., quarter to nine when we left as I recall. And uh, we had gift baskets for the Walkers, for the Stines, for the Franks, and we left the White’s and we took a basket to the Walkers; as I recall Patsy went in and I stayed in the car; we drove to the Stines and did the same thing, uh, and debated on whether to go to the Franks or not, but it was getting late and that was a ways away, so we decided to go home. So we probably got home about nineish, nine-fifteen I think, drove in the back through the alley into the garage. Uh JonBenet had fallen fast to sleep. Uh, I carried her inside and took her upstairs and put her in bed, put her on her bed. Uh Patsy came up behind me, and then I went down to get Burke ready for bed, he was down in the living room, working on a toy he got putting it together, and tried to get him to go to bed because we had to get up early the next morning, but he wanted to get this toy put together, so I worked with him on that for 10 15 minutes probably; and then I took him up to bed and got his pajamas on, probably brushed his teeth, and then I went up stairs from there and got ready for bed. I read her a little bit. The lights went out around ten-thirtyish or ten-forty.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

[humanpolygraph]

Originally posted by Ames


Okay, just something to think about....what if....Jonbenet never went to bed that night? Think about it, first John AND Burke, say that she was awake when she came home from the Whites...(John even stated that he read to her), and THEN they both changed their story....gee...did I say awake? Ummmm....I MEANT to say that she was asleep. So, they first say she was awake...John read her a story, and she went to sleep...and then ...BAM...they both change their story. NOW..she is asleep, after arriving from the White's party, and has to be carried up the stairs to her room. You would think that John would have remembered if he "read a story" to a sleeping child. Who would do that anyway? So she is awake...no...she is asleep....geez...they both should have gotten their story straight before talking with Police. My thought is...and this is only MY thought...and my opinion...Jonbenet never went to bed that night. Her bedsheets are pulled down, in the crime scene photo, because thats the way that it was left, when she got up on Christmas morning. IMO

I just looked at that photo....and that is EXACTLY what enters my mind, she was NEVER in that bed that night....it looks cold and detached and as if someone had in a hurry made the bed maybe the day before and no one was in it that night.
Ames, I agree with the other poster that you say alot of what Im thinking too....Right on it!!!!

[Ames]

Originally posted by humanpolygraph


I just looked at that photo....and that is EXACTLY what enters my mind, she was NEVER in that bed that night....it looks cold and detached and as if someone had in a hurry made the bed maybe the day before and no one was in it that night.
Ames, I agree with the other poster that you say alot of what Im thinking too....Right on it!!!!

Thanks so much..you just made my night. I am probably going to be banned though, go to my thread..."John Ramsey never crying in interviews"...(or something like that...gee...I cannot remember the name of my own thread..thats pretty sad)...and scroll down to what poster HOLLY said to me..and then read what I said to her. My guess is, I probably will be banned. But, after I wrote her back, I just read what YOU said. THANKS so much! By the way, I don't think that Patsy ever made it to bed either. (JUST MY OPINION ALL OF YOU IDI PEOPLE). Look at JBs bed AND the Ramsey's bed in the crimescene photos....if you don't have it, I will post a link for you. Patsy's side of the bedsheets are turned down almost the exact same way that JB's were. I think that the last time that EITHER one of them was in the bed, was on Christmas Morning. The sheets look like they have been turned down, by someone that was IN the bed, and was getting OUT of the bed. I don't know about you, but thats what I do in the morning, before getting up...I don't just jump up out of bed, and risk getting all tangled up in the sheets...I turn the covers down, an THEN get out of the bed. IMO

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Ames


Thanks so much..you just made my night. I am probably going to be banned though, go to my thread..."John Ramsey never crying in interviews"...(or something like that...gee...I cannot remember the name of my own thread..thats pretty sad)...and scroll down to what poster HOLLY said to me..and then read what I said to her. My guess is, I probably will be banned. But, after I wrote her back, I just read what YOU said. THANKS so much! By the way, I don't think that Patsy ever made it to bed either. (JUST MY OPINION ALL OF YOU IDI PEOPLE). Look at JBs bed AND the Ramsey's bed in the crimescene photos....if you don't have it, I will post a link for you. Patsy's side of the bedsheets are turned down almost the exact same way that JB's were. I think that the last time that EITHER one of them was in the bed, was on Christmas Morning. The sheets look like they have been turned down, by someone that was IN the bed, and was getting OUT of the bed. I don't know about you, but thats what I do in the morning, before getting up...I don't just jump up out of bed, and risk getting all tangled up in the sheets...I turn the covers down, an THEN get out of the bed. IMO

Hopefully you won't be banned, Ames, I'd miss you. I think what you said to Holly was fair enough as it looks to me as though she came to instigate in the first place.

I don't think either Patsy or JonBenet went to bed that night either. JonBenet's bed does not look like she slept in it at all.

[humanpolygraph]

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
To understand the things about this crime that don’t make any sense, you have to understand it the way I described it. The motive was to purify Boulder from sexual sin, and from the kind of unapologetic overindulgence that was demonstrated by parading JonBenet like a commodity. That is not done here in Charlotte. What JonBenet was being guided to do was a little over the top. This is a crime that was instigated by religion and morals, not by lust. That is why there was no semen and no evidence of sexual assault.

I was right to say female circumcision exists as a religious and social practice. I did know it is a punishment for overindulgence. I knew it was demanded by men so they don’t have to sexually please their wives, since their wives can’t be pleased after it is done to them, and the wives won’t go looking for other men to please them. But any society that stoops to that logic for how to control people is as sick as a society can be.

It is not part of the Muslim religion but mostly done in Muslim countries. It was also done in European countries by people whose only goal was to have control over people. Our ancestors left those societies and formed America to be a country that is not primarily concerned with controlling its citizens.

Now there are people who want to reverse that idea, creating an America where everyone is controlled like the countries we left over 200 years ago.

Those kinds of people would tend to revisit female circumcision. The George Orwell book, 1984, had an Anti-Sex-League.

I was right to say this ritual is primarily done by women. Don't blame me for stating facts.

In the eyes of one kidnapper, who may have been a woman, JonBenet was overindulging and she needed this ritual performed on her, which is the sick motive behind the violence in this crime. You can start to understand the crime from that perspective.

Where my obsession comes in is: once I understood the crime was a 1984-like, anti-sex paramilitary operation planned and carried out against the Ramseys by a wealthy group who hired the kidnappers...

That is strange enough...

Then I see everyone in authority consistently losing and bungling evidence that points in that direction, as if those people behind this 1984-like anti-sex crime are controlling Boulder LE, the mainstream press, and a lot of other people in high places…

That is a huge amount of intrigue, maybe the biggest story in America, today. I am certain John Karr was there, just as Mary Lacy was certain when she brought him back to America. She had DNA, gotten surreptitiously from a drinking cup, a napkin, and one other source. We were told it wasn’t pure enough. But it was, and she already knew the DNA didn’t match. She also knew that didn’t disqualify John Karr. The handwriting, offered later by a schoolmate, places him squarely on the scene. Don’t come to any conclusions about his motives. They are too hard to understand. But with absolute certainty he was there. If John Karr tells his story, we begin to see who was behind this crime.

Check out John Karr's resume.
http://www.powerwurks.com/john_karr_resume.php
The last point was, World Traveled: London, Paris, Amsterdam, Zurich, Milan, Bologna, Stuttgart, Munich, Sydney Australia, Taipei, Singapore, Seoul Korea, Osaka Japan, Istanbul, Reunion Island off the coast of Madagascar, Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and a host of other cities in the United States.

How did a failed school teacher working as a nanny travel that far and wide if he hadn't been paid very well to do something?

EVERONE SHOULD READ HIS RESUME! Its quite impressive. I really wonder if he was molesting the litte girls he was watching, especially since he went out of his way to talk about how he bathed them, dressed them etc... I thought that was something odd to post on your resume, Ive cared for children before too, Im a female but I would never talk about personal details such as those...odd. Anyway, it really bothers me that he is walking the streets after all that is out!

[humanpolygraph]

Originally posted by harz


JB was dead before 3am, cannot be sure exactly between after they got home to 2pm when neighbor heard the scream. So that would give the intruder enough time to reconsider the note; but the note already point back to Ramsey base on "and hence", $118,000, SBTC, etc. How consider of this intruder placed the note on the stairs that way, why not while being kind to Ramseys by putting the note on a plate among with some breakfast & coffee too, maybe roll out a red luxury carpet to the wine cellar all the way from upstairs too? If an intruder had plenty time finding flash light, pen, notepad, pineapple, the details on John's desk, paintbrush stick, blanket, fibers collected from Ramseys, found Patsy's public hair somewhere or somehow to place it on JB, opened Andrew's suitcase to see what he could use then placed it under the broken window to frame John, placed baseball bat outside same time turn off patio light, had the neighbor dogs not to bark at him by getting these dogs to get known him first, opening cupboards everywhere all night until he found Burke's knife to place it in basement's bathroom, making a garrote after found some cords, duct tape, teasing JB with a stun gun, choked JB's neck, poking stick into her, wiping JB with cloth, time to wipe (polish) fingerprints off anything he touched with the gloves, and naturally comfort having a key to Ramsey's house which was given to him but then you said he was too anxious to get out of Ramsey's house and didn't want to take the chance of going back upstairs to JonBenet's room? How does that make sense? Sorry, if I was being rude but I am not trying to be; as I usually discover wit remarks which tend to help seeing the different perspectives or given better idea of the whole picture, at least it does for me. JMO

EXACTLY! all the while keeping it quiet enough not to wake J or P doesnt make since does it? That crap would have taken hours and I find it hard to beleive that no one would have woken up its just sooo odd.

[humanpolygraph]

Originally posted by Ames


Nope, but...Patsy said that she somehow leaped over the steps while holding onto the railing...avoiding any contact with the note. She didn't want to intefere with any evidence on it. Why not just walk on the note to get to the bottom of the stairs? What would that have hurt? Especially if she had no clue what it was. Why grab onto the railing, and hoist yourself, over the note....in the process, potentionally pulling a muscle or something? Why did she assume that it was something that had "evidence" that she didn't want to disturb...as I have said before...after all, it could have been a note from Burke or something. Why did she avoid touching it at all, and go through all of that hassle to get around the note, without interfering with it? Why not just pick the darn thing up, if not at the top of the steps, at the bottom? Why almost kill yourself trying to get to the bottom (if you had no clue what the note was) lean over and read it? IMO

Yeah that is true, how would she have even know what that was....no one assumes that their child is missing and a note just happens to be ther you would probably just think it was a note from one of your family members....that is extremely odd...

[WallyCleaver]

One way PR could explain "hoping" over the note is that she didn't want to slip and fall. I'd buy that - maybe.

Why she didn't pick it up to read it is another matter altogether.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
One way PR could explain "hoping" over the note is that she didn't want to slip and fall. I'd buy that - maybe.

Why she didn't pick it up to read it is another matter altogether.

So is the fact that she "raced back up the stairs" screaming for John, without stepping on the note which I guess would mean that she had to carefully step over it on the way back up too.
Seems like if she had stepped on it in her hurry on the way up, she would have slipped and fallen. IMO

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


So is the fact that she "raced back up the stairs" screaming for John, without stepping on the note which I guess would mean that she had to carefully step over it on the way back up too.
Seems like if she had stepped on it in her hurry on the way up, she would have slipped and fallen. IMO

You got me there. I'll have to leave it to the IDIs to defend the Rs weird behavior.

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


So is the fact that she "raced back up the stairs" screaming for John, without stepping on the note which I guess would mean that she had to carefully step over it on the way back up too.
Seems like if she had stepped on it in her hurry on the way up, she would have slipped and fallen. IMO

Excellent point...I had never thought about that! Of course, I don't see how if she step on it going DOWN, and held on to the railing...that she would have slipped then, either. Thats makes way more sense to me, than trying to hop over it, when at that time, she had no clue what it was. To all of the IDI folks out there..if you saw a THREE page letter lying on the steps...would you automatically think....GEE...that must be a very long and drawn out ransom letter, I had better not touch it, maybe I shouldn't even step on it to get down this last step...I know, I will hold on to this railing and hoist myself OVER the step, to avoid touching it in any way, shape or form..and THEN I will lean over to read it....OR would you assume that it was left by a family member...maybe a DEAR JOHN letter (no pun intended...from JR)...or a note from Burke, saying that he had ran away from home, or something, and hold the railing, step on it and THEN PICK IT UP TO READ IT? IMO

[harz]

Originally posted by Ames


Excellent point...I had never thought about that! Of course, I don't see how if she step on it going DOWN, and held on to the railing...that she would have slipped then, either. Thats makes way more sense to me, than trying to hop over it, when at that time, she had no clue what it was. To all of the IDI folks out there..if you saw a THREE page letter lying on the steps...would you automatically think....GEE...that must be a very long and drawn out ransom letter, I had better not touch it, maybe I shouldn't even step on it to get down this last step...I know, I will hold on to this railing and hoist myself OVER the step, to avoid touching it in any way, shape or form..and THEN I will lean over to read it....OR would you assume that it was left by a family member...maybe a DEAR JOHN letter (no pun intended...from JR)...or a note from Burke, saying that he had ran away from home, or something, and hold the railing, step on it and THEN PICK IT UP TO READ IT? IMO

That true, if I see 3 pages of note on my stairs, I would pick them up assuming or expecting they are from my spouse, one of children or friends. I would never expect long letters left anywhere in my home turn out to be a ransom note. IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by harz


That true, if I see 3 pages of note on my stairs, I would pick them up assuming or expecting they are from my spouse, one of children or friends. I would never expect long letters left anywhere in my home turn out to be a ransom note. IMO

Sure wouldn't be the first thing that popped into MY mind, either. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by harz


That true, if I see 3 pages of note on my stairs, I would pick them up assuming or expecting they are from my spouse, one of children or friends. I would never expect long letters left anywhere in my home turn out to be a ransom note. IMO

Many RDIs have brought up the fact of Patsy stepping over the note, bending over to read it instead of picking it up etc many times and I don't believe one IDI has had an explaination for it yet. I could be wrong but I don't remember reading any. :confused:

[LindaA]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Many RDIs have brought up the fact of Patsy stepping over the note, bending over to read it instead of picking it up etc many times and I don't believe one IDI has had an explaination for it yet. I could be wrong but I don't remember reading any. :confused:

Ever try bending over from a step above to pick up something on the step below -- especially something flat like a piece of paper? Good way to fall head over heels down the steps.

[nuisanceposter]

And how interesting it is that the person who wrote the note left it on the steps. How did the person who left it know for sure the family would be coming down the spiral staircase, and not the main stairs? JAR wondered this as well.

Did the person who left the note know that Patsy regularly placed things on the stairs?

Why didn't the person who left it leave it on the kitchen counter, perhaps next to the refrigerator, sink, or coffee maker?

Or why didn't the person who left it leave it on JonBenet's bed? I consider that to be a likely place to put it, since the parents would go into the bedroom to wake up the child that had been kidnapped, or check and see why the child hadn't gotten up yet.

It seems a very strange place to leave something as important as the ransom note, unless you consider that Patsy was known to leave things on the stairs as normal routine.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by LindaA


Ever try bending over from a step above to pick up something on the step below -- especially something flat like a piece of paper? Good way to fall head over heels down the steps.

I would never bend over frontwards to pick up anything from the stair below me while coming down stairs!

I'd also step over a step that had paper spread out on it, whether going down or up the stairs, rather than step onto the paper, taking a chance it would cause me to slip!

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
And how interesting it is that the person who wrote the note left it on the steps. How did the person who left it know for sure the family would be coming down the spiral staircase, and not the main stairs? JAR wondered this as well.

Did the person who left the note know that Patsy regularly placed things on the stairs?

Why didn't the person who left it leave it on the kitchen counter, perhaps next to the refrigerator, sink, or coffee maker?

Or why didn't the person who left it leave it on JonBenet's bed? I consider that to be a likely place to put it, since the parents would go into the bedroom to wake up the child that had been kidnapped, or check and see why the child hadn't gotten up yet.

It seems a very strange place to leave something as important as the ransom note, unless you consider that Patsy was known to leave things on the stairs as normal routine.

Good questions! It seems logical that the Ramseys would have left the note on the counter or JonBenet's bed, rather than the stairs, just as much as an intruder would have. I don't consider the placement of the note any indication it was a Ramsey that put it on there. It's just a rather strange place for ANYONE to have left it, but there it was.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by LindaA


Ever try bending over from a step above to pick up something on the step below -- especially something flat like a piece of paper? Good way to fall head over heels down the steps.

You are totally missing the point. The point is that once she stepped over the note, instead of picking it up (once at the bottom of the stairs), she read it by bending over it. We are asking why she didn't just pick it up like most normal people would do. She knew what it was and did not want to get her fingerprints on it, is the conclusion I have come to. Yes, I know that she handled it later and her prints didn't show but at the time, she would not have known that. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

No time to edit!
Just wanted to add that I find the fact that the note was laid out with pages side by side to be pretty peculiar too. How convenient for it to be placed that way so the finder of it would not have to pick it up to read each page. How very thoughtful!
No need to pick it up if you, for some odd reason, chose to bend over awkwardly to read it "and hence" have a great explanation of why your fingerprints aren't on it. IMO

[LindaA]

To use your words, TWW1, no need to pick the note up if it is elevated on a step, laid out for you to read. It was a good trick to write it without getting your fingerprints on it. Did they find the gloves she was wearing when she wrote it? Obviously, whoever did write it must have worn them.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


You are totally missing the point. The point is that once she stepped over the note, instead of picking it up (once at the bottom of the stairs), she read it by bending over it. We are asking why she didn't just pick it up like most normal people would do. She knew what it was and did not want to get her fingerprints on it, is the conclusion I have come to. Yes, I know that she handled it later and her prints didn't show but at the time, she would not have known that. IMO

Why go to the trouble of making sure she didn't get her fingerprints on it while reading it, yet use her own pad of paper to write it, and leave that pad in plain sight for the police to see?

