View Full Version : Foresenic Evidence Discussion
Athena
11-12-2006, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
It was not a red blouse. It was a red sweater. I will find a link later but I believe it may have been a turtleneck...or she wore a red sweater over the turtleneck. Something like that...but not a blouse.
LOL - TWW: In the context which LadyFisher asked her question it really doesn't matter. Her point was did she have on anything underneath the jacket. The fibers that are being referred to as consistent with the fibers on the duct tape and in the paint tray were the ones from her checked jacket. JMO
nuisanceposter
11-13-2006, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Athena
That is NOT a changed story. You have to realize the interviews were done and released to the public AFTER the media reports were all over the place and inaccurate including Thomas' book If you read that interview I posted that is where the confusion starts. It is a simple typo - "her" should have read "for" - and it is not at all difficult to realize that.
Alot of these posts are based on old misinformation and Steve Thomas" book was also published before the interviews were released that is why he tried so hard to seal his depo because he knew it would directly contradict what he had been feeding the public.
The biggest, most erroneous report that was published was by Vanity Fair. Read Beckner's depo -- it was Thomas that leaked all that stuff incorrectly to the media that caused the public to turn against the Ramseys early on in an effort to feed his theory.
Show me an OFFICIAL legal document that says what you posted above. JMO
Sorry, Athena, not good enough for me. John and Patsy saying the doors were locked and then later saying they weren't is in PMPT, too. That was what they told police and friends, and later changed their story and said they don't know if the doors were locked.
Could you please gie an example of what Thomas has contradicted himself on?
As for leaks, not all came from Thomas - many more came straight out of the DA's office.
Coloradokares
11-13-2006, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Sorry, Athena, not good enough for me. John and Patsy saying the doors were locked and then later saying they weren't is in PMPT, too. That was what they told police and friends, and later changed their story and said they don't know if the doors were locked.
Could you please gie an example of what Thomas has contradicted himself on?
As for leaks, not all came from Thomas - many more came straight out of the DA's office.
It is the humble opinion of this author MOST of the leaks came out of the DA office to Investigative Reporters. I don't have a link for that it is opinion. Having said that, that does not justify some leaks not others. But face it leaks and the media are facts of life. Not solely a unique phenom regards the Ramsey murder.
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Just wanted to say that I've been reading "The Cases That Haunt Us" and I can't believe you IDI people find any validity in John Douglas's opinion. He can't even get the facts straight!
For example: he states that JB was wearing the red turtleneck to bed that night and that "a friend" suggested that John and Fleet search the house. I am not through reading it yet, but at this point, his opinion on the Ramseys guilt or lack thereof doesn't mean anything to me. Did you guys miss this stuff and just focus on him being pro-Ramsey?? :shrug:
Just because I am an IDI doesn't mean that I believe or follow everything John Douglas has an opinion of... I have formed my own opinion, I didn't need coaching nor his theories...
sweetcharlotte
11-13-2006, 01:49 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by andU
Just because I am an IDI doesn't mean that I believe or follow everything John Douglas has an opinion of... I have formed my own opinion, I didn't need coaching nor his theories... [/QUOTE
I think I must have concentrated more on his "behavioral analysis" than I did on friends and turtlenecks..... :)
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
And we know there wasn't any because not one single guest from that party has come forward to say that there was.
Just because no one has come forward to say there was pineapple doesn't make it fact that there wasn't. How many of the guests had crabmeat? Does the fact that only JB had it on her special plate make it a fact that it wasn't there?
thewhitewitch1
11-13-2006, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by andU
Just because no one has come forward to say there was pineapple doesn't make it fact that there wasn't. How many of the guests had crabmeat? Does the fact that only JB had it on her special plate make it a fact that it wasn't there?
I believe the LE would have looked into whether there was pineapple served at the Whites party. Also, since it seemed to implicate the Ramseys in some way, don't you think their friends would have come forward and told the LE that pineapple had been served to help take the suspicion off of them?
Who says "only JB had crabmeat on her special plate"? Do you think the Whites bought crabmeat specifically for JB and nobody else? Of course other people had it. It was only put on her "special plate" to make sure that she got some. Not quite the same thing as the "mystery pineapple", is it?
thewhitewitch1
11-13-2006, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
[QUOTE]Originally posted by andU
Just because I am an IDI doesn't mean that I believe or follow everything John Douglas has an opinion of... I have formed my own opinion, I didn't need coaching nor his theories... [/QUOTE
I think I must have concentrated more on his "behavioral analysis" than I did on friends and turtlenecks..... :)
Of course you did. It appears you are not keen on looking at all perspectives. If the guy can't even get the facts straight, how can he be believable? I don't care how good you are. You can't just determine a persons guilt or lack of it just based on their behavior. Anyone on this case that can't get their facts straight loses credibility in my book.
Sure, there are some grey areas but most of the facts are common knowledge by now...such as the "turtleneck". Where did he get that info? From reading Steve Thomas's book?
Coloradokares
11-13-2006, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by andU
Just because no one has come forward to say there was pineapple doesn't make it fact that there wasn't. How many of the guests had crabmeat? Does the fact that only JB had it on her special plate make it a fact that it wasn't there?
I would really like if its possible to see the article that indicates that only JB had crab to eat that night. That is not my understanding at all. I think you are in for some shocking facts to surface when they unseal the depo's of Fleet and Priscilla White. Hopefully now that we have Bill Ritter as our Governor elect things are going to start happening! The toxicology reports on JonBenet were also clean. The bowl on the Ramsey counter with Patsy and Burkes fingerprints held the pinapple if I am not mistaken.
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I believe the LE would have looked into whether there was pineapple served at the Whites party. Also, since it seemed to implicate the Ramseys in some way, don't you think their friends would have come forward and told the LE that pineapple had been served to help take the suspicion off of them?
Who says "only JB had crabmeat on her special plate"? Do you think the Whites bought crabmeat specifically for JB and nobody else? Of course other people had it. It was only put on her "special plate" to make sure that she got some. Not quite the same thing as the "mystery pineapple", is it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that I had read that the crabmeat was left over from Christmas Eve and that's why it was on on JB's special plate...
thewhitewitch1
11-13-2006, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Athena
LOL - TWW: In the context which LadyFisher asked her question it really doesn't matter. Her point was did she have on anything underneath the jacket. The fibers that are being referred to as consistent with the fibers on the duct tape and in the paint tray were the ones from her checked jacket. JMO
I don't quite believe that. I have seen the fibers being refered to as from her sweater in some places.