[rashomon]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Why go to the trouble of making sure she didn't get her fingerprints on it while reading it, yet use her own pad of paper to write it, and leave that pad in plain sight for the police to see?
Patsy had to write the note on pen and paper from her own home. Should she have written it on the family's pc instead? Therefore she had no choice. And that's where I think implicating the housekeeper came into play. Blame it on Linda-Hoffman Pugh and make sure that your own fingerprints aren't all over the note.
Remember that Patsy stated she thought the housekeeper had left the note. On the bottom of the stairs, yeah, right. That's where housekeepers usually leave notes. Ridiculous of course.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by rashomon

Patsy had to write the note on pen and paper from her own home. Should she have written it on the family's pc instead? Therefore she had no choice. And that's where I think implicating the housekeeper came into play. Blame it on Linda-Hoffman Pugh and make sure that your own fingerprints aren't all over the note.
Remember that Patsy stated she thought the housekeeper had left the note. On the bottom of the stairs, yeah, right. That's where housekeepers usually leave notes. Ridiculous of course.

So...given the same situation you would not have mentioned LHP when asked by the police?

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by rashomon

Patsy had to write the note on pen and paper from her own home. Should she have written it on the family's pc instead? Therefore she had no choice. And that's where I think implicating the housekeeper came into play. Blame it on Linda-Hoffman Pugh and make sure that your own fingerprints aren't all over the note.
Remember that Patsy stated she thought the housekeeper had left the note. On the bottom of the stairs, yeah, right. That's where housekeepers usually leave notes. Ridiculous of course.

I think it's a heck of a lot more natural to assume her housekeeper left the note when she first spotted it, before she read it. Her housekeeper had asked to borrow a large sum of money and Patsy agreed to leave her a check before they left. What would be so strange about Patsy thinking it might be a note about that? Maybe a reminder?

I think that's a much more natural assupmtion than seeing a note on her stairs and immediatly jumping to the conclusion it was a ransome note, before she even read it!

I know if I found a note anyplace my house, that I hadn't see there before, I'd assume it was from my housekeeper. My husband or kids wouldn't leave a note. They talk to me in person. My housekeeper does leave notes, because I'm not always home when she leaves.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Why go to the trouble of making sure she didn't get her fingerprints on it while reading it, yet use her own pad of paper to write it, and leave that pad in plain sight for the police to see?

Guess she never thought about that. How was she supposed to dispose of the pad anyway? Maybe she never even gave it a thought. Maybe she just figured paper is paper. Like I keep saying, they aren't mastermind criminals.
There was a lot of covering to do. Not hard to believe that some things could be missed and apparently were.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


I think it's a heck of a lot more natural to assume her housekeeper left the note when she first spotted it, before she read it. Her housekeeper had asked to borrow a large sum of money and Patsy agreed to leave her a check before they left. What would be so strange about Patsy thinking it might be a note about that? Maybe a reminder?

I think that's a much more natural assupmtion than seeing a note on her stairs and immediatly jumping to the conclusion it was a ransome note, before she even read it!

I know if I found a note anyplace my house, that I hadn't see there before, I'd assume it was from my housekeeper. My husband or kids wouldn't leave a note. They talk to me in person. My housekeeper does leave notes, because I'm not always home when she leaves.

We are not saying she was assuming that it was from a kidnapper before she even read it. We are saying that she knew what the note was and that is why she did not pick it up to read it.
What none of you have answered yet is why would someone bend over so far to read a note when most normal people would just pick it up. Answer honestly. If you saw a note on the floor or on your stair step, would you walk around it and bend over it to read it or would you just pick it up??
I have asked you all before to test this out on family members and as far as I know, no one has done it. I only have my husband and no stairs but I am going to put a note on the floor and see how he reads it.
Some of you have tied garrotes around your body parts to figure out how it worked...so just humor me and test this out. :)

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


We are not saying she was assuming that it was from a kidnapper before she even read it. We are saying that she knew what the note was and that is why she did not pick it up to read it.
What none of you have answered yet is why would someone bend over so far to read a note when most normal people would just pick it up. Answer honestly. If you saw a note on the floor or on your stair step, would you walk around it and bend over it to read it or would you just pick it up??
I have asked you all before to test this out on family members and as far as I know, no one has done it. I only have my husband and no stairs but I am going to put a note on the floor and see how he reads it.
Some of you have tied garrotes around your body parts to figure out how it worked...so just humor me and test this out. :)

I don't want to bend all the way over first thing in the morning, if I don't have to. I don't even know if I can. And, us older people can read at a distance without glasses.

[sweetcharlotte]

I wouldn't pick them up because they were laying side by side. I could read them better that way than picking them up and then having to shuffle them. My honest opinion.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Or why didn't the person who left it leave it on JonBenet's bed? I consider that to be a likely place to put it, since the parents would go into the bedroom to wake up the child that had been kidnapped, or check and see why the child hadn't gotten up yet.



<snipped>

ITA - putting the note on the bed would be the most logical place. Plus, it would rank high in the "gotcha, you fat cat" category that many of the IDI believe was the motivating factor in the crime.

MOO

[sweetcharlotte]

Maybe laying the note out was the last thing s/he did before they left the house. Why risk going back upstairs just to put the note on JonBenet's bed? What difference did it make where the note was left - the message was the same. JMO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


We are not saying she was assuming that it was from a kidnapper before she even read it. We are saying that she knew what the note was and that is why she did not pick it up to read it.
What none of you have answered yet is why would someone bend over so far to read a note when most normal people would just pick it up. Answer honestly. If you saw a note on the floor or on your stair step, would you walk around it and bend over it to read it or would you just pick it up??
I have asked you all before to test this out on family members and as far as I know, no one has done it. I only have my husband and no stairs but I am going to put a note on the floor and see how he reads it.
Some of you have tied garrotes around your body parts to figure out how it worked...so just humor me and test this out. :)

Your floor? That isn't a fair test. It would be much further way than a note on the 3rd step.

Instead, lay a note written in black felt tip pen on an end table or night stand and see if you can read it without bending over "so far". An end table or night stand is much closer to the height the note would be on the 3rd step, than your floor.

IMO, Patsy didn't have to bend over "so far" to read the note. It was on third step from the bottom. All she had to do was look at it to read it, probably not even having to bend over. I tried, and I can easily read a note written in a felt tip pen from there without bending over. I can read a note written plain old ball point pen from that height without bending over, too.

MOO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Mimi428


<snipped>

ITA - putting the note on the bed would be the most logical place. Plus, it would rank high in the "gotcha, you fat cat" category that many of the IDI believe was the motivating factor in the crime.

MOO

It would also be riskier than leaving it on the stairs. Why take the risk of going back upstairs, when he could leave it downstairs?

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


It would also be riskier than leaving it on the stairs. Why take the risk of going back upstairs, when he could leave it downstairs?

If it was written before the Rs came home, which is what many IDIs believe, then why not leave it on her bed when abducting her from the bed?

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


If it was written before the Rs came home, which is what many IDIs believe, then why not leave it on her bed when abducting her from the bed?

I have no idea when it was written or when it was placed there. But, why wouldn't the Ramseys leave it on her bed, or the kitchen counter, any more than an intruder would?

[LindaA]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


If it was written before the Rs came home, which is what many IDIs believe, then why not leave it on her bed when abducting her from the bed?
Because he had his hands full with JB.

[Athena]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


If it was written before the Rs came home, which is what many IDIs believe, then why not leave it on her bed when abducting her from the bed?

Because he/she would not take a risk that Patsy, John or Burke might get up during the night and see the note before he had a chance to do what he had to do. The placement of the note was the last thing he did before leaving. jmo

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Athena


Because he/she would not take a risk that Patsy, John or Burke might get up during the night and see the note before he had a chance to do what he had to do. The placement of the note was the last thing he did before leaving. jmo

That makes sense.

[humanpolygraph]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Patsy said it was her usual custom to go to JonBenet's room around midnight and get her up to use the toilet. She also said that the night JonBenet was murdered was the only night in which she didn't go in and get JonBenet up to use the toilet.

How convenient. I don't buy it. I don't think JonBenet ever made it to bed that night, either. That bed doesn't quite look like it was slept in to me.

Burke Ramsey told interviewers that JonBenet was asleep in the car, then woke up when they stopped to drop off presents at a family friend's house, and was awake when they arrived at home, walking into the house in front of his mother. Given that much detail, I think he's remembered it clearly and isn't mistaken.

The Ramseys originally told police she was awake and they tucked her in bed, only to change thier story four months later.

JonBenet's undies and long johns were urine-stained in the crotch and in the front, indicating that her bladder had urine in it when she was strangled, and that she was strangled facedown. There is no sign of a struggle, no defense wounds indicating she did not fight her killer. The head wound was fully developed with her brain swollen to the point of pressing against her skull, which takes at least 10 minutes to an hour to develop. The lack of surface bleeding is not uncommon in a head injury, and there were three layers of pooled blood inside JB's brain, at least one of them covered almost the entire hemisphere.

Where did you get the info about Burke stating that Jon Benet was awake when they got home??? Ive been looking for interviews with Burke due to the plain fact that children generally dont lie...and what he says means everything....send me a link if you can find that please, very interesting. thanks!

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


Because he/she would not take a risk that Patsy, John or Burke might get up during the night and see the note before he had a chance to do what he had to do. The placement of the note was the last thing he did before leaving. jmo

If it had been left on her bed and any of the Rameys had went in her room, don't you think that the fact that SHE wasn't in bed might have tipped them off that something was wrong?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Your floor? That isn't a fair test. It would be much further way than a note on the 3rd step.

Instead, lay a note written in black felt tip pen on an end table or night stand and see if you can read it without bending over "so far". An end table or night stand is much closer to the height the note would be on the 3rd step, than your floor.

IMO, Patsy didn't have to bend over "so far" to read the note. It was on third step from the bottom. All she had to do was look at it to read it, probably not even having to bend over. I tried, and I can easily read a note written in a felt tip pen from there without bending over. I can read a note written plain old ball point pen from that height without bending over, too.

MOO

The stairs curved...she'd have to bend pretty far. IMO An end table isn't the same as stairs but I'll try it. My husband probably wouldn't even notice it and read it either way though. He's pretty oblivious. :eek:
You can't do the test on yourself. You need someone to FIND the note you've written and observe whether they bent to read it or picked it up.

[humanpolygraph]

Originally posted by Ames


Thanks so much..you just made my night. I am probably going to be banned though, go to my thread..."John Ramsey never crying in interviews"...(or something like that...gee...I cannot remember the name of my own thread..thats pretty sad)...and scroll down to what poster HOLLY said to me..and then read what I said to her. My guess is, I probably will be banned. But, after I wrote her back, I just read what YOU said. THANKS so much! By the way, I don't think that Patsy ever made it to bed either. (JUST MY OPINION ALL OF YOU IDI PEOPLE). Look at JBs bed AND the Ramsey's bed in the crimescene photos....if you don't have it, I will post a link for you. Patsy's side of the bedsheets are turned down almost the exact same way that JB's were. I think that the last time that EITHER one of them was in the bed, was on Christmas Morning. The sheets look like they have been turned down, by someone that was IN the bed, and was getting OUT of the bed. I don't know about you, but thats what I do in the morning, before getting up...I don't just jump up out of bed, and risk getting all tangled up in the sheets...I turn the covers down, an THEN get out of the bed. IMO

Your absolutely right! It looks the same!!! But also what made me think Patsy never went to bed is because she wore the same clothes and make up on as the night before....thats a dead giveaway!!! A woman of her kind always cleans up and takes her appearance seriously, that kind of woman would NEVER GO TO BED WEARING THE SAME CLOTHES AS SHE WORE OUT THAT NIGHT, another thing too...I recall reading somewhere that John had said to the police, that patsy was upstairs getting ready for bed...if she wore the same clothes what the heck was she doing getting ready for bed? exercising??? lololol. anyway ill probably be banned soon too, all the fighting im doing on here lol.

[humanpolygraph]

Originally posted by Ames


Excellent point...I had never thought about that! Of course, I don't see how if she step on it going DOWN, and held on to the railing...that she would have slipped then, either. Thats makes way more sense to me, than trying to hop over it, when at that time, she had no clue what it was. To all of the IDI folks out there..if you saw a THREE page letter lying on the steps...would you automatically think....GEE...that must be a very long and drawn out ransom letter, I had better not touch it, maybe I shouldn't even step on it to get down this last step...I know, I will hold on to this railing and hoist myself OVER the step, to avoid touching it in any way, shape or form..and THEN I will lean over to read it....OR would you assume that it was left by a family member...maybe a DEAR JOHN letter (no pun intended...from JR)...or a note from Burke, saying that he had ran away from home, or something, and hold the railing, step on it and THEN PICK IT UP TO READ IT? IMO

ROTHFF!!!! HAAHHA AMES YOU REALLY CRACK ME UP!

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


If it had been left on her bed and any of the Rameys had went in her room, don't you think that the fact that SHE wasn't in bed might have tipped them off that something was wrong?

Ya think?!

Me too!

[humanpolygraph]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
No time to edit!
Just wanted to add that I find the fact that the note was laid out with pages side by side to be pretty peculiar too. How convenient for it to be placed that way so the finder of it would not have to pick it up to read each page. How very thoughtful!
No need to pick it up if you, for some odd reason, chose to bend over awkwardly to read it "and hence" have a great explanation of why your fingerprints aren't on it. IMO

Yeah I never thought of that one, why would an intruder leave it side by side so meticulously, that is odd. But I thought i did see somewhere that Patsy did pick it up, but why werent her fingerprints on it I wonder...:confused:

[Ames]

Originally posted by humanpolygraph


Your absolutely right! It looks the same!!! But also what made me think Patsy never went to bed is because she wore the same clothes and make up on as the night before....thats a dead giveaway!!! A woman of her kind always cleans up and takes her appearance seriously, that kind of woman would NEVER GO TO BED WEARING THE SAME CLOTHES AS SHE WORE OUT THAT NIGHT, another thing too...I recall reading somewhere that John had said to the police, that patsy was upstairs getting ready for bed...if she wore the same clothes what the heck was she doing getting ready for bed? exercising??? lololol. anyway ill probably be banned soon too, all the fighting im doing on here lol.

Yep...I agree with you. I even posted a thread called "Patsy's Makeup" LOL The beds with the covers turned down was not the only thing that made me think that she nor JB ever went to bed....(heck, John might not have made it to bed either, that night). But, yes..the same makeup, and the clothes...were the other things that made me think that. But...I just don't think that an intruder went into JB's room, and TURNED BACK THE COVERS for her (wow...how generous of him), and took her out of the bed. I really do think that the last time those beds had been slept in by Patsy or JB (and possibly even John) was Christmas morning. Even my five year old turns back the covers when she gets out of the bed, so that she doesn't get all tangled up in them, and possibly fall out of the bed. IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by humanpolygraph


ROTHFF!!!! HAAHHA AMES YOU REALLY CRACK ME UP!

HA HA...gee...thanks!!! :D

[humanpolygraph]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ames


Yep...I agree with you. I even posted a thread called "Patsy's Makeup" LOL The beds with the covers turned down was not the only thing that made me think that she nor JB ever went to bed....(heck, John might not have made it to bed either, that night). But, yes..the same makeup, and the clothes...were the other things that made me think that. But...I just don't think that an intruder went into JB's room, and TURNED BACK THE COVERS for her (wow...how generous of him), and took her out of the bed. I really do think that the last time those beds had been slept in by Patsy or JB (and possibly even John) was Christmas morning. Even my five year old turns back the covers when she gets out of the bed, so that she doesn't get all tangled up in them, and possibly fall out of the bed. IMO [/QUOTE

It seems to me that people on these posts all get out of bed nice and neat, (turning covers back ie) lol...when I get out of bed I just toss the covers out of the way, sometime s even off the bed, because I know im going to make them later anyway, so Im not that easy....but the thing that is odd is that all of these things added up make no sense, I cant understand how any of the IDI people can look at these points we are making and just blow them off and still think that an intruder did it, but I digress....:shrug:

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


The stairs curved...she'd have to bend pretty far. IMO An end table isn't the same as stairs but I'll try it. My husband probably wouldn't even notice it and read it either way though. He's pretty oblivious. :eek:
You can't do the test on yourself. You need someone to FIND the note you've written and observe whether they bent to read it or picked it up.

Have you see the picture of those stairs? It's a very gradual curve. She wouldn't have had to bend to read it, IMO. Here's a picture of the bottom of that staircase:

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene2.html

I think it would be a fair test. It's not a test to see if Patsy would pick it up to read it, because everyone reacts differently to situations, but I think it's a fair a test to see if a note written in black felt tip pen would require picking up to read. If it's easily readable, that could help explain why she didn't pick it up. If it's not readable, then it would be very suspicious that she didn't pick it up.

I know what you mean about oblivious husbands. I got my hair cut quite a bit shorter once, and about a week later, my husband finally noticed I'd had it cut. :D

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by humanpolygraph


Where did you get the info about Burke stating that Jon Benet was awake when they got home??? Ive been looking for interviews with Burke due to the plain fact that children generally dont lie...and what he says means everything....send me a link if you can find that please, very interesting. thanks!

This was in an interview of Burke done in Atlanta in June of 1999. He was interviewed by Detective Schuller while Deputy DA Hofstrom and Ramsey lawyer Jim Jenkins watched from another room. Description of it can be found in Steve Thomas's book, pages 316 and 317.

In all fairness, I should mention that Thomas thought Burke sounded confused. There's no mention as to whether Burke was asked about the pineapple...and I'd really like to hear what he would have had to say about that. His prints were on the bowl it was in and on the glass with the tea bag in it next to the bowl of pineapple.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


So...given the same situation you would not have mentioned LHP when asked by the police?
No, for the ransom note spoke of a 'foreign faction', and I doubt that I (being in a total shock over what had happened), would have been so astute as to immediately recognize the ransom note as a FAKED note.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by rashomon

No, for the ransom note spoke of a 'foreign faction', and I doubt that I (being in a total shock over what had happened), would have been so astute as to immediately recognize the ransom note as a FAKED note.

"I know if I found a note anyplace my house, that I hadn't see there before, I'd assume it was from my housekeeper. My husband or kids wouldn't leave a note. They talk to me in person. My housekeeper does leave notes, because I'm not always home when she leaves."