I also want to comment on the fact that for just a second there, Patsy even tried to say she might have been wearing Priscillas jacket that night. She even got what sweater she was wearing screwed up until she was shown pictures of it from the party. After taking an entire YEAR to hand over the clothes they wore that night, I'd be surprised if the LE even got the right ones. IMO
thewhitewitch1
11-13-2006, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by andU
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that I had read that the crabmeat was left over from Christmas Eve and that's why it was on on JB's special plate...
I'm correcting you. You are wrong. :eek:
Originally posted by Coloradokares
I would really like if its possible to see the article that indicates that only JB had crab to eat that night. That is not my understanding at all. I think you are in for some shocking facts to surface when they unseal the depo's of Fleet and Priscilla White. Hopefully now that we have Bill Ritter as our Governor elect things are going to start happening! The toxicology reports on JonBenet were also clean. The bowl on the Ramsey counter with Patsy and Burkes fingerprints held the pinapple if I am not mistaken.
I certainly hope you are right, it is about time that they got off their butts out there and did something with all of that evidence they have been sitting on. I am anxious to see those sealed depo's, I am not the only one in for a shock... Good ol' Fleet thinks he covered his bootie, but time will tell. ...IMO
As far as the article, I will see if I can find it. I believe it was Priscilla that stated the crabmeat was leftover.
Coloradokares
11-13-2006, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by andU
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that I had read that the crabmeat was left over from Christmas Eve and that's why it was on on JB's special plate...
Sorry I have never seen that. Please feel also to correct me. I believe a special treat for JB was prepared for her my understanding was to take some leftovers home. Since she loved it so much.
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I'm correcting you. You are wrong. :eek:
I'm beginning to get an impression of you that I don't like... who put you in charge? I am looking for the information if you would quit bashing me long enough to allow me to find it ... just because someon disagrees with you does not give you a welcome to attack them!
Coloradokares
11-13-2006, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by andU
I certainly hope you are right, it is about time that they got off their butts out there and did something with all of that evidence they have been sitting on. I am anxious to see those sealed depo's, I am not the only one in for a shock... Good ol' Fleet thinks he covered his bootie, but time will tell. ...IMO
As far as the article, I will see if I can find it. I believe it was Priscilla that stated the crabmeat was leftover.
One thing is sure Fleet White was villian or hero. Remember their DNA was not found either. They more than copperated with the investigation. No one has fought harder for JonBenet than Fleet White and his family. If I am proved to be a fool so be it. If so, remember Fleet was in his bed when the phone call came in. Sound asleep found there by relatives. No one else can even prove they were in bed that night besides maybe Burke. If I am wrong it won't be the first time. I believe in Fleet and Priscilla White. I think if they turn out to be everything we believe them to be including still fighting for a special prosecutor to be appointed. Why would a murderer spend his life trying to get a cold case prosecuted? I'd think they'd just fade away leave well enough alone:shrug:
Originally posted by Coloradokares
Sorry I have never seen that. Please feel also to correct me. I believe a special treat for JB was prepared for her my understanding was to take some leftovers home. Since she loved it so much.
DOI...sorry, do not have the page number, but will get it and provide. John and Patsy say that when they got to the White's for dinner, Priscilla handed JB a special plate of leftover crabmeat. They both found this odd that she would just make up a plate for JB and no one else. It was not wrapped up for her to take home. She ate it there, at the party, at the White's.
Originally posted by Coloradokares
One thing is sure Fleet White was villian or hero. Remember their DNA was not found either. They more than copperated with the investigation. No one has fought harder for JonBenet than Fleet White and his family. If I am proved to be a fool so be it. If so, remember Fleet was in his bed when the phone call came in. Sound asleep found there by relatives. No one else can even prove they were in bed that night besides maybe Burke. If I am wrong it won't be the first time. I believe in Fleet and Priscilla White. I think if they turn out to be everything we believe them to be including still fighting for a special prosecutor to be appointed. Why would a murderer spend his life trying to get a cold case prosecuted? I'd think they'd just fade away leave well enough alone:shrug:
Aren't you the one that stated the DNA has not cleared anyone as it is degraded? So how are the White's cleared? Was there special DNA just for them? Who says Fleet was in bed? Do you have a link to the story that states as fact that the relatives found Fleet sound asleep in bed? And I don't understand your statement, no one else can even prove they were in bed that night besides maybe Burke. Are you still talking about the White's or did you change people mid-stream.
Sorry-waited too long to edit my post. Page 8, DOI, Priscilla gave JB special plate soon after she arrived at their home.
Coloradokares
11-13-2006, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Zoey
DOI...sorry, do not have the page number, but will get it and provide. John and Patsy say that when they got to the White's for dinner, Priscilla handed JB a special plate of leftover crabmeat. They both found this odd that she would just make up a plate for JB and no one else. It was not wrapped up for her to take home. She ate it there, at the party, at the White's.
Thanks I have that book coming to me again from my local library. Its getting harder to get the books now. I might have to break down and buy my own.I never wanted anyone to profit from her death you know. Like its a cause with me . But you and I both read that book........came away two differnet assesmenst. I checked my handwritten notes no notation on crab. However the toxicology report was clean. I don't think she was drugged if that was your thought on this. Maybe it'd of been kinder had she been. Oh that just hurts my heart something fierce to think about it. That baby had to suffer......
sweetcharlotte
11-13-2006, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
<snip>
After taking an entire YEAR to hand over the clothes they wore that night, I'd be surprised if the LE even got the right ones. IMO
The fact is the police waited for an entire YEAR before they asked for the clothes. Let's not make it sound worse than it was.
JMO
Coloradokares
11-13-2006, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Zoey
Aren't you the one that stated the DNA has not cleared anyone as it is degraded? So how are the White's cleared? Was there special DNA just for them? Who says Fleet was in bed? Do you have a link to the story that states as fact that the relatives found Fleet sound asleep in bed? And I don't understand your statement, no one else can even prove they were in bed that night besides maybe Burke. Are you still talking about the White's or did you change people mid-stream.