It is not about housekeepers leaving notes, but which housekeeper would be so careless as to leave a note on the rung of a spiral staircase? Doing this is downright dangerous, for a person could slip and fall when stepping on the paper.
So if I found paper on a stair rung, I'd probably think my kids had left it there by accident - not the housekeeper.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by rashomon


It is not about housekeepers leaving notes, but which housekeeper would be so careless as to leave a note on the rung of a spiral staircase? Doing this is downright dangerous, for a person could slip and fall when stepping on the paper.
So if I found paper on a stair rung, I'd probably think my kids had left it there by accident - not the housekeeper.

Of course it's dangerous. But, since my first thought wouldn't be my husband or kids, that only leaves my housekeeper. Who else was Patsy supposed to think it was from? Should she have thought "Oh, it must be a ransom note from somone that kidnapped one of my family members" before she even saw what it was?

[Ames]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Of course it's dangerous. But, since my first thought wouldn't be my husband or kids, that only leaves my housekeeper. Who else was Patsy supposed to think it was from? Should she have thought "Oh, it must be a ransom note from somone that kidnapped one of my family members" before she even saw what it was?

Hi there...yes, MyrDawn, that is the WHOLE point that we are trying to make. Why didn't she pick it up, if she had no clue what it was? You're saying that she didn't know.. then why did she stand over it to read it? If she thought that it was a note from her housekeeper, John, Burke or JB.....why NOT pick it up? And, yes, that ransom note looked alot like chicken scratch to me. I could barely read it when it was magnified on the computer screen. The writing was quite jerky...like the person that wrote it was shaking or something. I have no idea how in the world Patsy could have read it, while standing and leaning over it, in a poorly lit room. IMO

[LindaA]

Originally posted by humanpolygraph


Your absolutely right! It looks the same!!! But also what made me think Patsy never went to bed is because she wore the same clothes and make up on as the night before....thats a dead giveaway!!! A woman of her kind always cleans up and takes her appearance seriously, that kind of woman would NEVER GO TO BED WEARING THE SAME CLOTHES AS SHE WORE OUT THAT NIGHT, another thing too...I recall reading somewhere that John had said to the police, that patsy was upstairs getting ready for bed...if she wore the same clothes what the heck was she doing getting ready for bed? exercising??? lololol. anyway ill probably be banned soon too, all the fighting im doing on here lol.

Where did you get the information that she slept in her clothes?? She wore them again the next day, but that's not the same thing at all. And what about her makeup being the same? Many women have one "look" and they wear it with little change all the time.

[bullmoose]

LindaA: I agree with you totally. When I get up, especiaaly if its early, I will put on the same clothes I had on the night before, at least as a general rule. I then go back upstairs after eating breakfast and put on fresh clothes. If I spill my coffee[ I have constant tremors from MS] it isn't on my clothes I'm wearing that day. As to Ames saying how could Patsy read it in a poorly lit room how can he say that it was poorly lit or not? I have not read or seen anything that indicated that the lighting was dim on the stairs. I have a 100 year-old house with dark wooden stairs in the backside of my house, away from the windows, yet I can sit anywhere on them and read a book if I chose to. The single 60 watt bulb provides ample light.

[harz]

Originally posted by bullmoose
LindaA: I agree with you totally. When I get up, especiaaly if its early, I will put on the same clothes I had on the night before, at least as a general rule. I then go back upstairs after eating breakfast and put on fresh clothes. If I spill my coffee[ I have constant tremors from MS] it isn't on my clothes I'm wearing that day. As to Ames saying how could Patsy read it in a poorly lit room how can he say that it was poorly lit or not? I have not read or seen anything that indicated that the lighting was dim on the stairs. I have a 100 year-old house with dark wooden stairs in the backside of my house, away from the windows, yet I can sit anywhere on them and read a book if I chose to. The single 60 watt bulb provides ample light.

http://crimeshots.com/cshall.jpg

You can see only one ceiling light. The picture took with flashblub made this picture brighter. Also it was dark outside at 5 30 to 6am during winter time. IMO

[LindaA]

You cannot tell how bright the room was from the picture, and it certainly would have been still dark outside at that time. No telling how much light that one light gave.

[bullmoose]

If it was a sixty watt or above, it would be plenty; it is for me. A human eyeball can adjust to remarkably low lighting quite well. The only way, I suppose, to be sure, what the level of illumination would have been that morning would be to recreate the scene, not something likely to happen now. Even if the house in Boulder was used in the dark I doubt that anyone knows what power bulb was in the fixture. I would guess 100 watt, because thats what my wife would have in my stairwell, but I put in a 60 to save the electricity. And its plenty. But unless a person knew what power bulb was in use that morning, its impossible to know.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


This was in an interview of Burke done in Atlanta in June of 1999. He was interviewed by Detective Schuller while Deputy DA Hofstrom and Ramsey lawyer Jim Jenkins watched from another room. Description of it can be found in Steve Thomas's book, pages 316 and 317.

In all fairness, I should mention that Thomas thought Burke sounded confused. There's no mention as to whether Burke was asked about the pineapple...and I'd really like to hear what he would have had to say about that. His prints were on the bowl it was in and on the glass with the tea bag in it next to the bowl of pineapple.

I believe Burke has said both she was asleep and she was awake. Can't remember if it was in ST's book or PMPT where ST said he thought the boy was just confused (or something similar).

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


This was in an interview of Burke done in Atlanta in June of 1999. He was interviewed by Detective Schuller while Deputy DA Hofstrom and Ramsey lawyer Jim Jenkins watched from another room. Description of it can be found in Steve Thomas's book, pages 316 and 317.

In all fairness, I should mention that Thomas thought Burke sounded confused. There's no mention as to whether Burke was asked about the pineapple...and I'd really like to hear what he would have had to say about that. His prints were on the bowl it was in and on the glass with the tea bag in it next to the bowl of pineapple.

Look at page 524 of Steve Thomas's book. There's more about Schuler's interview of Burke there.

"First, he was asked if he ate any pineapple and when he went to bed. He didn't remember."

MOO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by harz


http://crimeshots.com/cshall.jpg

You can see only one ceiling light. The picture took with flashblub made this picture brighter. Also it was dark outside at 5 30 to 6am during winter time. IMO

Here's another picture. It was taken from further back and it shows 2 ceiling lights in the hallway leading to the spiral stairs.

http://jameson245_archive.tripod.com/spiralstairs-A.htm

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by bullmoose
If it was a sixty watt or above, it would be plenty; it is for me. A human eyeball can adjust to remarkably low lighting quite well. The only way, I suppose, to be sure, what the level of illumination would have been that morning would be to recreate the scene, not something likely to happen now. Even if the house in Boulder was used in the dark I doubt that anyone knows what power bulb was in the fixture. I would guess 100 watt, because thats what my wife would have in my stairwell, but I put in a 60 to save the electricity. And its plenty. But unless a person knew what power bulb was in use that morning, its impossible to know.

True, without knowing what wattage bulbs were in those ceiling lights in that hallway, it's hard to say how bright it was. But, the second ceiling light, futher along the hall, would have cast light on the lower steps, too.

Also, it depends on eyesight. I can read small print (the kind in paperback books) in very dim light. A 60 watt bulb in a lamp about 6 feet to the left of, and slightly behind, my chair. On the other hand, my husband requires much brighter light and wonders how I can read in the "dark". He's quite nearsighted and requires glasses. I don't need glasses.

MOO

[Athena]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Of course it's dangerous. But, since my first thought wouldn't be my husband or kids, that only leaves my housekeeper. Who else was Patsy supposed to think it was from? Should she have thought "Oh, it must be a ransom note from somone that kidnapped one of my family members" before she even saw what it was?

According to PMPT before Patsy realized what the note said she automatically assumed it might have been LHP reminding her about the rent money she said Patsy was going to lend her. I also don't see those stairs as being that narrow that you would not be able to overstep the note.

Anyone with kids knows the gymnastics you have to perform on a staircase to avoid tripping or slipping on toys or other objects left on the staircase. I know I did. Hell I even have to jump over my fat cat cause he just won't move from "his" spot on the steps. Patsy was only 39 years old - not like she was frail and stiff. jmo

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by bullmoose
LindaA: I agree with you totally. When I get up, especiaaly if its early, I will put on the same clothes I had on the night before, at least as a general rule. I then go back upstairs after eating breakfast and put on fresh clothes. If I spill my coffee[ I have constant tremors from MS] it isn't on my clothes I'm wearing that day. As to Ames saying how could Patsy read it in a poorly lit room how can he say that it was poorly lit or not? I have not read or seen anything that indicated that the lighting was dim on the stairs. I have a 100 year-old house with dark wooden stairs in the backside of my house, away from the windows, yet I can sit anywhere on them and read a book if I chose to. The single 60 watt bulb provides ample light.

I often put on the same clothes from the previous day first thing in the morning too but I have never put on "dressy" holiday clothes that I had worn the night before. I suppose everyone is different and it could have happened, but I still believe she or possibly both of them never went to bed that night. I'm unsure about JR because the covers are turned down on one side of the bed (was it his side?) and not the other. That doesn't mean he didn't get up at some point during the night and play a hand in the staging.
Also, I still think that any normal person would have picked up the note to read it, and even so, if there was enough light so she didn't have to; I still find it all too convenient that the note was laid out that way so she wouldn't have to pick it up.
I think it was laid out that way on purpose just for that reason. I think she didn't pick it up, OR read it because she already knew what it was (because she had helped write it) and it was laid out that way to explain why she didn't have to pick it up so there'd be a reason why her prints weren't on it. IMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


If it had been left on her bed and any of the Rameys had went in her room, don't you think that the fact that SHE wasn't in bed might have tipped them off that something was wrong?

It still would have given the perp time because they would not have been thinking that any harm was being done. They would have gone to Burke's room, the bathrooms, calling her, etc. before they started searching other parts of the house and chances are the killer would have been alerted that they were up and looking for her. jmo

[harz]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Here's another picture. It was taken from further back and it shows 2 ceiling lights in the hallway leading to the spiral stairs.

http://jameson245_archive.tripod.com/spiralstairs-A.htm

Interesting about their wooden floor, would there be creaking noises when walking on it? Strange that Burke was closest and didn't heard anything, even parents usually are alert if they heard something during sleeping. JMO

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by humanpolygraph
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ames


Yep...I agree with you. I even posted a thread called "Patsy's Makeup" LOL The beds with the covers turned down was not the only thing that made me think that she nor JB ever went to bed....(heck, John might not have made it to bed either, that night). But, yes..the same makeup, and the clothes...were the other things that made me think that. But...I just don't think that an intruder went into JB's room, and TURNED BACK THE COVERS for her (wow...how generous of him), and took her out of the bed. I really do think that the last time those beds had been slept in by Patsy or JB (and possibly even John) was Christmas morning. Even my five year old turns back the covers when she gets out of the bed, so that she doesn't get all tangled up in them, and possibly fall out of the bed. IMO [/QUOTE

It seems to me that people on these posts all get out of bed nice and neat, (turning covers back ie) lol...when I get out of bed I just toss the covers out of the way, sometime s even off the bed, because I know im going to make them later anyway, so Im not that easy....but the thing that is odd is that all of these things added up make no sense, I cant understand how any of the IDI people can look at these points we are making and just blow them off and still think that an intruder did it, but I digress....:shrug:

I just toss them too, especially when I'm flying out of state in less than 2 hours, have to get kids ready, and have a maid who'll make my bed for me after I've left. But that's just me. We can't assume the Ramseys act normally - er, I mean, like other people.

PS - I don't really have a maid. But if I did I'd never make my bed.

And what's with all you people putting on the same dirty clothes you wore the day before? Disgusting. Bleck!

[bullmoose]

I live in a 97 year old house with two floors and a total floor space of1300 claimed square feet. No sound from the stairs or creaking floors reaches either of the upstairs bedrooms. To call upstairs or down, we often use our cellphones, because the old house seems to dampen sound. I don't buy your creaking floorboard theory in that much larger house. And Wally: just because you are evidently[from your description] a normal person that does everything the way a normal person would[like you, that is] doesn't necessarily mean everybody does things that way. Not everybody wears their clothes in the same patterns of changing,either.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I often put on the same clothes from the previous day first thing in the morning too but I have never put on "dressy" holiday clothes that I had worn the night before. I suppose everyone is different and it could have happened, but I still believe she or possibly both of them never went to bed that night. I'm unsure about JR because the covers are turned down on one side of the bed (was it his side?) and not the other. That doesn't mean he didn't get up at some point during the night and play a hand in the staging.
Also, I still think that any normal person would have picked up the note to read it, and even so, if there was enough light so she didn't have to; I still find it all too convenient that the note was laid out that way so she wouldn't have to pick it up.
I think it was laid out that way on purpose just for that reason. I think she didn't pick it up, OR read it because she already knew what it was (because she had helped write it) and it was laid out that way to explain why she didn't have to pick it up so there'd be a reason why her prints weren't on it. IMO

And I think it was laid out that way by the intruder so she'd HAVE to pay attention to it. By spreading it out on the step like that, it would definitely look intentional, rather than just looking like it was something one of ther family accidentally dropped.

MOO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by harz


Interesting about their wooden floor, would there be creaking noises when walking on it? Strange that Burke was closest and didn't heard anything, even parents usually are alert if they heard something during sleeping. JMO

We have a 4 bedroom house, and it's all hardwood floors with the exception of the bathrooms and kitchen, and only one small area in our bedroom creaks. None of the other floors do. Plus, Burke's bedroom was quite a distance from there, and one floor up. The parent's room was two floors up.

I doubt that floor creaking or even any of the steps creaking, if it they do, would be loud enough to wake up anyone sleeping in either bedroom.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer2/primer10_blue.html

MOO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


I just toss them too, especially when I'm flying out of state in less than 2 hours, have to get kids ready, and have a maid who'll make my bed for me after I've left. But that's just me. We can't assume the Ramseys act normally - er, I mean, like other people.

PS - I don't really have a maid. But if I did I'd never make my bed.

And what's with all you people putting on the same dirty clothes you wore the day before? Disgusting. Bleck!

I have a housekeeper but I always make my bed first thing in the morning. I help my little girl make hers, first thing, too.

I also make sure my daughters toys are picked up off the floor before my housekeeper vacuums, so she doesn't have to run around picking them up herself. I think it's good for my daughter to learn she needs to pick up her own messes, instead of thinking it's OK to make a big mess and expect someone else to clean it up. If I spill something, I wipe it up myself. Some of my friends think it's weird, but that's just the way I am. Stephanie is our housekeeper, not a personal "maid" or "lady in waiting".

MOO

[Athena]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


I have a housekeeper but I always make my bed first thing in the morning. I help my little girl make hers, first thing, too.

I also make sure my daughters toys are picked up off the floor before my housekeeper vacuums, so she doesn't have to run around picking them up herself. I think it's good for my daughter to learn she needs to pick up her own messes, instead of thinking it's OK to make a big mess and expect someone else to clean it up. If I spill something, I wipe it up myself. Some of my friends think it's weird, but that's just the way I am. Stephanie is our housekeeper, not a personal "maid" or "lady in waiting".

MOO

Smart lady. When my children were younger; I had a live-in. The biggest mistake I made was not making my children pick up and straighten up their rooms. I used to fight with my daughter about her room; now I just close her door so I don't have to look at it and I refuse to clean it. She cleans it when she can't get into it anymore. ugh! She's so fussy about her personal grooming you'd never know she comes out of a room that looks like that.

Personally I'm a neat sleeper. I sleep in the fetal position - and only the actual spot I lay in is mussed up. My husband's side is a different story altogether. My son is a neat sleeper too and very often he just lays on top of the made bed so it's easier for him to "make it" in the morning. LOL

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Athena


Smart lady. When my children were younger; I had a live-in. The biggest mistake I made was not making my children pick up and straighten up their rooms. I used to fight with my daughter about her room; now I just close her door so I don't have to look at it and I refuse to clean it. She cleans it when she can't get into it anymore. ugh! She's so fussy about her personal grooming you'd never know she comes out of a room that looks like that.

Personally I'm a neat sleeper. I sleep in the fetal position - and only the actual spot I lay in is mussed up. My husband's side is a different story altogether. My son is a neat sleeper too and very often he just lays on top of the made bed so it's easier for him to "make it" in the morning. LOL

My grown son was messy, too. Getting him to clean up his messes was agonizing! My older daughter who's also grown and living on her own now, any my little one (so far) were and are much better about it. In fact, their rooms have always been very neat (wee daughter even refuses to go to bed until she picks up anything out of place, and the things are arranged "just so" on her dresser). The rest of the house is more of a struggle with wee daughter...I guess it's fair game for toys. :D

It's funny...I'm "neat" sleeper too. But, all 3 of the kids and my husband are "messy" sleepers. Thrashing around during the night. I have to get up and get an extra blanket sometimes, 'cause hubby is all tangled up in the one on the bed. I keep one handy every night because I have to use it so often! :eek:

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by Athena


Smart lady. When my children were younger; I had a live-in. The biggest mistake I made was not making my children pick up and straighten up their rooms. I used to fight with my daughter about her room; now I just close her door so I don't have to look at it and I refuse to clean it. She cleans it when she can't get into it anymore. ugh! She's so fussy about her personal grooming you'd never know she comes out of a room that looks like that.

Personally I'm a neat sleeper. I sleep in the fetal position - and only the actual spot I lay in is mussed up. My husband's side is a different story altogether. My son is a neat sleeper too and very often he just lays on top of the made bed so it's easier for him to "make it" in the morning. LOL

I agree that it is smart to make your children pick up after themselves. I had a nanny for my oldest because I was a full-time student and she is the laziest, messiest person I have ever met. I wish I had made her clean up after herself instead of letting Margarete do it all. My other two are very neat.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


And I think it was laid out that way by the intruder so she'd HAVE to pay attention to it. By spreading it out on the step like that, it would definitely look intentional, rather than just looking like it was something one of ther family accidentally dropped.

MOO

Yet funny how she did think it was something either the housekeeper or the family put there.

[harz]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Yet funny how she did think it was something either the housekeeper or the family put there.