Yes go to the PMPT for awoken out of bed thing. I believe it was also in JonBenet Investigation into the murder of JonBenet. It might have a link as well. I'll google it see what I can find. However Fleet White was awoken out of bed by relatives which were their houseguests after the call was answered. Groan why do I speak on this forum its costing me a fortune in hair coloring .......I don't have the book waiting my turn for the library again. This has been a public service announcement regarding the efficiency of my Library. !!! ARGH!!
Your right the same thing that the Ramseys announced cleared them as suspects also cleared everyone else on that DNA trail. DNA match remains unfound. Whats good for gooses is good for ganders. But the Whites passed every other thing to the point the DA Office announced they were not suspects and had been cleared. Not so for the Ramseys they remain under that ole Parasol of Persecution. So maybe we have to rely on all the other evidence if DNA isn't the litmus test in this case.
As to proof of going to bed its long been susupected by RDI theorists Patsy for sure never made it to bed that night, maybe neither John or Patsy. Even though John had showered. I did switch streams to the Ramseys regarding sleep that night with Burke but should have clarifed that better.
Hope that helps I think I'll start lurking. Safer that way.
sweetcharlotte
11-13-2006, 04:55 PM
Isn't it true that the statement issued by the BPD said that they were not suspects in the murder of JonBenet - at the request of Alex Hunter the statement did not say the Whites had been cleared?
Fleet White was upset that Alex Hunter insisted on this change in wording?
JMO
thewhitewitch1
11-13-2006, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by andU
I'm beginning to get an impression of you that I don't like... who put you in charge? I am looking for the information if you would quit bashing me long enough to allow me to find it ... just because someon disagrees with you does not give you a welcome to attack them!
I didn't mean to bash you. Sorry.
I wouldn't take much stock in DOI. The Ramseys can't seem to get their facts straight for their own book. I would look up their interviews about the "special plate" and compare. I think that at the time they wrote their book, they were trying to "imply" something about the Whites. Same can be said for their '98 interview. IMO
Coloradokares
11-13-2006, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Isn't it true that the statement issued by the BPD said that they were not suspects in the murder of JonBenet - at the request of Alex Hunter the statement did not say the Whites had been cleared?
Fleet White was upset that Alex Hunter insisted on this change in wording?
JMO
Alex Hunter is the one who made the announcement. However it is my understanding that Fleet wanted a bit different wording and didn't get it. But the result was the same. They were under no suspicion, cleared, not under current investigation unless something new came to light. Exoneration was not his to give anyone not on trial?
Coloradokares
11-14-2006, 12:17 AM
Did any of you catch the I team investigation interview with the sexual abuse investigator who was pulled from the case mysteriously. Julie Hayden just interviewed her on channel 31 Fox . Holly Smith...not sure that is how she spelled her name. Said there was every indication that sexual abuse was ongoing prior to the murder.
I hope you caught the airing. Its like I said you can feel it. Like when you can smell the rain many are waiting for the thunder. Things are happening on this case again. Questions are being asked. Interviews are being taken.
Perhaps the upcoming 10th anniversary will see a renewed working on the case.
I hope you caught it. I tried to give you all the heads up.
Coloradokares
11-14-2006, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Coloradokares
Did any of you catch the I team investigation interview with the sexual abuse investigator who was pulled from the case mysteriously. Julie Hayden just interviewed her on channel 31 Fox . Holly Smith...not sure that is how she spelled her name. Said there was every indication that sexual abuse was ongoing prior to the murder.
I hope you caught the airing. Its like I said you can feel it. Like when you can smell the rain many are waiting for the thunder. Things are happening on this case again. Questions are being asked. Interviews are being taken.
Perhaps the upcoming 10th anniversary will see a renewed working on the case.
I hope you caught it. I tried to give you all the heads up.
http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=1475842&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
Here is the link to the Julie Hayden coverage with Holly Smith. I forgot to post this. sorry...hurrier I go behinder I get very interesting coverage.
Originally posted by Coloradokares
http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=1475842&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
Here is the link to the Julie Hayden coverage with Holly Smith. I forgot to post this. sorry...hurrier I go behinder I get very interesting coverage.
Thank you for the link. Couldn't find the show anywhere on tv tonight. One thing caught my eye in the story. It says Holly was called into the investigation on the 3rd day. I am assuming that would be the 29th or 30th. From search warrants, they took 19 pair of panties out of the house on the 26th and 27th, yet they left a drawer full of fecal covered panties behind? How many panties did this little girl have, and why would they leave all the dirty ones behind? Maybe it is just me, but I find this strange. Just my opinion, of course.
shill
11-14-2006, 02:12 AM
What exactly do they mean by "she was wiped down"?
Her whole body?
A small area?
Like a diaper change?
Was there evidence on her that needed to be wiped off? Could it be entirely wiped off if there was evidence?
If she was redressed her in her soiled clothes, how do they know she was wiped down.
Wouldn't there be a lot of trace fibers from the material used to wipe her down?
Why wipe her down?
And why couldn't JB be the one who wiped herself down?
lucky13
11-14-2006, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by shill
What exactly do they mean by "she was wiped down"?
Her whole body?
A small area?
Like a diaper change?
Was there evidence on her that needed to be wiped off? Could it be entirely wiped off if there was evidence?
If she was redressed her in her soiled clothes, how do they know she was wiped down.
Wouldn't there be a lot of trace fibers from the material used to wipe her down?
Why wipe her down?
And why couldn't JB be the one who wiped herself down?
To help answer your questions, this is out of PM/PT, pages 56- 57
"The light also revealed numerous traces of dark fibers scattered over her pubic area, similar to fibers found on the outside of JonBenets outer garment. Under the black light, the coroner saw a residue on the childs upper thigh that could have come from semen, though residue from blood and even from certain kinds of soaps could appear the same way under the black light. Nevertheless, the detectives conjured that they were semen traces."
"In addition, JonBenets underpants bore stains that appeared to be blood. The corresponding areas of her skin in the pubic area, however, showed no matching stains. The coroner told the police that the blood smears on the skin and the fibers found in the folds of the labia indicated that the childs pubic area had been wiped with a cloth. The blood smears also contained traces of fibers."
sweetcharlotte
11-14-2006, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Coloradokares
Alex Hunter is the one who made the announcement. However it is my understanding that Fleet wanted a bit different wording and didn't get it. But the result was the same. They were under no suspicion, cleared, not under current investigation unless something new came to light. Exoneration was not his to give anyone not on trial?
Page 276 - PM/PT
"When Hunter saw a draft of the Boulder PD's intended public statement, however, he objected to the wording. The Whites, he felt should not be "cleared" of any suspicion, because Fleet White's demeanor after JonBenet's murder was still open to interpretation. It might be better to use the words "are not suspects" rather than cleared."
That afternoon Chief Koby issued a statement to that effect - calling the Whites "key witnesses."
The Whites were not "cleared."
Originally posted by Zoey
Sorry-waited too long to edit my post. Page 8, DOI, Priscilla gave JB special plate soon after she arrived at their home.
thanks, Zoey, I couldn't find that quote...
Coloradokares
11-14-2006, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Zoey
Thank you for the link. Couldn't find the show anywhere on tv tonight. One thing caught my eye in the story. It says Holly was called into the investigation on the 3rd day. I am assuming that would be the 29th or 30th. From search warrants, they took 19 pair of panties out of the house on the 26th and 27th, yet they left a drawer full of fecal covered panties behind? How many panties did this little girl have, and why would they leave all the dirty ones behind? Maybe it is just me, but I find this strange. Just my opinion, of course.
It was on about 9:30 in Colorado. You might like to see if there is any contact the station for Julie Hayden or Holly Smith via the station or something. I don't have the answer to your question. I know the interview said she went through the drawers in the bedroom this is what she found. On what day I don't know. This was given in the context of her being in JonBenets bedroom in her dresser drawers. What I know is there was a sexual abuse investigator assigned to the case. She was aburptly removed from the case when enter stage left Lou Smit. What that says to anyone is their own interpretation I guess.
Coloradokares
11-14-2006, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Page 276 - PM/PT
"When Hunter saw a draft of the Boulder PD's intended public statement, however, he objected to the wording. The Whites, he felt should not be "cleared" of any suspicion, because Fleet White's demeanor after JonBenet's murder was still open to interpretation. It might be better to use the words "are not suspects" rather than cleared."
That afternoon Chief Koby issued a statement to that effect - calling the Whites "key witnesses."
The Whites were not "cleared."
Charlotte. I watched the thing with DA Hunter on TV myself. I remember it distinctly. Because at the time I felt the Whites were acting a bit out of character for friends. So I listened really carefully. I was once for a while a very avid believer in the Ramseys innocence. I just couldn't fathom parents doing this to their own daughter. This is a book your reading ok. Not the gospel according to Ramsey. Your right Hunter didn't like the wording. I said that. Were you there? Did you live this out here? You did not live the local news reports the special news updates unless your telling me you are in viewing range of the local channels out here. Lots of stuff did not make National Coverage just incase you think it did. I know this from many friends etc that would write me what is the news on the Ramsey murder whats going on now. We are not hearing anything about it. This murder captured the attention of the media like nothing ever has till Lacey Peterson thing now Natalie Holloway.
What I'd tell you if you said you were here all along is you must have missed that particular sound byte. That little face in camera update. Not denying what Koby official was told to issue and issued. Just Alex Hunter loved the cameras He played to them ok. He said they were Key witnesses under no current suspicion. Yet he refused to use the word Cleared of all suspicion or wrong doing. I believe the account in PMPT was essentially accurate ....At that time no one was considered officially cleared of all suspicion. Which was what Fleet White was demanding. There were sometimes multiple sound bytes a week. At least locally out here there were.
Please know that the authors of these books including Ramseys DOI did not get every fact exactly perfectly straight and did some editorializing etc. Some dramatizing. No book written yet could be considered the flawless or perfect account of this murder or the authority. That account has not been written yet and won't be till you see it played out in a courtroom or the killer would be behind bars. Be it intruder or otherwise.
DA Hunter Keenan and Lacey all three have said in their respective tenures..... at one point or another that at this current time there remains no one under the umbrella of suspicion but the Ramseys. Even as late as the press conference that said their would be no charges filed against JMK. I have provided that link to the complete transcript of this before upon request could furnish again. That would seem to indicate to me the Whites were cleared somewhere along the way if they are not under that umbrella with the Ramseys. Maybe they are still key witnesses. After 10 years I'd say they are not under suspicion or at least they were not named as under suspicion by DA Lacey in that conference.
Originally posted by Coloradokares
Thanks I have that book coming to me again from my local library. Its getting harder to get the books now. I might have to break down and buy my own.I never wanted anyone to profit from her death you know. Like its a cause with me . But you and I both read that book........came away two differnet assesmenst. I checked my handwritten notes no notation on crab. However the toxicology report was clean. I don't think she was drugged if that was your thought on this. Maybe it'd of been kinder had she been. Oh that just hurts my heart something fierce to think about it. That baby had to suffer......
Let me get this straight, because your handwritten notes don't say anything about crab, then my giving you a page number out of the book I have right in front of me makes me wrong and you right? I didn't say she was drugged. I said she was given a special plate of crabmeat and both Ramsey's thought it was odd.
bullmoose
11-14-2006, 02:03 PM
Yes JMK's DNA didn't match the DNA on the bloodspots or under her fingernails, which did match each other; of course there is the problem that it matches nobody else, including the Ramseys. For Lacey to clear Karr on the DNA nonmatch, it seems to that the DNA evidence must be definitive, not fragmentary. I do not believe that since the Richard Jewell debacle at the Atlanta Olympics that DAs' call anyone a suspect anymore. They are called persons of interest or material witnesses. But, [wink,wink,] its the same thing in practice. As for the umbrella of suspicion, I think it might surprize us all to see who is still being considered as a possible perpatrator; in some jurisdictions if a case has gone as cold as this one, they put a new set of detectives[ hopefully who know what they are doing] to review the case and all the evidence from scratch, to put a set of fresh eyes on it. Yes, there there is a show called THE COLD CASE FILES which does that idea. Maybe that is what they are doing at this point; I do agree with CK that as the tenth anniversary comes up, we are going to be inundated with this case again.