I agree, it gives me the pauses thinking how Patsy found the note. The note was messy handwritten, and the size of papers that she couldn’t bother to pick them up to take a closer reading. How courteously of intruder spreading three papers separately on a step so Patsy doesn’t need to move or handle them. JMO

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


And I think it was laid out that way by the intruder so she'd HAVE to pay attention to it. By spreading it out on the step like that, it would definitely look intentional, rather than just looking like it was something one of ther family accidentally dropped.

MOO

That makes sense. PR would definitely not be able to ignore it, laying on the steps.

It does seem odd though that she didn't pick it up. All the more so, because it would be perfectly understandable for her fingerprints to be on the note after she read it.

[Athena]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


That makes sense. PR would definitely not be able to ignore it, laying on the steps.

It does seem odd though that she didn't pick it up. All the more so, because it would be perfectly understandable for her fingerprints to be on the note after she read it.

But she didn't say she did not pick it up except when she first started reading it after that - she says she could have but doesn't remember because she was freakng out (that's my word). But I really do find that understandable in a situation like that. I'll go find the transcript.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Yet funny how she did think it was something either the housekeeper or the family put there.

Why is it funny for her to think someone that had normal access to the house (her housekeeper and family) put the papers there before she read it?

If you found some strange papers in your house, would your first thought be that someone broke in and put them there?

[thewhitewitch1]

Why is it funny for her to think someone that had normal access to the house (her housekeeper and family) put the papers there before she read it?

If you found some strange papers in your house, would your first thought be that someone broke in and put them there?
MOO [/B][/QUOTE]

Because you said this: Originally posted by MyrDawn


And I think it was laid out that way by the intruder so she'd HAVE to pay attention to it. By spreading it out on the step like that, it would definitely look intentional, rather than just looking like it was something one of ther family accidentally dropped.

MOO


You said it would make it look intentional rather than something the family dropped accidentally and then I said it was funny that she thought that anyway.

[DolphinSpirit]

this is my first post here. I have to commend everyone for all the info!!! but i truly belive that the garroting happened first. I believe it was the sexual aphyxiation thing and then it went too far and she began convulsing....the perpetrator couldn't stand to watch that. so, they bashed her in the head to end it......and hence...(hence)...the staging.......anyone?

[edna mode]

I agree the garroting came first...and for a long time thought it may have been an "accident"...however, after taking a further look I feel this was no accident. It was a violent horrible long death...IMO.

JBR fought hard...IMO.

But, yes the garroting came first...

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Why is it funny for her to think someone that had normal access to the house (her housekeeper and family) put the papers there before she read it?

If you found some strange papers in your house, would your first thought be that someone broke in and put them there?
MOO

Because you said this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MyrDawn


And I think it was laid out that way by the intruder so she'd HAVE to pay attention to it. By spreading it out on the step like that, it would definitely look intentional, rather than just looking like it was something one of ther family accidentally dropped.

MOO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said it would make it look intentional rather than something the family dropped accidentally and then I said it was funny that she thought that anyway.[/QUOTE]

That's why I think it wasn't strange for Patsy to think at first that her housekeeper might have put it there to make sure she would see it, before they left on the trip.

MOO

[bullmoose]

I will add my 2 cents worth: I also believe that she was strangled with the socalled garrot deliberately and cruelly, with the fracture to skull coming during or at the end of the murder. Maybe she struggled or clawed the killer, and then he clubbed her. That might explain the bloodspot on her underpants of an yet unmatched DNA.It also would account for the minimal brain swelling and bleeding.

[bullmoose]

Exactly my thought , Myrdawn; my wife leaves me notes at the bottom of my stairs at times, although she puts it on the lintelpost , where my stairs turn. :beer:

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by bullmoose
Exactly my thought , Myrdawn; my wife leaves me notes at the bottom of my stairs at times, although she puts it on the lintelpost , where my stairs turn. :beer:

Mornin', Bullmoose!
:beer:

[Ames]

Originally posted by harz


http://crimeshots.com/cshall.jpg

You can see only one ceiling light. The picture took with flashblub made this picture brighter. Also it was dark outside at 5 30 to 6am during winter time. IMO

And did Patsy ever state in her interview that she had turned the lights on? Where is the lightswitch, anyway? I thought that she just came down, saw the note and started reading it. I don't remember reading that she turned on any lights. Unless they had been left on all night long...which I highly doubt. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by Ames


And did Patsy ever state in her interview that she had turned the lights on? Where is the lightswitch, anyway? I thought that she just came down, saw the note and started reading it. I don't remember reading that she turned on any lights. Unless they had been left on all night long...which I highly doubt. IMO

They did leave assorted lights on around the house so its not impossible. I can't remember that she was ever asked about turning on that light.

In the morning, when its dark out there are some lights I just turn on automatically as I pass by. But if you asked me I wouldn't have a specific recollection of turning them on.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Ames


And did Patsy ever state in her interview that she had turned the lights on? Where is the lightswitch, anyway? I thought that she just came down, saw the note and started reading it. I don't remember reading that she turned on any lights. Unless they had been left on all night long...which I highly doubt. IMO

Don't staircases normally have a light switch at both the top and bottom? Every one I've ever seen does. Our long hallway is like that, too, with a light switch at either end. Since it was still dark out, I can't imagine her descending the sprial staircase without switching on the light first.

MOO

[lucky13]

I believe that the head blow came first....some experts agree.
There are no scratches on her neck indicating a struggle to get the garrott off, only peticial hemmorages. There was nothing on her wrists (rope burns) that showed signs of her trying to get her hands undone- probably because they were tied so very loosely- which also tells me that restraining her hands was not even necessary because she was already 'out', (it was just staging) The tape on her mouth was put there for staging purposes only- it showed no signs of her mouth trying to wiggle it off or scream, or any movement at all. There wasn't a mass of dried up tears on her face either, just a small bit of mucas. Surly she would have been crying while being assaulted if she were awake! JonBenet was a smart, fiesty little girl. I can't believe her just 'giving in' to what was being done to her. No way. She woulda kicked, wiggled, screamed, hit....fought for her life. I think that she was hit on the head with the baseball bat, & almost immediately after, she was staged with the garrotting, cord on wrists, & tape on her mouth, so it would look like an intruder sexually molested & then killed her. MOO
RDI

[Athena]

Lights 6/98 Interview:

16 And then I started down the stairs,
17 this staircase, to go to the kitchen. And the
18 note was on the landing, on the stairs, the
19 bottom of the stairs here. And I, there was
20 some lighting on, but it wasn't bright lights

20 TOM HANEY: When you got up, were
21 there any lights on?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: I am sure there
23 were. We -- we -- the house was big, and
24 twisty-turny, you know, so we nearly always left
25 a light on in case somebody did get up or
0017
1 something. Because there are a lot of little
2 steps and what not. And we are not very good
3 about turning lights off.
4 TOM HANEY: Is there -- there
5 particular ones that you normally leave on?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
7 TOM HANEY: And/or we will just
8 stick with this floor for now.
9 PATSY RAMSEY: No, nothing here.
10 TOM HANEY: Okay. When you got up,
11 was it pitch black?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: John -- John, I
13 remember his bathroom right here had a light.
14 TOM HANEY: Okay. So it's shining
15 somewhat down to here, but we are talking quite
16 a distance?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, there is a
18 hall light here, right here I think. That was
19 on. Because I remember, you know, when you
20 first look up it's like bright, you know, but I
21 think that he was up already, he had gone
22 through here, you know, to his bathroom area.

19 PATSY RAMSEY: I would say either
20 that light was on or there were also some
21 sconces right here on the stairwell, which were
22 dimmed and oftentimes we would leave that on,
23 because it was dimly lit as a night light sort
24 of lighting area.
25 TOM HANEY: Okay.
0025
1 PATSY RAMSEY: So something I am
2 sure was on, because it wasn't pitch black
3 walking down.


http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

[MyrDawn]

I think the intruder may have started garrotting her first, then struck the blow to her head because she was moving around too much, then finished garrotting her.

MOO

[nuisanceposter]

But there's no indication of a struggle. There are no defensive wounds, and very little damage to the interior of her neck. The head wound was fully developed, indicating it came first.

[harz]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


They did leave assorted lights on around the house so its not impossible. I can't remember that she was ever asked about turning on that light.

In the morning, when its dark out there are some lights I just turn on automatically as I pass by. But if you asked me I wouldn't have a specific recollection of turning them on.

Neighbor report seeing Sunroom light was off, was it outside or inside?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by bullmoose
Exactly my thought , Myrdawn; my wife leaves me notes at the bottom of my stairs at times, although she puts it on the lintelpost , where my stairs turn. :beer:

But do you bend over to read them or do you pick them up? THAT is the question.

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


But do you bend over to read them or do you pick them up? THAT is the question.

I don't think that the IDI folks really GET what we are trying to say, here. It's really, really simple...why did Patsy bend over to read the ransom note if she did NOT know what it was? IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by lucky13
I believe that the head blow came first....some experts agree.
There are no scratches on her neck indicating a struggle to get the garrott off, only peticial hemmorages. There was nothing on her wrists (rope burns) that showed signs of her trying to get her hands undone- probably because they were tied so very loosely- which also tells me that restraining her hands was not even necessary because she was already 'out', (it was just staging) The tape on her mouth was put there for staging purposes only- it showed no signs of her mouth trying to wiggle it off or scream, or any movement at all. There wasn't a mass of dried up tears on her face either, just a small bit of mucas. Surly she would have been crying while being assaulted if she were awake! JonBenet was a smart, fiesty little girl. I can't believe her just 'giving in' to what was being done to her. No way. She woulda kicked, wiggled, screamed, hit....fought for her life. I think that she was hit on the head with the baseball bat, & almost immediately after, she was staged with the garrotting, cord on wrists, & tape on her mouth, so it would look like an intruder sexually molested & then killed her. MOO
RDI

Hi Lucky....I have wondered that too, about the tears. I haven't read anything that stated that there were ANY tears at all...couldn't they have tested for that...since they are basically saline, or DID they test...and I just don't know about it? Yes, it seems to me that if she was being strangled, she at least would have cried...and maybe screamed..if she had the chance. I totally agree with your post...IMO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Ames


I don't think that the IDI folks really GET what we are trying to say, here. It's really, really simple...why did Patsy bend over to read the ransom note if she did NOT know what it was? IMO

We get it all right, but don't see anything suspicious about it, because she'd know the police wouldn't find anything suspicious about finding her fingerprints on it after picking it up to read it.

She was able to see it just fine and chose not to pick it up.

I'll bet if she had picked it up, some RDI's would say she just did that to have a legitimate reason for having her fingerprints on it!

MOO

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


But do you bend over to read them or do you pick them up? THAT is the question.

Because she glanced down at it and the first words that she saw were "Listen carefully!" and she probably froze as she continued reading. jmo

[Ames]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


I'll bet if she had picked it up, some RDI's would say she just did that to have a legitimate reason for having her fingerprints on it!

MOO


Nahhhh....because that would make more sense to us.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
But there's no indication of a struggle. There are no defensive wounds, and very little damage to the interior of her neck. The head wound was fully developed, indicating it came first.

Maybe there were not indications of a struggle because he'd just started garroting her and gave the blow to her head as soon as she started to move around, then fininshed garrotting her...like I said.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Athena


Because she glanced down at it and the first words that she saw were "Listen carefully!" and she probably froze as she continued reading. jmo

Yep...she probably decided to see for sure who it was for before she picked it up. She didn't have to read very far to see what it was.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Yep...she probably decided to see for sure who it was for before she picked it up. She didn't have to read very far to see what it was.

Why would she have to decide to see who it was for? It wasn't addressed to her anyway and she could surely see that right away.
But she didn't pick it up...or did she? She couldn't seem to make her mind up if she did or not. I know she probably did way later but what about right after she found it? She gives conflicting stories about when she actually or if she actually picked it up.
I do think she didn't want her prints on it and it would have been less suspicious if her prints were on it. Maybe she was concerned about hers being the only prints on it...in that case, how could she know that if she didn't write it?
I still think it was weird that she read it bending over like that and was so insistant on telling the LE that she read it that way, for the most part. It's as if she wanted them to know that she hadn't touched it just to explain her lack of prints. IMO
She also gives conflicting stories about how much she read of it before she called 911. She changed her story later to say that she read it over JRs shoulder while on the phone. She did not say that originally. Somehow she just knew how it was signed...like magic. I can't imagine you could memorize SBTC at a glance and be able to recite it back to the operator like that. Besides, she claimed she only read the first couple of lines in her original version.
I know we are never going to agree on this, though, and that's fine.

[thewhitewitch1]

I believe the blow to the head came first and the garroting came after when she was already near death. I think everything except the head wound was staged to make it look like someone outside of the family.

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I can't imagine you could memorize SBTC at a glance and be able to recite it back to the operator like that. Besides, she claimed she only read the first couple of lines in her original version.
I know we are never going to agree on this, though, and that's fine.

Yet, another thing that bugged me about this case...how did she memorize SBTC, if she was so hysterical? Wasn't John reading the note when Patsy called 911? I know that if it was me, and I was trying to remember those initials, I would be like ....SRVT...or CBST....or something. I would be so upset...that there would be NO way that I could remember the letters SBTC. This is ONLY my opinon.

[Louisadelmar]

I don't think she memorized it. If someone asks me who a letter is from and I don't know I look at the signature. Why could she not have just looked at the 3rd page since by that point it was spread out by John.

[Ames]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
I don't think she memorized it. If someone asks me who a letter is from and I don't know I look at the signature. Why could she not have just looked at the 3rd page since by that point it was spread out by John.

How do we know that Patsy was in the same room as John? Why would she have to be hoovering over him, as she called 911? The phone that she used was in a different room, from where the ransom note was found. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by Ames


How do we know that Patsy was in the same room as John? Why would she have to be hoovering over him, as she called 911? The phone that she used was in a different room, from where the ransom note was found. IMO

TT: Let’s move back downstairs, Patsy makes the 911 call, she talk through that on the kitchen phone?
JR: Uh-hum.
TT: Which is right around the corner from the floor that you talk about where you were reading the note?
JR: Right Uh-huh

This picture shows how long the receiver cord was. Patsy could have easily gone around the corner and read the signature while John was reading the note.

http://www.acandyrose.com/kitchenphone.gif

[nuisanceposter]

Patsy not picking up the note at all - and saying she didn't - is strange. If I found a three page letter spanned across the run of my stairs, I would pick it right up to read it...no way I'm going to stand there bent over straining to read the print. The way it was written with a Sharpie wouldn't make it much easier to read, either.

And John Ramsey saying he went to the hall and got on his knees and read it spread out on the floor is just plain strange as well - when was the last time any of you saw a man get down on the floor to read an important paper? Men don't get on the floor - they stand and read things over a counter or sit down at a table or just plain stand there.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Patsy not picking up the note at all - and saying she didn't - is strange. If I found a three page letter spanned across the run of my stairs, I would pick it right up to read it...no way I'm going to stand there bent over straining to read the print. The way it was written with a Sharpie wouldn't make it much easier to read, either.

And John Ramsey saying he went to the hall and got on his knees and read it spread out on the floor is just plain strange as well - when was the last time any of you saw a man get down on the floor to read an important paper? Men don't get on the floor - they stand and read things over a counter or sit down at a table or just plain stand there.

When is the last time you saw a father reading a ransom note that claimed his daughter had been kidnapped? Would you expect him to read it the same way as his phone bill?

MOO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Ames


How do we know that Patsy was in the same room as John? Why would she have to be hoovering over him, as she called 911? The phone that she used was in a different room, from where the ransom note was found. IMO

Why shouldn't she want to be close to him?

Why shouldn't she want to be within reading distance of the note while she was on the phone with 911 in case they had any questions about it?

MOO

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


When is the last time you saw a father reading a ransom note that claimed his daughter had been kidnapped? Would you expect him to read it the same way as his phone bill?

MOO

Actually...yes. I would expect him to sit (or stand) and read an important paper the same way he reads other important papers. JR was a CEO of a big business - he had to read important papers all the time.

And interesting that he didn't feel he needed to adhere to any of the dire warnings about his child being beheaded in that RN as well. It very clearly says the 'napper is closely watching and will cut JonBenet's head off if he sees the Rs so much as talk to a stray dog - yet here's JR telling Patsy to call 911 but not telling her to tell police of the warning against his daughter's life, and not stopping her from calling over some five other people right after the 911 call.

It sounds to me like he already knew the RN was a fake and he had nothing to worry about from the kidnapper.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Why shouldn't she want to be close to him?

Why shouldn't she want to be within reading distance of the note while she was on the phone with 911 in case they had any questions about it?

MOO

I have to agree. I would at least expect that J and P would be within sight of each other while Patsy talked to 911. I don't quite understand why Patsy hung up on the 911 operator, though...911 wants you to stay on the line until someone responds to the call.

I also don't understand why she didn't even tell the police that they need to be as invisible as possible when responding so that JonBenet isn't beheaded. I don't believe that she hadn't read that part of the note - your child is kidnapped, and your only link to her and getting her back safely is to follow the instructions the kidnapper had left - especially when he says he's watching and will decapitate her if you call anyone. Of course you would read the entire note and tell police.

And I for darn sure would not ask my friends to come over, knowing the kidnapper says he's watching. I wouldn't want them to be in danger from some psycho who will kidnap and kill children. They can support me from the safety of their own homes, over the phone.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Actually...yes. I would expect him to sit (or stand) and read an important paper the same way he reads other important papers. JR was a CEO of a big business - he had to read important papers all the time.

And interesting that he didn't feel he needed to adhere to any of the dire warnings about his child being beheaded in that RN as well. It very clearly says the 'napper is closely watching and will cut JonBenet's head off if he sees the Rs so much as talk to a stray dog - yet here's JR telling Patsy to call 911 but not telling her to tell police of the warning against his daughter's life, and not stopping her from calling over some five other people right after the 911 call.

It sounds to me like he already knew the RN was a fake and he had nothing to worry about from the kidnapper.

I'd expect he'd be a lot more emotional knowing it was a ransom note for his daughter, than if it was just a business type paper. And, people don't act their "normal" selves when they're under great stress, like a kidnapping, would cause.