Athena
11-14-2006, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Coloradokares
<snip>
What I'd tell you if you said you were here all along is you must have missed that particular sound byte. That little face in camera update. Not denying what Koby official was told to issue and issued. Just Alex Hunter loved the cameras He played to them ok. He said they were Key witnesses under no current suspicion. Yet he refused to use the word Cleared of all suspicion or wrong doing. I believe the account in PMPT was essentially accurate ....At that time no one was considered officially cleared of all suspicion. Which was what Fleet White was demanding. There were sometimes multiple sound bytes a week. At least locally out here there were.<snip>
LOL After everything you just wrote you basically concurred with sweets' synopsis.
"Yet he refused to use the word Cleared of all suspicion or wrong doing."
Athena
11-14-2006, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by bullmoose
Yes JMK's DNA didn't match the DNA on the bloodspots or under her fingernails, which did match each other; of course there is the problem that it matches nobody else, including the Ramseys. For Lacey to clear Karr on the DNA nonmatch, it seems to that the DNA evidence must be definitive, not fragmentary. I do not believe that since the Richard Jewell debacle at the Atlanta Olympics that DAs' call anyone a suspect anymore. They are called persons of interest or material witnesses. But, [wink,wink,] its the same thing in practice. As for the umbrella of suspicion, I think it might surprize us all to see who is still being considered as a possible perpatrator; in some jurisdictions if a case has gone as cold as this one, they put a new set of detectives[ hopefully who know what they are doing] to review the case and all the evidence from scratch, to put a set of fresh eyes on it. Yes, there there is a show called THE COLD CASE FILES which does that idea. Maybe that is what they are doing at this point; I do agree with CK that as the tenth anniversary comes up, we are going to be inundated with this case again.
I agree. :) JMO
Originally posted by andU
thanks, Zoey, I couldn't find that quote...
andU, just to let you know, page 8, DOI, "Most of us helped ourselves to the snacks and hors d'oeurves that Priscilla had prepared, including left over cracked crab, which they had enjoyed as a family tradition on Christmas Eve."
You were correct, it was left over from their dinner the night before.
nuisanceposter
11-14-2006, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Athena
I agree. :) JMO
I don't. The DNA under the nails and in the undies do not match. The only people who have ever said so were those two paid by the Ramseys, Gray and Augustin. Find me an independent source that tested the two kinds of DNA and said they match each other.
There isn't enough loci in the nail DNA for it to be conclusively matched to anyone else's DNA. There's a reason CODIS wants 13 loci to make a match, and that's because all human DNA is similar without comparing a certain number of loci. I've heard there were only 2 markers in the nail DNA, and someone here said there were 6. Either 2 or 6, neither one is enough to make a conclusive match.
The DNA in the underwear and under the nails matching has not been proven. I'd like to see some official documentation that those two samples of DNA have been conclusively matched.
Lacy dragging Karr back here in public spectacle to obtain DNA was a total farce, especially when Lacy had to admit on national television that the undie DNA may very well be antiquated (it is, that's why it's degraded) and not have anything at all to do with the murder. All comparing Karr's DNA to the undie DNA did was prove that he wasn't the one who left the DNA in her undies. They also cleared him on the fact that no one can prove he was in Boulder during Christmas of 1996, much less in the Ramsey house. His version of events fell apart upon scrutiny - he didn't even have basic facts correct! It was a lot more than just the DNA that got him cleared.
bullmoose
11-14-2006, 02:56 PM
I think that the evidence for there being real DNA evidence vastly outweighs any evidence of the vampire fibers found on Jonbenet that supposedly matched her fathers shirt. I mean if the DNA is antiquated, as suggested by np, then the vampirish fibers must be even more so, maybe back to Transylvania. Maybe they should carbon date them to see if there a match to Vlad.:lol:
nuisanceposter
11-14-2006, 03:05 PM
I'm not the only one who said the DNA may be artifact - Mary Lacy said it on television.
Dr Henry Lee obtained packages of underwear identical to the ones JonBenet had on and tested them. He found DNA on them - brand new, unwashed undies, taken straight out of the package, just like JonBenet had on.
Dr Lee proved the foreign DNA could have come from someone other than the killer, and considering the DNA was fragmented and degraded while JB's was not, I'd say the DNA was there before the package was even purchased by the Rs.
I'm not sure how you reckon fibers being the same as DNA.
Why would the fibers be antiquated also?
thewhitewitch1
11-14-2006, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Zoey
andU, just to let you know, page 8, DOI, "Most of us helped ourselves to the snacks and hors d'oeurves that Priscilla had prepared, including left over cracked crab, which they had enjoyed as a family tradition on Christmas Eve."
You were correct, it was left over from their dinner the night before.
I thought the point of the cracked crab was AndU thought only JB was served it. It doesn't matter if it was leftover or not. Everyone ate it; not just JB. What this has to do with the pineapple, I am not sure. No pineapple was served at the Whites.
Of course Patsy thought it was "odd" that the Whites set a plate aside for JB. She was trying to cast suspicion away from herself and on to them. IMO Such a nice friend. :rolleyes:
WallyCleaver
11-14-2006, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I'm not the only one who said the DNA may be artifact - Mary Lacy said it on television.
Dr Henry Lee obtained packages of underwear identical to the ones JonBenet had on and tested them. He found DNA on them - brand new, unwashed undies, taken straight out of the package, just like JonBenet had on.
Dr Lee proved the foreign DNA could have come from someone other than the killer, and considering the DNA was fragmented and degraded while JB's was not, I'd say the DNA was there before the package was even purchased by the Rs.
I'm not sure how you reckon fibers being the same as DNA.
Why would the fibers be antiquated also?
Following up on that, JB was wiped down very thoroughly - presumably before the panties were put on her. I guess one could say that the perp missed a spot, and when her panties were put on (or pulled up, if you like the theory she'd been wearing them all evening) the DNA got on them, but there wasn't any foreign DNA on her body. None in her vagina. None on her legs. Only in the panties, and then fragmented DNA.
bullmoose
11-14-2006, 03:15 PM
To nuisanceposter: Forgive me, but I'm being silly, the last post or two. You are making good points; but I'm still troubled by the fact that if the DNA evidence is fragmented and possibly an artifact; then how on the basis of this same DNA did they clear Karr?
Originally posted by Zoey
DOI...sorry, do not have the page number, but will get it and provide. John and Patsy say that when they got to the White's for dinner, Priscilla handed JB a special plate of leftover crabmeat. They both found this odd that she would just make up a plate for JB and no one else. It was not wrapped up for her to take home. She ate it there, at the party, at the White's.
I don't know what book you are referring to here, but I didn't read it, I've only read one, "Perfect ...." and I am sure I saw this in an interview... if what is spoken in the interviews can't be taken as truth, than where does that leave us? We'd have to throw out a lot of inforamtion. ... and the DNA should be discounted as well.
thewhitewitch1
11-14-2006, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by andU
I don't know what book you are referring to here, but I didn't read it, I've only read one, "Perfect ...." and I am sure I saw this in an interview... if what is spoken in the interviews can't be taken as truth, than where does that leave us? We'd have to throw out a lot of inforamtion. ... and the DNA should be discounted as well.
The crab was served to everyone at the Whites. Priscilla made a plate for JB to make sure she got some. No big deal.
WallyCleaver
11-14-2006, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by bullmoose
To nuisanceposter: Forgive me, but I'm being silly, the last post or two. You are making good points; but I'm still troubled by the fact that if the DNA evidence is fragmented and possibly an artifact; then how on the basis of this same DNA did they clear Karr?
If you'll pardon me for answering, I believe that Karr was "cleared" only in the sense that his DNA didn't match and they have nothing else on him. They couldn't prove he was even in Boulder that night. IOW, if they got a match, they had their man, and if not, they had nothing.
It's worth noting here that this situation will obtain no matter which intruder they choose to test. They have nothing at all that links to any actual individual (other than DNA). If they ever test anyone again, it will be match/no match - case solved/ nada.
Originally posted by Zoey
Aren't you the one that stated the DNA has not cleared anyone as it is degraded? So how are the White's cleared? Was there special DNA just for them? Who says Fleet was in bed? Do you have a link to the story that states as fact that the relatives found Fleet sound asleep in bed? And I don't understand your statement, no one else can even prove they were in bed that night besides maybe Burke. Are you still talking about the White's or did you change people mid-stream.
thanks again, Zoey!
Originally posted by Coloradokares
One thing is sure Fleet White was villian or hero. Remember their DNA was not found either. They more than copperated with the investigation. No one has fought harder for JonBenet than Fleet White and his family. If I am proved to be a fool so be it. If so, remember Fleet was in his bed when the phone call came in. Sound asleep found there by relatives. No one else can even prove they were in bed that night besides maybe Burke. If I am wrong it won't be the first time. I believe in Fleet and Priscilla White. I think if they turn out to be everything we believe them to be including still fighting for a special prosecutor to be appointed. Why would a murderer spend his life trying to get a cold case prosecuted? I'd think they'd just fade away leave well enough alone:shrug:
I wouldn't believe in the Whites too much, you could be the one in for a shock when/if those sealed depos are opened. IMO
thewhitewitch1
11-14-2006, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by andU
I wouldn't believe in the Whites too much, you could be the one in for a shock when/if those sealed depos are opened. IMO
What evidence is there at all that the Whites were involved?
Coloradokares
11-14-2006, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Zoey
Let me get this straight, because your handwritten notes don't say anything about crab, then my giving you a page number out of the book I have right in front of me makes me wrong and you right? I didn't say she was drugged. I said she was given a special plate of crabmeat and both Ramsey's thought it was odd.
You have not got it straight. You had not yet furnished a page number at the time I posted that. I had only consulted my handwriten note to see no notation in my notes from that book regarding that crab. Why? Frankly I do not see what crab had to do with any suspicion cast toward the Whites. Ramseys would take anything and throw it out there to save their own skins. JMHO
Originally posted by Zoey
andU, just to let you know, page 8, DOI, "Most of us helped ourselves to the snacks and hors d'oeurves that Priscilla had prepared, including left over cracked crab, which they had enjoyed as a family tradition on Christmas Eve."
You were correct, it was left over from their dinner the night before.
Thank you, Zoey, but I know I didn't read that book, I'm almost sure it was an online interview ....
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I thought the point of the cracked crab was AndU thought only JB was served it. It doesn't matter if it was leftover or not. Everyone ate it; not just JB. What this has to do with the pineapple, I am not sure. No pineapple was served at the Whites.
Of course Patsy thought it was "odd" that the Whites set a plate aside for JB. She was trying to cast suspicion away from herself and on to them. IMO Such a nice friend. :rolleyes:
LoL! It has been so long, I have forgotten the point that I was trying to make about the crab being left over and only for JB... :biggrin:
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
The crab was served to everyone at the Whites. Priscilla made a plate for JB to make sure she got some. No big deal.
TWW1, maybe I look at things different than you do, but I think everything that happened in this case is a big deal. Priscilla made a special plate for JB, when if in fact, she had plenty for everyone. I find that very odd indeed. I don't think the Ramsey's mentioning it in their book made it any more suspicious to me. She handed her the plate when she first arrived. Why did she not make one up for Burke? He had just arrived, too. He was a special guest as well. I think that everything the White's did or did not do is a big deal. JMHO.
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
What evidence is there at all that the Whites were involved?
What evidence is that that they weren't? We don't know either answer, everything concerning them is sealed.
Coloradokares
11-14-2006, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Athena
LOL After everything you just wrote you basically concurred with sweets' synopsis.
"Yet he refused to use the word Cleared of all suspicion or wrong doing."