MOO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I have to agree. I would at least expect that J and P would be within sight of each other while Patsy talked to 911. I don't quite understand why Patsy hung up on the 911 operator, though...911 wants you to stay on the line until someone responds to the call.

I also don't understand why she didn't even tell the police that they need to be as invisible as possible when responding so that JonBenet isn't beheaded. I don't believe that she hadn't read that part of the note - your child is kidnapped, and your only link to her and getting her back safely is to follow the instructions the kidnapper had left - especially when he says he's watching and will decapitate her if you call anyone. Of course you would read the entire note and tell police.

And I for darn sure would not ask my friends to come over, knowing the kidnapper says he's watching. I wouldn't want them to be in danger from some psycho who will kidnap and kill children. They can support me from the safety of their own homes, over the phone.

The 911 operator never once asked Patsy to remain on the phone.

IMO, it's not the person calling 911 for help that needs to instruct the police on how to proceed. The police should know how to do their job, although in this case, that proved not to be the case.

I don't believe Patsy the whole note before calling 911, including the part about JonBenet dying or being beheaded before calling 911. I see no reason for her to lie about that, whether she was innocent or guilty.

She said she barely started reading that note and, as soon as she realized what it was, went to check on JonBenet and yell for John, then called 911. She said she hadn't read very much of the note at all before calling 911. The death threats start on the 2nd page.

I don't find it strange that she didn't read the entire note before calling 911, though. It's not like she was alone in the house or couldn't read more if the 911 operator had questions. I have no idea what I'd do in the same situation, but I can't fault Patsy for calling the police ASAP as soon as she realized it was a ransom note and JonBenet wasn't in her bed.

From the call, it looks like when the 911 operator asked her if the note said who took JonBenet, Patsy didn't know at first, then looked to see what it said:

911: Does it say who took her?

Patsy: No! I don't know. There's a... there's a ransom note here.

911: It's a ransom note?

Patsy: It says SBTC....Victory....Please!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079093/

MOO

[harz]

The question is where was she standing and how much time difference between;
911: It's a ransom note?
to
Patsy: It says SBTC....Victory....Please!
If she was standing by the phone and response to that 911 question in very instant moment saying SBTC, then it would be interesting. JMO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by harz
The question is where was she standing and how much time difference between;
911: It's a ransom note?
to
Patsy: It says SBTC....Victory....Please!
If she was standing by the phone and response to that 911 question in very instant moment saying SBTC, then it would be interesting. JMO

There's a link to the audio version of the tape about halfway down this page, right above the transcript version:

http://nvfc.us/blog/index.php?tag=y

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by DolphinSpirit
this is my first post here. I have to commend everyone for all the info!!! but i truly belive that the garroting happened first. I believe it was the sexual aphyxiation thing and then it went too far and she began convulsing....the perpetrator couldn't stand to watch that. so, they bashed her in the head to end it......and hence...(hence)...the staging.......anyone?

Welcome aboard.


I don't know which came first, but I'm skeptical about the errotic asphyxiation. The garrotte wasn't constructed properly for that. It's possible the perp was having his first go at AE, and didn't know how to make the garrotte for the purpose.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Patsy not picking up the note at all - and saying she didn't - is strange. If I found a three page letter spanned across the run of my stairs, I would pick it right up to read it...no way I'm going to stand there bent over straining to read the print. The way it was written with a Sharpie wouldn't make it much easier to read, either.

And John Ramsey saying he went to the hall and got on his knees and read it spread out on the floor is just plain strange as well - when was the last time any of you saw a man get down on the floor to read an important paper? Men don't get on the floor - they stand and read things over a counter or sit down at a table or just plain stand there.

It's double strange, because there is no reason for her to avoid getting her prints on the note. We'd expect her prints on the note from holding it to read.

It sounds as if they went to some trouble to make sure they didn't pick it up - which is really weird.

I know at this point the IDI's will chime - in unison- "We can't judge others by how we think we would act" "If you havn't been in their shoes you don't know how you'd react" Blah blah blah.

It's just silly to think someone stood bent over reading the note laid out on the stairs. They'd pick it up. And JR reading it on his knees on the floor - absurd.

No reason to believe a word of it.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by Athena


Because she glanced down at it and the first words that she saw were "Listen carefully!" and she probably froze as she continued reading. jmo

aND REMEMBER IT WAS WRITTEN WITH A Sharpie so it was much easier to read than if it had been written in a regular pen.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by LindaA


aND REMEMBER IT WAS WRITTEN WITH A Sharpie so it was much easier to read than if it had been written in a regular pen.
Sorry for the all caps. Didn't realize the caps lock was on until too late.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by LindaA


aND REMEMBER IT WAS WRITTEN WITH A Sharpie so it was much easier to read than if it had been written in a regular pen.

I don't think something written with a Sharpie pen would be easier to read. It would be easier to see the writing but not nec. the words.
Also, Patsy has stated that at first she thought the letter was about Beth when she first started reading it so she did not see "Listen Carefully" and "freeze". Not picking the note up is just plain weird and JR reading it spread out on the floor is just plain weird too. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
I don't think she memorized it. If someone asks me who a letter is from and I don't know I look at the signature. Why could she not have just looked at the 3rd page since by that point it was spread out by John.

Because that is not what she said she did in her original story. In her original story, she was BY the phone in the kitchen. She later changed it to reading the note over JRs shoulder when it needed to be explained how she could recite the SBTC signature if she didn't read the entire note as she first said she didn't.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


It's double strange, because there is no reason for her to avoid getting her prints on the note. We'd expect her prints on the note from holding it to read.

It sounds as if they went to some trouble to make sure they didn't pick it up - which is really weird.

I know at this point the IDI's will chime - in unison- "We can't judge others by how we think we would act" "If you havn't been in their shoes you don't know how you'd react" Blah blah blah.

It's just silly to think someone stood bent over reading the note laid out on the stairs. They'd pick it up. And JR reading it on his knees on the floor - absurd.

No reason to believe a word of it. In your own words, Wally..."you can't judge others by how we think we would act", "If you haven't been in their shoes you don't know how you'd react", "Blah, Blah, Blah"...........and imo if they were guilty they definitely would have picked the note up...if they were such savvy killers as you all think...that would have been the wisest things to do, just pick up the darn thing, so if any prints transferred on the paper, there would have been a logical excuse! They didn't do this murder, Wally! :seeya:

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by MyrDawn
I think the intruder may have started garrotting her first, then struck the blow to her head because she was moving around too much, then finished garrotting her.

MOO That makes sense to me, Myr! :seeya:

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
In your own words, Wally..."you can't judge others by how we think we would act", "If you haven't been in their shoes you don't know how you'd react", "Blah, Blah, Blah"...........and imo if they were guilty they definitely would have picked the note up...if they were such savvy killers as you all think...that would have been the wisest things to do, just pick up the darn thing, so if any prints transferred on the paper, there would have been a logical excuse! They didn't do this murder, Wally! :seeya:

I think they did do this murder. They aren't savy killers though. Just ordinary people.

If there had been an intruder, then them reading bent over or on the floor makes even less sense.

Any one else would have spread the note out on the kitchen tale, or counter.

I might even buy Patsy reading it on the stairs -for a moment. John spreading it out on the floor to read it on is knees is too silly to even bother contemplating. Just an outright lie.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


I think they did do this murder. They aren't savy killers though. Just ordinary people.

If there had been an intruder, then them reading bent over or on the floor makes even less sense.

Any one else would have spread the note out on the kitchen tale, or counter.

I might even buy Patsy reading it on the stairs -for a moment. John spreading it out on the floor to read it on is knees is too silly to even bother contemplating. Just an outright lie.

So why do you think Fernie said he first saw the note on the floor?

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


So why do you think Fernie said he first saw the note on the floor?

It was on the floor, but it wasn't read on the floor. Why would a 53 year old man spread the note on the floor and get down on his hands and knees to read it when he could just put it on the counter or table?

Of course there wasn't any need to actually read it, as they knew what it said - being the authors.

[WallyCleaver]

Didn't the coroner say he couldn't determine which came first, but that they must have come in close in time?

The head wound had a lot of internal bleeding, so I don't think it's necessary that she was garrotted first, though it is certainly possible.

Wasn't there also a lot of brain swelling? Doesn't that take a bit of time? Just asking.

[Ames]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


I think they did do this murder. They aren't savy killers though. Just ordinary people.

If there had been an intruder, then them reading bent over or on the floor makes even less sense.

Any one else would have spread the note out on the kitchen tale, or counter.

I might even buy Patsy reading it on the stairs -for a moment. John spreading it out on the floor to read it on is knees is too silly to even bother contemplating. Just an outright lie.

Yep, I agree with you. And if John touched it long enough to "spread it out on the floor"...his fingerprints would already be on it, so why not just hold it and read it? Makes no sense at all...IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


It was on the floor, but it wasn't read on the floor. Why would a 53 year old man spread the note on the floor and get down on his hands and knees to read it when he could just put it on the counter or table?

Of course there wasn't any need to actually read it, as they knew what it said - being the authors.

At this point you even have to wonder if the note was ever even ON the stairs. I totally agree with you, Wally.

[thewhitewitch1]

I've always found it interesting that when the Ramseys speak of JBs death, they almost never mention the blow to her head and focus only on the "garroting". The head wound was horrific, yet it is never included how it happened in their theory of what the "intruder" did and why. Just an observation.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


At this point you even have to wonder if the note was ever even ON the stairs. I totally agree with you, Wally.

We only have the R's word that it was on the stairs. We don't know it for a fact.

[bullmoose]

Maybe that is because of the obviousness of the strangulation ligature on her neck, whereas the skull fracture wasn't outwardly obvious. The cruelty of the garrotte is what sticks up first whenever I think of the murder; since I think that the bashing of her skull was almost an afterthought. Just my two cents.

[bullmoose]

I'm 53 years old; now if a similar three page note was on my stairs and my wife was freaking out like Patsy doubtless was, I would pick up the pages just like I think John did, shuffling them together by the edges so as not to mess up possible prints and then putting them down the same way on the floor out of the walkway and then getting down to read them. Try it for yourself, I did, its actually simple to do. Maybe thats why their prints werent found on the note; I myself believe the note was right where they said it was.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I'm 53 years old; now if a similar three page note was on my stairs and my wife was freaking out like Patsy doubtless was, I would pick up the pages just like I think John did, shuffling them together by the edges so as not to mess up possible prints and then putting them down the same way on the floor out of the walkway and then getting down to read them. Try it for yourself, I did, its actually simple to do. Maybe thats why their prints werent found on the note; I myself believe the note was right where they said it was.

I'm not saying it was hard to do - and JR was in reasonable shape for a guy his age. But why read it kneeling on the floor? Who does that? You wouldn't do it, so don't be silly. No one would put it on the floor. They'd put it on the table.

[bullmoose]

I don't know where the table was with reference to the stairs. My table is in the next room, 20 feet away, so I would have put it on the floor. Also, I might not put it on my table if it were not clear and clean. Was theirs close,clear and clean ? Mine usually has stuff on it, coffee cups, dishes, flowers, so I wouldn't have used it if it were right there.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Why would she have to decide to see who it was for? It wasn't addressed to her anyway and she could surely see that right away.
But she didn't pick it up...or did she? She couldn't seem to make her mind up if she did or not. I know she probably did way later but what about right after she found it? She gives conflicting stories about when she actually or if she actually picked it up.
I do think she didn't want her prints on it and it would have been less suspicious if her prints were on it. Maybe she was concerned about hers being the only prints on it...in that case, how could she know that if she didn't write it?
I still think it was weird that she read it bending over like that and was so insistant on telling the LE that she read it that way, for the most part. It's as if she wanted them to know that she hadn't touched it just to explain her lack of prints. IMO
She also gives conflicting stories about how much she read of it before she called 911. She changed her story later to say that she read it over JRs shoulder while on the phone. She did not say that originally. Somehow she just knew how it was signed...like magic. I can't imagine you could memorize SBTC at a glance and be able to recite it back to the operator like that. Besides, she claimed she only read the first couple of lines in her original version.
I know we are never going to agree on this, though, and that's fine.

Please explain why she wouldn't want to get her prints on it. It makes no sense to me. What possible purpose could that serve?

The police expect to find the fingerprints of the people that read a ransom note on the note, so her prints on the note certainly wouldn't have been suspicious.

All she would have had to do is say "I picked the note up and read it". There would have been nothing suspicous about that, or leaving her prints on the note when she did that.

But, she didn't pick the note up because she would read enough of it just fine the way it was before she ran up to check on JonBenet and yell for John.

MOO

[LindaA]

before she came downstairs. Did she still have something in her hands when she reached the bottom of the stairs?

BTW, I chcked it out. Somethiing on the thid step of my stairway would be quite easy to read without picking it up, especially if it were written in a Sharpie. Isn't it just possible that she reached for it, the first words registered, and she froze for a moment before going back upstairs to check on JB?

I agree that had she touched it the RDIs would be saying she did it on purpose to be sure to be able to account for her fingerprints being on it.

Were latex gloves found in the Ramsey home afterwards?

[lucky13]

Ames, Wally, Whitewitch, Nuisance- I'm so glad you all are on this board! So often, it's like you take the words right out of my mouth. (Great minds think alike!!)
I have stated before how absurd it is that Patsy leaned over to read the note instead of just picking it up, like any normal person would do. Even if she didn't pick it up at first, why wouldn't she pick it up after reading her daughter was taken- take it somewhere where there is adequate light, & make sure she read it correctly? WHO would EVER think that they would find a RANSOM note in their OWN HOME- especially when they have been right there, inside the house all night? It doesn't make sense. Between that, & her stepping over the note(skipping that stairstep), it's just ludicrous.
And I also think it's weird that she knew the note was signed SBTC. Ames said it all! It's highly unlikely that she could've spurted out "it says SBTC." She was in a panic & was able to remember(or see) the correct order of the very unusual lettering?? No way. Like Ames said, who could remember that right away, while you're in a wild panic? I would expect her to say 'it says STCB or something" or "it says SBTC, or SCBT" Her memory was excellent at such a paniced time!! Yet, she can hardly remember anything afterwards. Yeah, right.
And them NOT even mentioning the MANY horrible threats to their daughters life to the 911 operator is totally unbelievable to me. 'They' made it very clear, over & over & over that contacting ANYONE would result in their daughters death &/or BEHEADING!!!!!!!!!!They could have even called right back, after they hung up & said, " And please don't send a marked car, there are lots of threats about contacting anyone- we have to be careful. My babies life is in danger!!" They didn't do that because they KNEW she was already dead. That's why Patsy called 911, the Whites, the Fernies, the Rev.... WHY ELSE would they not be concerned about those awful threats?? Any IDI's have a reasonable explanation for that?? I'd love to hear it.
MOO

[LindaA]

To quote the RDIs, the IDIs have explained it over and over again. If you choose not to believe what they think, then that's your choice. The IDIs choose not believe your theory either.

I came here as a fence-sitter. I've been on both sides several times before and after comoing here. The time I've spent here makes me lean more and more to the IDI side because they RDIs are so close- minded. They see guilt in every little thing. The IDIs seem more willing to consider all possibilities.

Neither side, IMO, can come up with a plausible scenario that explains all the evidence. I really do t hink you RDIs hurt your case when you are so condescending to the IDIs.

JMO.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
Didn't the coroner say he couldn't determine which came first, but that they must have come in close in time?

The head wound had a lot of internal bleeding, so I don't think it's necessary that she was garrotted first, though it is certainly possible.

Wasn't there also a lot of brain swelling? Doesn't that take a bit of time? Just asking.

Yes, it does. Experts said the development of the head wound we see on JonBenet would have taken from ten minutes to up to an hour - one expert said perhaps even up to two hours. JonBenet wasn't at the brink of death when she was struck on the head or else we wouldn't see the swelling and the three areas of pooled blood. She had to have been alive with her heart pumping for that to have occurred.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I've always found it interesting that when the Ramseys speak of JBs death, they almost never mention the blow to her head and focus only on the "garroting". The head wound was horrific, yet it is never included how it happened in their theory of what the "intruder" did and why. Just an observation.

IMO, the Rs back theories that point away from their involvement, such as the stun gun idea, and they play down things that may have contributed, such as the evidence of past sexual abuse and not giving much note to the head wound.

IMO, they know the head wound came first, and that's why they don't bring it up very much - it's in their best interest to get the public to believe the garotting came first, since people outright refuse to believe a parent would have done that to their own child.

The head wound would not have been as fully developed as it was if it was the last thing the killer did as JonBenet was dying from strangling.

[edna mode]

I agree with you LindaA. I also was on the fence for years...and leaned towards an RDI theory. However, once the intruder evidence was released and I began to pay attention to Lou Smit, my thoughts changed. I stay open to any and all possibilities. But, at this point the evidence IMO definitely leans away from the Ramseys.

I agree the RDI folks hurt themselves greatly with their personal attacks. Have you ever visited the FFJ forums? Wow, talk about hatred and vile comments and personal attacks. Stooping to personal attacks is the first sign something is way wrong.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by lucky13
Ames, Wally, Whitewitch, Nuisance- I'm so glad you all are on this board! So often, it's like you take the words right out of my mouth. (Great minds think alike!!)
I have stated before how absurd it is that Patsy leaned over to read the note instead of just picking it up, like any normal person would do. Even if she didn't pick it up at first, why wouldn't she pick it up after reading her daughter was taken- take it somewhere where there is adequate light, & make sure she read it correctly? WHO would EVER think that they would find a RANSOM note in their OWN HOME- especially when they have been right there, inside the house all night? It doesn't make sense. Between that, & her stepping over the note(skipping that stairstep), it's just ludicrous.
And I also think it's weird that she knew the note was signed SBTC. Ames said it all! It's highly unlikely that she could've spurted out "it says SBTC." She was in a panic & was able to remember(or see) the correct order of the very unusual lettering?? No way. Like Ames said, who could remember that right away, while you're in a wild panic? I would expect her to say 'it says STCB or something" or "it says SBTC, or SCBT" Her memory was excellent at such a paniced time!! Yet, she can hardly remember anything afterwards. Yeah, right.
And them NOT even mentioning the MANY horrible threats to their daughters life to the 911 operator is totally unbelievable to me. 'They' made it very clear, over & over & over that contacting ANYONE would result in their daughters death &/or BEHEADING!!!!!!!!!!They could have even called right back, after they hung up & said, " And please don't send a marked car, there are lots of threats about contacting anyone- we have to be careful. My babies life is in danger!!" They didn't do that because they KNEW she was already dead. That's why Patsy called 911, the Whites, the Fernies, the Rev.... WHY ELSE would they not be concerned about those awful threats?? Any IDI's have a reasonable explanation for that?? I'd love to hear it.
MOO .