Yes I know but it was Sweet not me that jumped up page number in hand to say it was not Alex Hunter but Koby who announced..... Not knowing apparently that Koby would do sound bytes and Hunter would as well, so it was subjective to which one you saw. But since page number la te da from book PMPT says it was Koby it had to by Koby not Hunter so I was wrong regardless of who I saw on TV. That proves the Ramseys are innocent by George that ought to do it. :rolleyes: Its the IDI vs the RDI thing. Glad you saw there was not this huge incompatbiliy. I have been members of forums before they respect each others opinions. There is a huge tension on this forum that makes it rather unpleasant. Why is that?
thewhitewitch1
11-14-2006, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Zoey
TWW1, maybe I look at things different than you do, but I think everything that happened in this case is a big deal. Priscilla made a special plate for JB, when if in fact, she had plenty for everyone. I find that very odd indeed. I don't think the Ramsey's mentioning it in their book made it any less suspicious to me. She handed her the plate when she first arrived. Why did she not make one up for Burke? He had just arrived, too. He was a special guest as well. I think that everything the White's did or did not do is a big deal. JMHO.
I don't think it's odd. Jonbenet seemed to get a lot more attention than Burke did. Priscilla just wanted to make sure she got some of the crab. How is it suspicious? It seems to imply that you think it was drugged. I know you haven't said that but why else would it matter?
What else makes the Whites suspects? Fleets "odd" behavior? My opinion of that is that by this time, he may have begun to suspect that the Ramseys killed their own daughter.
Please don't cite his "tampering with the evidence" as a reason. As I've stated before, he was asked to come over that morning. He would not have been there to do any tampering if he had not been asked.
Why on Earth would he want to kill JB? What would his motive be? There is no physical evidence tying him to her death. I don't understand how anyone could think he was involved based on these things.
LindaA
11-14-2006, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
All Three? Isn't Keenan/Lacy the same person?
I thought they were. Didn't she get married during the time in question?
Coloradokares
11-14-2006, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Zoey
TWW1, maybe I look at things different than you do, but I think everything that happened in this case is a big deal. Priscilla made a special plate for JB, when if in fact, she had plenty for everyone. I find that very odd indeed. I don't think the Ramsey's mentioning it in their book made it any more suspicious to me. She handed her the plate when she first arrived. Why did she not make one up for Burke? He had just arrived, too. He was a special guest as well. I think that everything the White's did or did not do is a big deal. JMHO.
The only thing is why would the crab be a big huge deal. Unless it was tainted it matters not one bit. Because they serve her crab cause she liked it thats what, some kind proof they did it or something. HOW? At least say why you feel its a big deal. Maybe Burke didn't like crab. I mean lets at least have a reasoning to follow to make it this monumental huge big deal. Then maybe if you convince us it is this big deal and will solve the case we'll wrap our heads around it, if the implication is the crab was laced and thats why JonBenet slept on the way home ....say it so we can discuss what may or may not be pertinent regarding the crab. Toxicology report said no drugs in system. So what about the crab is so earthshaking?
Coloradokares
11-14-2006, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by LindaA
I thought they were. Didn't she get married during the time in question?
Not that I know of.
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I don't think it's odd. Jonbenet seemed to get a lot more attention than Burke did. Priscilla just wanted to make sure she got some of the crab. How is it suspicious? It seems to imply that you think it was drugged. I know you haven't said that but why else would it matter?
What else makes the Whites suspects? Fleets "odd" behavior? My opinion of that is that by this time, he may have begun to suspect that the Ramseys killed their own daughter.
Please don't cite his "tampering with the evidence" as a reason. As I've stated before, he was asked to come over that morning. He would not have been there to do any tampering if he had not been asked.
Why on Earth would he want to kill JB? What would his motive be? There is no physical evidence tying him to her death. I don't understand how anyone could think he was involved based on these things.
Why in the world would anyone want to kill her?? What would anyone's motive be. She was a sweet, innocent, beautiful little girl.
IMO, I don't understand how anyone could think JR or PR were involved. JMHO, IMO, MOO.
sweetcharlotte
11-14-2006, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by LindaA
I thought they were. Didn't she get married during the time in question?
http://www.co.boulder.co.us/da/
bullmoose
11-14-2006, 04:15 PM
The only motive that has ever made sense to me as to why somebody would kill Jonbenet in such a fashion, write the world's weirdest ransom note and do it all in the Ramsey home is that some twisted pervert wanted to destroy the Ramsey family. The killer knew that the BPD would instantly zero in on the Ramseys; on that basis I believe it was someone local enough to know in advance that the BPD would react precisely like they did. I am an IDI, I too cannot believe the Ramseys had any more involvement other than being victims. A monster did this, a smart monster that has been enjoying the whole horrible circus of confusion these past ten years.
Originally posted by bullmoose
The only motive that has ever made sense to me as to why somebody would kill Jonbenet in such a fashion, write the world's weirdest ransom note and do it all in the Ramsey home is that some twisted pervert wanted to destroy the Ramsey family. The killer knew that the BPD would instantly zero in on the Ramseys; on that basis I believe it was someone local enough to know in advance that the BPD would react precisely like they did. I am an IDI, I too cannot believe the Ramseys had any more involvement other than being victims. A monster did this, a smart monster that has been enjoying the whole horrible circus of confusion these past ten years.
:beer:
shill
11-14-2006, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Coloradokares
The only thing is why would the crab be a big huge deal. Unless it was tainted it matters not one bit. Because they serve her crab cause she liked it thats what, some kind proof they did it or something. HOW? At least say why you feel its a big deal. Maybe Burke didn't like crab. I mean lets at least have a reasoning to follow to make it this monumental huge big deal. Then maybe if you convince us it is this big deal and will solve the case we'll wrap our heads around it, if the implication is the crab was laced and thats why JonBenet slept on the way home ....say it so we can discuss what may or may not be pertinent regarding the crab. Toxicology report said no drugs in system. So what about the crab is so earthshaking? The problem with the Date Rape Drug, is it metabolizes and is not traceable, so they have trouble convicting rapist of this drugging.
If the intent was to shut JB up by murdering her, you could drug her, sneak into the house and take her down stairs to kill her, no stun gun needed.
After all the staging, one would second guess ones self on whether anything was over looked.
Given the chance, one would take the opportunity to double check they didn't leave anything behind. Seeing that they all ready messed up and forgot the flashlight, that would make them paranoid enough to search over the crime scene given the opportunity.
To molest someone, you have to have access to that person. If silenceing JB from exposing her molester is the motive, then the suspects would be those who were allowed to be alone with her.