John had the note spread out while Patsy was near him and on the phone with 911. All she had to do was read the signature. There was no 'remembering' involved. The talk of beheading etc is near the end of the note. Patsy says she only read the beginning.

How often do people start givng instructions to the police when they call 911 for an emergency? Most of us assume (perhaps incorrectly) the police know how to do their jobs.

Patsy called the Whites and the Fernies. Barb Fernie is said to have called the minister.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LindaA
To quote the RDIs, the IDIs have explained it over and over again. If you choose not to believe what they think, then that's your choice. The IDIs choose not believe your theory either.

I came here as a fence-sitter. I've been on both sides several times before and after comoing here. The time I've spent here makes me lean more and more to the IDI side because they RDIs are so close- minded. They see guilt in every little thing. The IDIs seem more willing to consider all possibilities.

Neither side, IMO, can come up with a plausible scenario that explains all the evidence. I really do t hink you RDIs hurt your case when you are so condescending to the IDIs.

JMO.

Hi, Linda. I mean no offense, but RDIs perhaps see the need of IDIs to consider everything as a form of closed-mindedness as well - minds closed to the idea that the Rs could have done this. I also think many RDIs started out with an open mind before they came to the conclusion that there was only one plausible explanation for everything - RDI.

Not telling the police of the threat to JonBenet's life, hanging up on the operator, and calling all friends over doesn't make much sense in an IDI theory, but it makes perfect sense in an RDI theory. They already knew she was dead, so there was no real threat. I could go on and on about the way the Rs acted as if there wasn't ever a "real killer," such as not seeing the need to interview with police to find this person, and sending Burke out to the Whites on 12/26 and back to school weeks later. Not to mention how they didn't seem to be too concerned about a return of the killer (one example: Atlanta break-in.)

What about sending Burke out to go over to the White's when the kidnapper says he's watching and will kill JonBenet? How could the Rs be sure that Burke would be okay leaving the house and their protective watch? How could they be sure he wouldn't be attacked as well, or that wouldn't have been the straw that sent JB's head rolling?

As for FFJ, this board isn't like that one in terms of personal attacks. I think we've been really considerate to each other here on this board as of late, no matter what side of the fence you are on. There have been times when I have been worried about the level of personalness posters went to here at CTV, especially during the end of the Michael Jackson trial. That board was a scary place for a little bit there.

You also have to understand the dynamic of the FFJ board - I don't know them personally, but through reading their board I have come to the conclusion that all the FFJers know each other very well and have for years - and they have a long-standing "relationship" with the regulars of Jameson's board, webbsleuths. Jameson's board is every bit the same as they are in terms of comments of a personal nature. Both boards have very set opinions of the players in this case and don't hestitate to express them.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
.

John had the note spread out while Patsy was near him and on the phone with 911. All she had to do was read the signature. There was no 'remembering' involved. The talk of beheading etc is near the end of the note. Patsy says she only read the beginning.

How often do people start givng instructions to the police when they call 911 for an emergency? Most of us assume (perhaps incorrectly) the police know how to do their jobs.

Patsy called the Whites and the Fernies. Barb Fernie is said to have called the minister.

But she reeled it off immediately, not "let me see what it says..." She knew what the signature was right away when asked by the operator.

I don't believe she'd only read the beginning. Think about it - there's a ransom note...your only chance of getting your child back is the RN in your hands. A parent is going to read each word through thoroughly and try to understand what the note says before dialing the phone. Your child's life and safe return depends upon it!

You can bet your bottom dollar that if I found a ransom note threatening my child being decapitated that would be the first thing I told police. I would state very clearly and repeatedly the dire need for discretion in dealing with this as I don't want my baby's head cut off.

Calling the Whites and the Fernies is bad enough - the note says they're watching and will cut her head off - do you really want to take that chance by calling people and asking them to come over? Do you want your friends to possibly become victims of this kidnapper as well? For all the Rs knew, the kidnapper was right there still the house or right next door watching them, ready to act as soon as he saw his instructions were being disregarded.

And on top of that, they sent Burke out to the White's, not knowing where the 'napper was or what he might do. What parent would allow their other child to leave their house and their protection when their baby is missing and her life threatened? That house was big enough and there were enough people there that they could easily have set Burke up with a tv to play his Nintendo upstairs away from the action - there was no need to risk his life sending him anywhere else. They should ahve at the very least asked for a police escort to ensure his safety.

IMO, the Ramseys behaved as if they knew the RN was bogus and there was no need to adhere to the instructions in it. Either that, or they don't care very much about the safety of their children. There's no other reason for the risks that they took that morning.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


[...]

Not telling the police of the threat to JonBenet's life, hanging up on the operator, and calling all friends over doesn't make much sense in an IDI theory, but it makes perfect sense in an RDI theory. They already knew she was dead, so there was no real threat. I could go on and on about the way the Rs acted as if there wasn't ever a "real killer," such as not seeing the need to interview with police to find this person, and sending Burke out to the Whites on 12/26 and back to school weeks later. Not to mention how they didn't seem to be too concerned about a return of the killer (one example: Atlanta break-in.)

As I mentioned in my previous post. Patsy says she only read the first few lines before she started shouting for John, running upstairs and then calling 911. The threats are near the end of the note. She hadn't read them when she was talking with 911 so how could she mention them?

What about sending Burke out to go over to the White's when the kidnapper says he's watching and will kill JonBenet? How could the Rs be sure that Burke would be okay leaving the house and their protective watch? How could they be sure he wouldn't be attacked as well, or that wouldn't have been the straw that sent JB's head rolling? Patsy was a basket case and John was focussed on trying to get his daughter back. I think being at the White's was healthier for Burke. Did BPD object or say Burke should stay with his parents? I would think if they thought it was an unsafe idea they would have said something.

As for FFJ, this board isn't like that one in terms of personal attacks. I think we've been really considerate to each other here on this board as of late, no matter what side of the fence you are on. There have been times when I have been worried about the level of personalness posters went to here at CTV, especially during the end of the Michael Jackson trial. That board was a scary place for a little bit there.

You also have to understand the dynamic of the FFJ board - I don't know them personally, but through reading their board I have come to the conclusion that all the FFJers know each other very well and have for years - and they have a long-standing "relationship" with the regulars of Jameson's board, webbsleuths. Jameson's board is every bit the same as they are in terms of comments of a personal nature. Both boards have very set opinions of the players in this case and don't hestitate to express them.

FFJ members are fine so long as you agree the Ramseys are guilty. They claim otherwise but one only has to read their exchange with Miss Marple to see the truth. However, part of what I find offensive about the site are the jokes about other people. RE the Paugh sisters - "Count the chins!" "Pam's a "bootydo"... 'cause her stomach sticks out further than her booty do...hahahaha" "[Susan Stine] looks like a Nazi storm trooper" or the laughing at John for the side-effects of the anti-depressants he was taking. I think that sort of thing is out of line whether one is RDI or IDI.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


<snip>


FFJ members are fine so long as you agree the Ramseys are guilty. They claim otherwise but one only has to read their exchange with Miss Marple to see the truth. However, part of what I find offensive about the site are the jokes about other people. RE the Paugh sisters - "Count the chins!" "Pam's a "bootydo"... 'cause her stomach sticks out further than her booty do...hahahaha" "[Susan Stine] looks like a Nazi storm trooper" or the laughing at John for the side-effects of the anti-depressants he was taking. I think that sort of thing is out of line whether one is RDI or IDI. [/B]

Yes, I know...and that's their board, so they're free to say what they want. And it isn't just the RDIs - Jameson's board does the same thing. They even cut and paste quotes from FFJ just to mock what they say, in addition to mocking Thomas and anyone not supporting the Ramseys.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Yes, I know...and that's their board, so they're free to say what they want. And it isn't just the RDIs - Jameson's board does the same thing. They even cut and paste quotes from FFJ just to mock what they say, in addition to mocking Thomas and anyone not supporting the Ramseys.

Maybe it's just me... but I think there is a difference between disagreeing with (even mocking) what someone says and making fun of someone's weight or personal infirmity because you disagree with them. I notice they don't make fun of Tricia's weight so it isn't that they are just against plus-sizes.

But somehow I suspect FFJ isn't going to change because of anything I say! :-)

[lucky13]

Originally posted by LindaA
To quote the RDIs, the IDIs have explained it over and over again. If you choose not to believe what they think, then that's your choice. The IDIs choose not believe your theory either.

I came here as a fence-sitter. I've been on both sides several times before and after comoing here. The time I've spent here makes me lean more and more to the IDI side because they RDIs are so close- minded. They see guilt in every little thing. The IDIs seem more willing to consider all possibilities.

Neither side, IMO, can come up with a plausible scenario that explains all the evidence. I really do t hink you RDIs hurt your case when you are so condescending to the IDIs.

JMO.
Wow.... I didn't mean to sound condescending. I apologize if I did.
I became an RDI only AFTER doing lots of reading & research. I'm still open to new IDI theories- there just aren't any that make any sense IMO.
Even if Patsy didn't read the entire note, John DID. He admitted to knowing of the many numerous threats to his daughters life- yet he did the opposite of what the note warned him of. I do not understand why he wouldn't take the threats VERY seriously.......unless he already knew it really didn't matter. MOO

[Louisadelmar]

Speaking of FFJ - I found this interesting article there this morning. I've read similar statements about fingerprints not being as totally individual as we think they are. It doesn't really have any relevance to the Ramsey case at the moment since the DNA hasn't been connected to any one person. In the (I think) unlikely event there is a CODIS hit someday I expect it will be brought up frequently.


http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2006/10/22/2095676-sun.html


DNA

By SEAN MCKIBBON, COURTS BUREAU

UK case set key precedent

Courts leery about allowing new tests

A DNA match is all you need to win a court case, right? Not so fast. Some feel one in a billion doesn't literally mean one in a billion and argue DNA may have sent innocent people to jail

When you hear the letters DNA in a court case, you usually think it's a slam dunk for either the defence or the Crown.

Some aren't so certain that is always the case, however.

Some lawyers and experts are questioning the belief that DNA profiles are unique and can only belong to one person.

When Arizona State Scientific Analysis Bureau workers reported in 2001 that two convicts shared very similar DNA profiles, they didn't know they were opening a legal can of worms and a debate over the uniqueness of DNA profiles. The two men, one African- American, the other caucasian, were unrelated, with very different dates of birth and different last names.




They were not an exact DNA match, as would be expected with identical twins, but they shared almost 70% of the DNA markers that forensic scientists check when they try to determine identity. Nine out of the 13 spots (scientists call them loci) analyzed on the offenders' chromosome were the same.

Their shared DNA was thought to be statistically unlikely.

"We found it interesting," Randal Johnson, the supervising criminalist of the bureau's DNA section, later told an Arizona court of the reasons for reporting the finding.

Turns out, bureau statisticians said such matching profiles could be expected if you searched the database.

DNA databanks around the world are growing and being used to solve crimes. Canada's Convicted Offender Index (COI) has 101,000 DNA profiles.

Matching those profiles to crime scene DNA -- called cold hit matches -- has solved crimes. Crown prosecutors have used the evidence on everything from break and enters to sex assaults to murders. Take that match, add expert testimony about the astronomical odds of two people sharing the same profile and you're well on your way to a conviction.

After Arizona, however, DNA is getting a closer look.

"I really have a strong belief that someone already has been, or will be, convicted of a very serious crime, who is actually innocent because of a false cold hit match from a databank," says Bicka Barlow, a public defender in San Francisco.

"Given what we are seeing in Arizona, it's only a matter of time," she said.

Barlow has decided to open that can of worms. She's part of a legal team representing a man facing a cold hit prosecution. Her team obtained a subpoena to force Arizona to turn over a match report in 2005.

By then, the number of matches had grown from one pair out of 20,000 profiles to 144 matching offender profiles out of 65,000.

[...]

[nuisanceposter]

Wow...

I definitely have to say that the folks at FFJ honestly care about JonBenet and what happened to her, and they've done their homework in her case. They've been doing their homework for years now, they're still on it every day, and it's all compiled right there on the FFJ forum. I'm impressed with their amount of accumulated information, and I respect their dedication to JonBenet.

[Coloradokares]

Patsy stated she thought the letter was about BETH? Beth was dead.....please provide me a page number or a link. If Patsy indeed went that far as to saying this, about Beth. I'll swing down off the fence. Patsy did it. Beth was dead how could this have been about Beth.

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I don't think something written with a Sharpie pen would be easier to read. It would be easier to see the writing but not nec. the words.
Also, Patsy has stated that at first she thought the letter was about Beth when she first started reading it so she did not see "Listen Carefully" and "freeze". Not picking the note up is just plain weird and JR reading it spread out on the floor is just plain weird too. IMO

[edna mode]

It's rather hard to "respect" any group that attacks and talks like that. I find FFJ is hard to read and any "research" on the case that might have substance is lost. I read they've known each other a long time. That's certainly no excuse for the way they act.

Jameson is weird. But, I don't blame them for fighting back. I'm pretty new to this case but I've never seen them act anywhere near as juvenile and mean spirited as FFJ.

They'll never be taken seriously.

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Wow...

I definitely have to say that the folks at FFJ honestly care about JonBenet and what happened to her, and they've done their homework in her case. They've been doing their homework for years now, they're still on it every day, and it's all compiled right there on the FFJ forum. I'm impressed with their amount of accumulated information, and I respect their dedication to JonBenet.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
Patsy stated she thought the letter was about BETH? Beth was dead.....please provide me a page number or a link. If Patsy indeed went that far as to saying this, about Beth. I'll swing down off the fence. Patsy did it. Beth was dead how could this have been about Beth.



You will have to be patient while I try to find a link. It may have been in DOI that I read that and I don't have DOI. Patsy said that when she read "we have your daughter" her first thought was that it was papers pertaining to Beth. I am sure that I am not the only person who has read this and someone must know the source. In the meantime, I will search for a link.

[Louisadelmar]

I think the best overview currently available is Miss Marple's pbwiki. It seems quite neutral as to POV, unlike 2BWS, FFJ, WS or ACR and is easy to navigate. Miss Marple seemed to genuinely just want all the facts in one location without having to weed through all the other extraneous clutter and I think he has succeeded.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/

Brief Chronology
A. Overview
B. Who's Who in JBR Case
C. Key Events Prior to Thanksgiving
D. Key Events Prior to December 25
E. December 25
F. December 26
G. Key Events in the Investigation
Key Pieces of Evidence
A. The Ransom Note
B. The 911 Call
C. The Body
D. The House
E. The Neighborhood
Interpreting the Evidence
A. Evidence of an Intruder
B. Evidence of Staging
C. Evidence of a Cover-up
D. The Pineapple Evidence
E. Evidence of a Stun Gun
F. Which Came First: Head Blow or Strangulation?
G. Evidence of Prior Sexual Abuse
H. The Ligature Evidence
I. Evidence this is a DNA Case
J. Can Psychics Solve the JBR Case?
Theories of the Case
A. Perp Profiles
B. Intruder Theories
1. Stranger Intruder Theories
2. Acquaintance Intruder Theories
3. "Friendly" Intruder Theories
C. Ramsey Did It Theories
Sources
A. Sources Used at This Site
B. Legal Documents
C. Print Media
D. Broadcast Media Transcripts
E. Other Key Documents and Websites
F. On-line Discussion Forums
G. Forthcoming Books and Media
Acronyms

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I don't know where the table was with reference to the stairs. My table is in the next room, 20 feet away, so I would have put it on the floor. Also, I might not put it on my table if it were not clear and clean. Was theirs close,clear and clean ? Mine usually has stuff on it, coffee cups, dishes, flowers, so I wouldn't have used it if it were right there.

C'mon bullmoose be serious for a minute. There is no way you'd spread it out on the floor to read. No more so than you spread your mail out on the floor. (and don't tell me you spread your mail out on the floor) You'd put it on the table, or if that wasn't clear, on the counter. There has to be some place where they could set it down without having to kneel on the floor.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


C'mon bullmoose be serious for a minute. There is no way you'd spread it out on the floor to read. No more so than you spread your mail out on the floor. (and don't tell me you spread your mail out on the floor) You'd put it on the table, or if that wasn't clear, on the counter. There has to be some place where they could set it down without having to kneel on the floor.

My recollection from the pictures is it was pretty cluttered everywhere. John said something in an interview about wanting to spread them out so he could read them quickly (or words to that effect). It should have been easy enough for BPD to find out from business associates if this was his habit. I wonder if they asked anyone?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


IMO, the Rs back theories that point away from their involvement, such as the stun gun idea, and they play down things that may have contributed, such as the evidence of past sexual abuse and not giving much note to the head wound.

IMO, they know the head wound came first, and that's why they don't bring it up very much - it's in their best interest to get the public to believe the garotting came first, since people outright refuse to believe a parent would have done that to their own child.

The head wound would not have been as fully developed as it was if it was the last thing the killer did as JonBenet was dying from strangling.

My thoughts exactly.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


IMO, the Rs back theories that point away from their involvement, such as the stun gun idea, and they play down things that may have contributed, such as the evidence of past sexual abuse and not giving much note to the head wound.

IMO, they know the head wound came first, and that's why they don't bring it up very much - it's in their best interest to get the public to believe the garotting came first, since people outright refuse to believe a parent would have done that to their own child.

The head wound would not have been as fully developed as it was if it was the last thing the killer did as JonBenet was dying from strangling.

And if they are innocent and in fact, have no idea what happened that night or why; what theories would you expect them to back?

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
I think the best overview currently available is Miss Marple's pbwiki. It seems quite neutral as to POV, unlike 2BWS, FFJ, WS or ACR and is easy to navigate. Miss Marple seemed to genuinely just want all the facts in one location without having to weed through all the other extraneous clutter and I think he has succeeded.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/




A very nice site. Thank you Miss Marple.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


And if they are innocent and in fact, have no idea what happened that night or why; what theories would you expect them to back?

The theory that makes the most sense medically.

Could her brain swell that much and have that much bleeding into it if she were near death from strangulation?

I don't know the answer. nuisanceposter says experts say no, it would have to take time.

As with everything in this case, I'm sure there are conflicting experts.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
Patsy stated she thought the letter was about BETH? Beth was dead.....please provide me a page number or a link. If Patsy indeed went that far as to saying this, about Beth. I'll swing down off the fence. Patsy did it. Beth was dead how could this have been about Beth.



Here you go. From acandyrose, 1998 interview:

17 PATSY RAMSEY: I read -- I read

18 down to about, it says, "at this time we have

19 your daughter in our possession."

20 For some reason, I don't -- don't

21 ask me why but, I start --

22 TRIP DeMUTH: Don't count on him

23 not asking you why.

24 PATSY RAMSEY: I, my first flash

25 that was in my head was I thought it was Beth,

0034

1 our daughter, I don't know why I thought --

2 (INAUDIBLE), and then "daughter in our

3 possession, she is safe from harm, your daughter

4 in 1997," then when I realized this was now,

5 this was new material, this was not something --

6 you know, papers from that had to do with Beth.

7 And just I stopped and just went up the stairs.

[Louisadelmar]

Wasn't Beth's body shipped from Chicago to Atlanta?

[WallyCleaver]

Beth was killed in a car accident wasn't she?

How could PR think a ransom note had to do with Beth? Even for a moment?

[Coloradokares]

You know I have read this interview how many times and never did it hit me that Patsy said she thought it was Beth. Beth died quite some time more than a year before JonBenet. Unbelieveable. Maybe Melinda but not Beth. Thank you so much for pointing this out. Unfathomable mistake on the part of Patsy. I am having real issues with rethinking everything. Thats not something you can forget. That someone is dead. No one could possibly have Beth.....she was gone....

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Here you go. From acandyrose, 1998 interview:

17 PATSY RAMSEY: I read -- I read

18 down to about, it says, "at this time we have

19 your daughter in our possession."

20 For some reason, I don't -- don't

21 ask me why but, I start --

22 TRIP DeMUTH: Don't count on him

23 not asking you why.

24 PATSY RAMSEY: I, my first flash

25 that was in my head was I thought it was Beth,

0034

1 our daughter, I don't know why I thought --

2 (INAUDIBLE), and then "daughter in our

3 possession, she is safe from harm, your daughter

4 in 1997," then when I realized this was now,

5 this was new material, this was not something --

6 you know, papers from that had to do with Beth.

7 And just I stopped and just went up the stairs.

[Louisadelmar]

Not totally un-understandable.

Read Portraits of Guilt by Jeanne Boylan for very interesting information on the brain and memory. Particularly in stressful situations.

If, as she read the first line of the note she thought of Beth - it might be because she knew where JonBenet was, she knew where Melinda was and Beth was the only one who had ever been in a condition where it could be said she was in someone's possession. She may have thought it was some bit of leftover paperwork from when Beth died that had worked its way up.

But based on what I read in Boylan's book I'm not sure this is a true memory.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
Not totally un-understandable.

Read Portraits of Guilt by Jeanne Boylan for very interesting information on the brain and memory. Particularly in stressful situations.

If, as she read the first line of the note she thought of Beth - it might be because she knew where JonBenet was, she knew where Melinda was and Beth was the only one who had ever been in a condition where it could be said she was in someone's possession. She may have thought it was some bit of leftover paperwork from when Beth died that had worked its way up.

But based on what I read in Boylan's book I'm not sure this is a true memory.

In what way was Beth ever in a "condition where it could be said she was in someone's possession" ?

Left over paperwork that had "worked it's way up" ? You mean it worked it's way up the spiral stairs? :-)

[lucky13]

To anyone who doesn't think that the head blow came first- how do you imagine the garrotting happening first? Are you saying that she was alert & then somehow surprised by the perp coming up from behind her & throwing a cord around her neck, tightening it around the paintbrush handle, twisting her hair into it until he pulled it so tight that she lost conscienceness? When did he tie her hands? Why wasn't she fighting back, kicking, grabbing, hitting, squirming, SCREAMING, trying to run away, etc?? Was she just standing there letting him do it? I am interested in hearing a theory. Thanks.

[Athena]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


But she reeled it off immediately, not "let me see what it says..." She knew what the signature was right away when asked by the operator.
<snip>

I will concede that it was strange that Patsy did not pick up that note as soon a she saw it on the stairs but I have no idea what was going through her mind when she saw "listen carefully"

However, I disagree with your statement that she knew immediately who signed it. When the operator asked her she answered with a confused "what", hesitated and then answered which could have been her looking at the bottom of the note while on the phone. jmo

If anyone has a handy link to the 911 call -- could you please post it.

[edna mode]

From an article at MSNBC...full story is here:

http://tinyurl.com/yl3oye


911 Call transcript


It was 5:52 a.m. when Patsy Ramsey called 911 from a wall phone in her kitchen to report her daughter was missing. She was standing only feet away from where the ransom note had been found, at the top of a stairwell leading to the basement where JonBenet’s body was discovered eight hours later.

Patsy: “Police.”

911: “What’s going on ma’am?”

Patsy: “755 15th street.”

911: “What’s going on there ma’am”

Patsy: “We have a kidnapping. Hurry, please!”

911: “Explain to me what’s going on. Ok?”

Patsy: “There. We have a, there’s a note left and our daughter’s gone.”

911: “A note was left and your daughter’s gone?”

Patsy: “Yes!”

911: “How old is your daughter?”

Patsy: “She’s 6 years old. She’s blonde, 6 years old.”

911: “How long ago was this?”

Patsy: “I don’t know I just got the note, and my daughter’s gone.”

911: “Does it say who took her?”

Patsy: “What?”

911: “Does it say who took her?”

Patsy: “No! I don’t know. There’s a, there’s a ransom note here.”

911: “It’s a ransom note?”

Patsy: “It say’s SBTC. Victory! Please!”

911: “Okay, what’s your name? Are you Kath...?”

Patsy: “Patsy Ramsey, I’m the mother. Oh my God! Please!”

911: “Okay, I’m sending an officer over OK?

Patsy: “Please!”

911: “Do you know how long she’s been gone?”

Patsy: “No I don’t! Please we just got up and she’s not here. Oh my god! Please!”

911: “Okay, Cal....”

Patsy: “Please send somebody.”

911: “I am honey.”

Patsy: “Please.”

911: “Take a deep breath and...”

Patsy: “Hurry, hurry, hurry!”

911: “Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy?”

[edna mode]

FFJ has an enhanced audio of the call. It's their version and has been messed with.

[WallyCleaver]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079093/


The operator asks something along the lines of "Does it say who took her?" and PR answers "It says SBTC Victory". To me that seems reasonable, that she'd give the "signature" (for lack of a better word) as an answer to that question.

[Athena]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079093/


The operator asks something along the lines of "Does it say who took her?" and PR answers "It says SBTC Victory". To me that seems reasonable, that she'd give the "signature" (for lack of a better word) as an answer to that question.

Thanks Edna and Wally.

This is what I was referring to about the hesitation. Note she hesitates between the first "does it say who took her? and asks what? The operator repeats the question and she says "she doesn't know...... and then answers. Seems to me she was trying to find out who signed the note but did not answer the either of the questions immediately. jmo

911: “Does it say who took her?”

Patsy: “What?”

911: “Does it say who took her?”

Patsy: “No! I don’t know. There’s a, there’s a ransom note here.”

911: “It’s a ransom note?”

Patsy: “It say’s SBTC. Victory! Please!”

[Athena]

Audio tape of 911 call:

http://tinyurl.com/yd8aez

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by lucky13
To anyone who doesn't think that the head blow came first- how do you imagine the garrotting happening first? Are you saying that she was alert & then somehow surprised by the perp coming up from behind her & throwing a cord around her neck, tightening it around the paintbrush handle, twisting her hair into it until he pulled it so tight that she lost conscienceness? When did he tie her hands? Why wasn't she fighting back, kicking, grabbing, hitting, squirming, SCREAMING, trying to run away, etc?? Was she just standing there letting him do it? I am interested in hearing a theory. Thanks.

It's hard to see why her hair would be wound up in the knot if the garrotte were made before putting it over her head. IOW, it seems it must have been made "on the body". That would make the head blow coming first more likely, IMO.

[edna mode]

This recording IMO is one of the most powerful reasons to believe Patsy is innocent. She is so scared and horrified throughout the call. It breaks my heart to hear her.

I don't hear anything fake about her voice or the content.

[Athena]

Originally posted by edna mode
This recording IMO is one of the most powerful reasons to believe Patsy is innocent. She is so scared and horrified throughout the call. It breaks my heart to hear her.

I don't hear anything fake about her voice or the content.

I could not agree more.

Looking for the link I listened to it again -- and I do not believe that the best Academy Award winning actress could pull this off.

She sounds absolutely frantic. jmo

[DolphinSpirit]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


IMO, the Rs back theories that point away from their involvement, such as the stun gun idea, and they play down things that may have contributed, such as the evidence of past sexual abuse and not giving much note to the head wound.

IMO, they know the head wound came first, and that's why they don't bring it up very much - it's in their best interest to get the public to believe the garotting came first, since people outright refuse to believe a parent would have done that to their own child.

The head wound would not have been as fully developed as it was if it was the last thing the killer did as JonBenet was dying from strangling.
I am not saying I don't believe this....but why the extreme garrote staging? Why leave an indention in her neck? What kind of crazy parent would do that? Why not just put her in the cellar and barely tie it like the wrists......how could they pull it so tight to leave a mark like that?? and why??? staging to its fullest? But we know that isn't the case...........or do we?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by DolphinSpirit

I am not saying I don't believe this....but why the extreme garrote staging? Why leave an indention in her neck? What kind of crazy parent would do that? Why not just put her in the cellar and barely tie it like the wrists......how could they pull it so tight to leave a mark like that?? and why??? staging to its fullest? But we know that isn't the case...........or do we?

How can you stage a convincing "garroting" by leaving it loose?? Leaving it loose is as good as the parents admitting their guilt. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


I could not agree more.

Looking for the link I listened to it again -- and I do not believe that the best Academy Award winning actress could pull this off.

She sounds absolutely frantic. jmo

I don't know about that. Give me a chance...I bet I could do it.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


IMO, the Rs back theories that point away from their involvement, such as the stun gun idea, and they play down things that may have contributed, such as the evidence of past sexual abuse and not giving much note to the head wound.

IMO, they know the head wound came first, and that's why they don't bring it up very much - it's in their best interest to get the public to believe the garotting came first, since people outright refuse to believe a parent would have done that to their own child.

The head wound would not have been as fully developed as it was if it was the last thing the killer did as JonBenet was dying from strangling. I thought MissO just recently posted a post stating the FBI found no evidence of prior sexual abuse......?

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I don't know about that. Give me a chance...I bet I could do it.

Well if you could pull that off then you sure shouldn't be posting on this message board. Hollywood hasn't discovered you yet? :tongue:

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I thought MissO just recently posted a post stating the FBI found no evidence of prior sexual abuse......?

Yes. It's in PMPT. The FBI also the BPD shared the blame in the delay for the interviews.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


Well if you could pull that off then you sure shouldn't be posting on this message board. Hollywood hasn't discovered you yet? :tongue:

Guess I'd better start going to auditions. :D

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


The theory that makes the most sense medically.

Could her brain swell that much and have that much bleeding into it if she were near death from strangulation?

I don't know the answer. nuisanceposter says experts say no, it would have to take time.

As with everything in this case, I'm sure there are conflicting experts.

Could her brain swell HOW much? According to the autopsy report, there was "Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen. "

Mild. The hemorrhage over the surface of her right cerebral hemisphere consisted of only 7 or 8 cc of blood. That means her brain was beginning to swell, not that the head injury was "fully developed".

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/autopsy.html

Dr. Cryil Wecht said of JonBenet's head injury:
"If you inflict a blow like that on someone whose heart is beating," he asserts, "the heart doesn't stop, because the cardiac and respiratory centers are at the base of the brain. You're not damaging that with a blow to the top of the head. It'll become compromised as the brain swells, but initially there's no compromise. They control your heart and lungs. The heart continues to beat. The blood continues to flow. But in the Ramsey case, they got less than a teaspoon and a half of blood. If you have a beating heart and the carotid arteries are carrying blood, this person doesn't die right away. That means that blow was inflicted when she was already dead or dying."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/cyril_wecht/6.html

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


My recollection from the pictures is it was pretty cluttered everywhere. John said something in an interview about wanting to spread them out so he could read them quickly (or words to that effect). It should have been easy enough for BPD to find out from business associates if this was his habit. I wonder if they asked anyone?

I don't think how he normally read his mail and business papers would give any indication in the situation he was in. His wife had just told him their daughter had been kidnapped and there was a ransom note. I wouldn't expect him to act "normally". I don't find it strange at all that he'd spread the 3 pages of the ransom note out on the nearest flat surface with good light so he could read the whole thing without having to "shuffle" the papers around.

And, I don't think it's illogical to think his knees might have been wobbly after just hearing that his daughter had been kidnapped. Many times, the first thing said to people just before they are given bad news is "Are you sitting down?" John may have knelt because his legs didn't feel like they'd could hold him up much longer and there wasn't a table and chair close by with enough room to spread that note out onto and sit down to read.

For those reasons, I find nothing suspicious about how John chose to read the ransom note for the first time. I just don't find anything strange about his wanting to read it ASAP without searching around for a "comfortable" place to read it.

MOO

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Could her brain swell HOW much? According to the autopsy report, there was "Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen. "

Mild. The hemorrhage over the surface of her right cerebral hemisphere consisted of only 7 or 8 cc of blood. That means her brain was beginning to swell, not that the head injury was "fully developed".

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/autopsy.html

Dr. Cryil Wecht said of JonBenet's head injury:
"If you inflict a blow like that on someone whose heart is beating," he asserts, "the heart doesn't stop, because the cardiac and respiratory centers are at the base of the brain. You're not damaging that with a blow to the top of the head. It'll become compromised as the brain swells, but initially there's no compromise. They control your heart and lungs. The heart continues to beat. The blood continues to flow. But in the Ramsey case, they got less than a teaspoon and a half of blood. If you have a beating heart and the carotid arteries are carrying blood, this person doesn't die right away. That means that blow was inflicted when she was already dead or dying."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/cyril_wecht/6.html

There is a kind of birth defect that involves thickening of the gray matter of the brain and there is always mild to moderate narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri. These are living people CTscans. I believe she already had low blood pressure at the time of the head injury. MOO

[nuisanceposter]

I know it's a tad pointless to argue with those who don't believe JonBenet had been sexually abused prior to the night she died, but...

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-5858

In August, the Boulder police department contacted Dr. John McCann, one of the nation’s leading experts on child sexual abuse. McCann had agreed to assist the police department in determining if JonBenet had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder. McCann was sent the autopsy report and photos. According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.

There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent, and small red flecks of blood were visible around the perineum and the external surface of the genitalia. It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger. McCann was not able to see any fresh tears of the hymen which he thought might be due to the lack of detail in the photographs. It was unclear where the blood on the perineum originated, since there were no lacerations visible in these photos. McCann also noted that in children of this age group the labia, or vaginal lips, remain closed until literally manually separated. In order for there to be an injury to the hymen without injuring the labia, the labia would have to be manually separated before the object was inserted. The examination also indicated that the assault was done while the child was still alive because of the redness in the surrounding tissue and blood in the area.

McCann stated that this injury would have been very painful
because the area of the injury as indicated by the bruise was at the base of the hymen were most of the nerve endings are located. Such an injury would have caused a six year old child to scream or yell. The doctor also stated that he assumed the object did not have jagged edges because there were no evidence of tears in the bruised area.

McCann also noted that there appeared to be a bruise on the inner right thigh which he though might represent a thumb imprint from forcing the legs apart.

Dr. McCann explained the term "chronic abuse" meant only that it was "repeated", but that the number of incidents could not be determined. In the case of JonBenet, the doctor could only say that there was evidence of “prior abuse". The examination results were evidence that there was at least one prior penetration of the vagina through the hymeneal membrane. The change in the hymeneal structure is due to healing from a prior penetration. However, it was not possible to determine the number of incidents nor over what period of time. Because the prior injury had healed, any other incidents of abuse probably were more than 10 days prior.

<snip>


In September 1997, the police department held a meeting with McCann and three other child sexual abuse experts to go over their opinions based on their review of the autopsy results. Dr. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida stated that she observed fresh hymeneal trauma on JonBenet and chronic inflammation that was not related to any urination issues. Dr. Rau said, “In my heart, this is chronic abuse,” but feared that a defense argument would be made that this was only evidence of masturbation.

Also agreeing with the findings of both McCann and Rau was Dr. Jim Monteleone of St. Louis. Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.’s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent of “toilet rage” and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. “The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.

All of the experts agreed that there was no way any of the recent or chronic abuse damage to the genitalia of the child was the result of masturbation.

[Louisadelmar]

Sadly, that quote from McCann is from the Bonita papers. So we don't know what McCann actually said as it was first filtered through BPD and then again interpreted by Bonita Sauer. Most of the quote appears to refer to the acute trauma from the night she died.

I would be much more interested in reading McCann verbatim. I know in the Fells Acre case he said that so-called '"irregularities" were to be found among huge numbers of normal, well-adjusted children.' I would also like to know if McCann was informed of her occasional previous bouts of 'vaginitis' thought to be caused by diarrhoea and later bubble bath, as well as the sinus infections she was prone to having.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I know it's a tad pointless to argue with those who don't believe JonBenet had been sexually abused prior to the night she died, but...

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-5858

In August, the Boulder police department contacted Dr. John McCann, one of the nation’s leading experts on child sexual abuse. McCann had agreed to assist the police department in determining if JonBenet had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder. McCann was sent the autopsy report and photos. According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.

There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent, and small red flecks of blood were visible around the perineum and the external surface of the genitalia. It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger. McCann was not able to see any fresh tears of the hymen which he thought might be due to the lack of detail in the photographs. It was unclear where the blood on the perineum originated, since there were no lacerations visible in these photos. McCann also noted that in children of this age group the labia, or vaginal lips, remain closed until literally manually separated. In order for there to be an injury to the hymen without injuring the labia, the labia would have to be manually separated before the object was inserted. The examination also indicated that the assault was done while the child was still alive because of the redness in the surrounding tissue and blood in the area.

McCann stated that this injury would have been very painful
because the area of the injury as indicated by the bruise was at the base of the hymen were most of the nerve endings are located. Such an injury would have caused a six year old child to scream or yell. The doctor also stated that he assumed the object did not have jagged edges because there were no evidence of tears in the bruised area.

McCann also noted that there appeared to be a bruise on the inner right thigh which he though might represent a thumb imprint from forcing the legs apart.

Dr. McCann explained the term "chronic abuse" meant only that it was "repeated", but that the number of incidents could not be determined. In the case of JonBenet, the doctor could only say that there was evidence of “prior abuse". The examination results were evidence that there was at least one prior penetration of the vagina through the hymeneal membrane. The change in the hymeneal structure is due to healing from a prior penetration. However, it was not possible to determine the number of incidents nor over what period of time. Because the prior injury had healed, any other incidents of abuse probably were more than 10 days prior.

<snip>


In September 1997, the police department held a meeting with McCann and three other child sexual abuse experts to go over their opinions based on their review of the autopsy results. Dr. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida stated that she observed fresh hymeneal trauma on JonBenet and chronic inflammation that was not related to any urination issues. Dr. Rau said, “In my heart, this is chronic abuse,” but feared that a defense argument would be made that this was only evidence of masturbation.

Also agreeing with the findings of both McCann and Rau was Dr. Jim Monteleone of St. Louis. Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.’s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent of “toilet rage” and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. “The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.

All of the experts agreed that there was no way any of the recent or chronic abuse damage to the genitalia of the child was the result of masturbation. I would like to address the statement made here by Krugman that this is a text book case of toileting abuse rage....we aren't talking about parents in their teens or twenties that have a problem with JB wetting the bed..Patsy didn't give a rip really, it wasn't a major issue with these parents...the Ramseys had been through enough in life to know that bedwetting was the least of their worries...I'm sorry, nuisance...it doesn't fit this case....look at this MURDER...this was imho an intentional act..a parent that goes into a rage over bedwetting isn't going to use a stun gun...the Ramseys didn't even own one to my knowledge...you have to look at this murder on the whole....the bedwetting scenario just doesn't add up! Sorry, nuisance, I just don't buy it!

[nuisanceposter]

Just because the source I obtained that info from is the Bonita papers does not automatically mean it's wrong. I'll see what else I can find.

True, most of that quote refers to the injury incurred the night JB was murdered, but there's reference to more than one expert examining slides and the autopsy and seeing evidence of past molestation.

Please read post #14 of this thread:

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


Bubblebaths and diarrhea did not alter the structure of JonBenet's hymen, causing an enlarged opening and vaginal parts normally covered by the hymen to be visible. How many bubblebaths did she have that caused her to need a vaginal exam and/or treatment for vaginal itching/irritation? What mother would put a child that had vaginal irritation from a bubblebath (to the point of needing to see a doctor for a vaginal exam) in another bubblebath? How often was she stricken with diarrhea, and how would that cause her hymen to appear as though she was the victim of sexual abuse?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I would like to address the statement made here by Krugman that this is a text book case of toileting abuse rage....we aren't talking about parents in their teens or twenties that have a problem with JB wetting the bed..Patsy didn't give a rip really, it wasn't a major issue with these parents...the Ramseys had been through enough in life to know that bedwetting was the least of their worries...I'm sorry, nuisance...it doesn't fit this case....look at this MURDER...this was imho an intentional act..a parent that goes into a rage over bedwetting isn't going to use a stun gun...the Ramseys didn't even own one to my knowledge...you have to look at this murder on the whole....the bedwetting scenario just doesn't add up! Sorry, nuisance, I just don't buy it!

Again, it wasn't just bed-wetting. JonBenet was known to soil herself at any time of day. FW said that he'd had to send JB home in a pair of borrowed undies and her wet ones in plastic baggie more than once.

Both LHP and Burke said the toileting issues were a big deal. Even Nedra Paugh expressed concern and admitted it was an ongoing situation.

Maybe it wasn't just the toileting issue - maybe it was the culmination of several things...such as Patsy's approaching 40th birthday, the stress of Christmas, the trip to Michigan and preparing for it, the fatigue Patsy must have felt after going through cancer and chemo and finally being in remission...there could have been several factors playing into what may have happened.

I'm not totally sold on the "toilet rage" theory, personally. I'm still trying to figure out what happened that night and why. I do believe someone had been molesting JonBenet prior to the night she was killed, and I think the paintbrush injury was staged in attempt to cover that up.

And it's never been proven that a stun gun was used at all. That's just a theory, and as such, should not be considered fact in this case.

I think I am looking at it on the whole - considering there is zero forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in the house that night and fiber evidence placing both John and Patsy Ramsey in the crime scene.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Just because the source I obtained that info from is the Bonita papers does not automatically mean it's wrong. I'll see what else I can find.

True, most of that quote refers to the injury incurred the night JB was murdered, but there's reference to more than one expert examining slides and the autopsy and seeing evidence of past molestation.

Please read post #14 of this thread:

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


Bubblebaths and diarrhea did not alter the structure of JonBenet's hymen, causing an enlarged opening and vaginal parts normally covered by the hymen to be visible. How many bubblebaths did she have that caused her to need a vaginal exam and/or treatment for vaginal itching/irritation? What mother would put a child that had vaginal irritation from a bubblebath (to the point of needing to see a doctor for a vaginal exam) in another bubblebath? How often was she stricken with diarrhea, and how would that cause her hymen to appear as though she was the victim of sexual abuse?

My copy of the Beuf interview is on the other computer which is dying and we try not to turn it on since we haven't yet transferred our financial records off it - so I'm going by memory which is always a dangerous thing...

My recollection is the bubblebath visit was 4? months before she died. Beuf suggested they stop using it. Since JonBenet didn't return with the same complaint my guess is Patsy stopped the bubble baths and the itching went away. I didn't see anything to suggest Patsy, knowing the bubblebath was an irritant, continued to use it. The diarrhea was mentioned once in conjunction with vaginal irritation.

She WAS a victim of sexual abuse on the night she died. I don't think there is any dispute about that. If she died as the abuse was happening I think the enlarged opening etc would remain as they were at the moment of death.

I didn't say because your source is the Bonita papers it is automatically wrong. But I don't think it is an airtight source in terms of accuracy. Did they pick and choose what they told McCann? Did they pick and choose from what McCann said in their presentation to Bonita's boss? It wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened. Did Bonita pick and choose from that? We know there are other errors in her report.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Again, it wasn't just bed-wetting. JonBenet was known to soil herself at any time of day. FW said that he'd had to send JB home in a pair of borrowed undies and her wet ones in plastic baggie more than once.

Both LHP and Burke said the toileting issues were a big deal. Even Nedra Paugh expressed concern and admitted it was an ongoing situation.

Maybe it wasn't just the toileting issue - maybe it was the culmination of several things...such as Patsy's approaching 40th birthday, the stress of Christmas, the trip to Michigan and preparing for it, the fatigue Patsy must have felt after going through cancer and chemo and finally being in remission...there could have been several factors playing into what may have happened.

I'm not totally sold on the "toilet rage" theory, personally. I'm still trying to figure out what happened that night and why. I do believe someone had been molesting JonBenet prior to the night she was killed, and I think the paintbrush injury was staged in attempt to cover that up.

And it's never been proven that a stun gun was used at all. That's just a theory, and as such, should not be considered fact in this case.

I think I am looking at it on the whole - considering there is zero forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in the house that night and fiber evidence placing both John and Patsy Ramsey in the crime scene. I think there is evidence of an intruder...there is DNA belonging to an unidentified white male, there's an unidentified pubic hair...and I know you think it's only a theory, but I believe from the autopsy photos there evidence of a stun gun used, there's no other logical explanation for those marks imho. :seeya:

[Ames]

Originally posted by LindaA
I really do t hink you RDIs hurt your case when you are so condescending to the IDIs.

JMO.

Linda, I have a question for you. Three things that has bothered me about this case are...the ransom letter, JB being re-clothed, and last but not least, her body being wrapped up in a blanket. WHY would an intruder take the precious time that it took, to write a three page ransom letter? WHY would an intruder take the precious time that it took, to pull down her longjohns, pull down her panties, insert a paintbrush, pull up her panties, and then pull up her longjohns? WHY would an intruder take the precious time that it took, to find a blanket and cover her body? I am going to skip the ransom letter part, because it has been discussed to death. Lets start with the re-clothing. Okay...WHY would an intruder take the time that he/she did, to pull down her longjohns, pull down her panties, insert a paintbrush, pull UP the panties, and then pull up the long johns...have you ever tried to put long johns on a sleeping child? Its not an easy task to do even when they are awake. And I am sure that it would be even harder to do, on a child that is either unconscious or dead. WHY didn't the intruder just leave her there, without re-clothing her, after inserting the paintbrush? WHY did he/she feel the need to re-clothe her? Was he/she trying to preserve some of what was left, of JB's dignity? WHY take the time that was needed to do that, and risk someone coming downstairs and catching them? It just doesn't make sense. I know that there have been some cases where the killer re-clothed his victim....BUT.. the crimes were commited outside of the victim's home, where the killer had plenty of time to do that. Okay...now on to the blanket....WHY would an intruder take the time needed to find a blanket, and wrap her body in it? WHY would he care if she was covered up? Was he trying to make her comfortable, or keep her from getting cold? Some IDI's think that a pedophile did it, how would a pedophile from off the street, that didn't know BEANS about the Ramsey's...know to put the things that they did...for example..."fat cat", asking for $118,000 (the same amount as John's bonus)...plus many more things that leads us to believe that the killer knew the Ramsey's? Was a pedophile part of the Ramsey's social circle? I highly doubt it....did a pedophile from off the street know those things about the Ramsey's? I highly doubt that too. The re-clothing, IN MY OPINION...represents the killer trying to preserve what diginity JB had left. WHY would an intruder, that hated John so much...CARE about his daugther's dignity? The blanket, IN MY OPINION..represents the killer trying to make JB "comfortable". WHY would an intruder, that hated John so much...CARE about his daughter's comfort? WHY did the killer CARE so much about JB after bashing in her head, garotting her, and inserting a paintbrush (not necessarily in THAT order), that he wanted to preserve what dignity she had left...AND make her comfortable. IF the killer hated John so much, WHY not leave JB's broken, nude and battered body on the basement floor...uncovered...for John (or Patsy) to find. To me, that would have made a MUCH bolder statement than to re-clothe her and cover her up. IN MY OPINION!!!! I know that you were not there, and do not know the answer to my whys...but would you speculate...this is addressed to all IDI's. Please help me to undertand.

[cantaloupe]

Ames, you're making the same mistake a lot of us do, which is to try and understand an crazy**person's actions from a sane person's perspective. All those things may have made perfect sense to the killer, but be totally incomprehensible to us UNTIL we understand the killer's internal, messed up logic. I just don't think we can use your argument to argue in favor of JBR being killed by a family member.

(**I use the term loosely, not in its legal sense).

[Ames]

Originally posted by cantaloupe
Ames, you're making the same mistake a lot of us do, which is to try and understand an crazy**person's actions from a sane person's perspective. All those things may have made perfect sense to the killer, but be totally incomprehensible to us UNTIL we understand the killer's internal, messed up logic. I just don't think we can use your argument to argue in favor of JBR being killed by a family member.

(**I use the term loosely, not in its legal sense).

Well, THAT'S a simple explanation for my long, drawn out questions...

[cantaloupe]

Originally posted by Ames


Well, THAT'S a simple explanation for my long, drawn out questions...

I didn't mean to offend you--I think your questions are good. I just think we are all (me included) trying to understand what is essentially incomprehensible. All the things you mention point to a profile of the killer, but I don't think necessarily mean that it was someone in JB's family. They point to someone for whom those actions have meaning , which might include someone in JBR's family or someone who knew her, but doesn't necessarily exclude someone who isn't in her family or who didn't know her. (I hope that made sense).

It's the old, "if A, then B" not being the same statement as "if not A, then not B" logic questions from the LSAT.

[nuisanceposter]

FBI's CASKU unit said exactly the same stuff Ames just did - that the attention to redressing JonBenet and wrapping her up was consistent with someone who cared for her and not indicative of a killer who killed for pleasure. A killer who wanted to hurt JR for revenge as the note says would have left JB naked and perhaps even posed her for shock value - but would not have taken the time and care we see shown. A pedophile who wanted to assault JB for pleasure would not have either shown such care, either, and would have taken her and left the house asap, not hung around for hours risking being caught. Kidnapping for ransom and pedophilia is not known to mix, either - the killer would have been one of the other, but not both.

Here's what I want to know - why didn't the kidnapper/killer take JB out of the house at all, and why did he risk so much by spending so much time in the house? Going upstairs to get the size 12-14 undies to dress her in is weird, too - why did he open a new package of underwear when there many lying about in the drawer not in a package? Why did he want the undies that said Wednesday on them? We know JB wasn't wearing those underwear when Patsy supposedly changed her for bed, because Patsy certainly would have noticed JonBenet wearing such huge undies - they would have been pulled off with the velvet pants when she dressed her in the long johns.

[Ames]

Originally posted by cantaloupe


I didn't mean to offend you--I think your questions are good. I just think we are all (me included) trying to understand what is essentially incomprehensible. All the things you mention point to a profile of the killer, but I don't think necessarily mean that it was someone in JB's family. They point to someone for whom those actions have meaning , which might include someone in JBR's family or someone who knew her, but doesn't necessarily exclude someone who isn't in her family or who didn't know her. (I hope that made sense).

It's the old, "if A, then B" not being the same statement as "if not A, then not B" logic questions from the LSAT.

AW..thanks...no, you didn't offend me. I was just shocked at how short your answer was to my long, drawn out post...LOL

[cantaloupe]

Originally posted by Ames


AW..thanks...no, you didn't offend me. I was just shocked at how short your answer was to my long, drawn out post...LOL

Well I think all your questions are the ones the police should be asking in order to build a profile of the killer and then test their suspects against that profile.

[Ames]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
FBI's CASKU unit said exactly the same stuff Ames just did - that the attention to redressing JonBenet and wrapping her up was consistent with someone who cared for her and not indicative of a killer who killed for pleasure. A killer who wanted to hurt JR for revenge as the note says would have left JB naked and perhaps even posed her for shock value - but would not have taken the time and care we see shown. A pedophile who wanted to assault JB for pleasure would not have either shown such care, either, and would have taken her and left the house asap, not hung around for hours risking being caught. Kidnapping for ransom and pedophilia is not known to mix, either - the killer would have been one of the other, but not both.

Here's what I want to know - why didn't the kidnapper/killer take JB out of the house at all, and why did he risk so much by spending so much time in the house? Going upstairs to get the size 12-14 undies to dress her in is weird, too - why did he open a new package of underwear when there many lying about in the drawer not in a package? Why did he want the undies that said Wednesday on them? We know JB wasn't wearing those underwear when Patsy supposedly changed her for bed, because Patsy certainly would have noticed JonBenet wearing such huge undies - they would have been pulled off with the velvet pants when she dressed her in the long johns.

Really? The FBI CASKU unit said the same thing? I didn't know that. I was just posting some things that have been bothering me, and why I am RDI. The pantie thing is another thing that bothers me too. Patsy said in one of her interviews that JB may have put those huge panties on herself. They were double her size, and would have came up to her armpits...(go to FFJ for a pantie size comparison). WHY would a six year old put something that large on? I am sure they wouldn't have been comfortable. Patsy stated in the interview, that the panties were in JB drawer. So, I guess the "intruder" took the time to run back upstairs, knew exactly where her panties were kept, and opened a new pack....so that he could re-clothe her, so that she could maintain some dignity in death. HOW "thoughtful" of the "intruder" to do that. IMO

[LindaA]

I'm just wondering why Ames' long tirade was addressed to me and what it had to dowith my comment about teh RDI's attitude.

Personally, I'm still a fence-sitter, but the more I read on here the more I'm leaning to the IDI theory. The RDI's just aren't making any very valid points, IMO.

Anyway, Ames, a couple of things. Who knows who is a pedaphile these days. The Rs may well have had one in their social circle and never have known it.

If the intruder gained access to the houe shortly before the Rs left for the White's party, he could have had time to do any number of things and not fear being caught. This would have been especially true if he knew the Rs or somene they knew. as some IDIs think.

However, I thinkk the best point was made by the poster who said we make a mistake when we try to interpret this person's acations in terms of what we think they thought.

[Ames]

Originally posted by LindaA
I'm just wondering why Ames' long tirade was addressed to me and what it had to dowith my comment about teh RDI's attitude.

Personally, I'm still a fence-sitter, but the more I read on here the more I'm leaning to the IDI theory. The RDI's just aren't making any very valid points, IMO.

Anyway, Ames, a couple of things. Who knows who is a pedaphile these days. The Rs may well have had one in their social circle and never have known it.

If the intruder gained access to the houe shortly before the Rs left for the White's party, he could have had time to do any number of things and not fear being caught. This would have been especially true if he knew the Rs or somene they knew. as some IDIs think.

However, I thinkk the best point was made by the poster who said we make a mistake when we try to interpret this person's acations in terms of what we think they thought.

My "long tirade" really had nothing to do with your quote...I snipped too much of yours...sorry about that. And I was asking you the question, mainly because you were a "fence sitter"...I had your name in the beginning...but at the end of the post, I posed the question to all IDI's.