Originally posted by Zoey
Thank you for the link. Couldn't find the show anywhere on tv tonight. One thing caught my eye in the story. It says Holly was called into the investigation on the 3rd day. I am assuming that would be the 29th or 30th. From search warrants, they took 19 pair of panties out of the house on the 26th and 27th, yet they left a drawer full of fecal covered panties behind? How many panties did this little girl have, and why would they leave all the dirty ones behind? Maybe it is just me, but I find this strange. Just my opinion, of course.
The way that I read it, the panties were not "fecal covered"...I think that she means that they were stained. I am sure that JB wouldn't have had a drawer full of "fecal covered" panties. That would be sure to cause an odor!!! I believe that they had been washed...but, were just stained. IMO I could be wrong...but, I believe thats what she meant.
thewhitewitch1
11-14-2006, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Zoey
Why in the world would anyone want to kill her?? What would anyone's motive be. She was a sweet, innocent, beautiful little girl.
IMO, I don't understand how anyone could think JR or PR were involved. JMHO, IMO, MOO.
I can understand how you would feel that way. Nobody wants to think that a parent is capable of murdering their child.
Before I heard any of the details, I immediately felt that they did it. I did not follow the case when it happened so the "media hype" had no affect on my opinion. I didn't really know much about the facts at all until JMK was arrested. Since then, I have read a lot...and I DO mean a lot...and everything I have read still says "Ramseys were involved" to me.
I cannot get over the Ramseys inconsistancies in their stories. I just read another one last night. In DOI, John says the door near the butler pantry (I believe it was) was unlocked and opened that morning and that it was in the police report. Ok..yes, it was in the police report but anyone could have opened that door at any time. John states that a friend pointed it out to him when he arrived at their house. That friend would be John Fernie, who came to that door, saw the note on the floor, read some of it, tried the door, found it locked and then went around to the front to be let in. That is what he told the LE. There is no way that door could have been open without JR knowing it while he was "down on his hands and knees" reading that note. Ummm...cold air?!
If they weren't involved...why....WHY can't they keep their stories straight? Oh what a tangled web we weave.
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I can understand how you would feel that way. Nobody wants to think that a parent is capable of murdering their child.
Before I heard any of the details, I immediately felt that they did it. I did not follow the case when it happened so the "media hype" had no affect on my opinion. I didn't really know much about the facts at all until JMK was arrested. Since then, I have read a lot...and I DO mean a lot...and everything I have read still says "Ramseys were involved" to me.
I cannot get over the Ramseys inconsistancies in their stories. I just read another one last night. In DOI, John says the door near the butler pantry (I believe it was) was unlocked and opened that morning and that it was in the police report. Ok..yes, it was in the police report but anyone could have opened that door at any time. John states that a friend pointed it out to him when he arrived at their house. That friend would be John Fernie, who came to that door, saw the note on the floor, read some of it, tried the door, found it locked and then went around to the front to be let in. That is what he told the LE. There is no way that door could have been open without JR knowing it while he was "down on his hands and knees" reading that note. Ummm...cold air?!
If they weren't involved...why....WHY can't they keep their stories straight? Oh what a tangled web we weave.
You sound like me...I didn't know all the facts of the story either, at first. Just that JB had been killed, while her parents and brother was in the house, and that the parents said that an intruder did it. I had always felt that the parents were involved... before hearing what the three page ransom letter said, before hearing about her being wiped down, before hearing about the pineapple, or Fleet White's Christmas party, before hearing anything about possible molestation, or the way that Patsy splayed her fingers while looking at an investigator, or begging Jesus to raise her baby, the way that He raised Lazarus, before I knew how rich or popular they were, I could go on and on...before ANY of the specifics came out in the news.....I have thought that from day one. And that is BEFORE I started hearing about all of the inconsistancies in their stories. Because of the inconsistancies...and other strange behavior....I feel more strongly, than ever before...that the Ramsey's were somehow involved in the death of their daughter. IMO
shill
11-15-2006, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by Ames
You sound like me...I didn't know all the facts of the story either, at first. Just that JB had been killed, while her parents and brother was in the house, and that the parents said that an intruder did it. I had always felt that the parents were involved... before hearing what the three page ransom letter said, before hearing about her being wiped down, before hearing about the pineapple, or Fleet White's Christmas party, before hearing anything about possible molestation, or the way that Patsy splayed her fingers while looking at an investigator, or begging Jesus to raise her baby, the way that He raised Lazarus, before I knew how rich or popular they were, I could go on and on...before ANY of the specifics came out in the news.....I have thought that from day one. And that is BEFORE I started hearing about all of the inconsistancies in their stories. Because of the inconsistancies...and other strange behavior....I feel more strongly, than ever before...that the Ramsey's were somehow involved in the death of their daughter. IMO You sound like a writer for the National Inquirerer!
Originally posted by bullmoose
The only motive that has ever made sense to me as to why somebody would kill Jonbenet in such a fashion, write the world's weirdest ransom note and do it all in the Ramsey home is that some twisted pervert wanted to destroy the Ramsey family. The killer knew that the BPD would instantly zero in on the Ramseys; on that basis I believe it was someone local enough to know in advance that the BPD would react precisely like they did. I am an IDI, I too cannot believe the Ramseys had any more involvement other than being victims. A monster did this, a smart monster that has been enjoying the whole horrible circus of confusion these past ten years.
Yep, I agree! ... it could have been a disgruntled employee, someone that John really humiliated years ago... but I believe it was someone outside the family.
Coloradokares
11-18-2006, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by andU
Yep, I agree! ... it could have been a disgruntled employee, someone that John really humiliated years ago... but I believe it was someone outside the family.
You are right it could have been. But surely there would be at least a small particle of proof left behind if that were so. I understand how you feel. I am waiting to see this in a court
one day. Let the evidence then convict the guilty only.
MyrDawn
11-18-2006, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Coloradokares
You are right it could have been. But surely there would be at least a small particle of proof left behind if that were so. I understand how you feel. I am waiting to see this in a court
one day. Let the evidence then convict the guilty only.
Who's to say there wasn't any proof left behind by the killer? The DNA, many unidentified fibers and hairs, the tape, and the rope haven't been traced to anyone yet. I believe that at least some of that unidentified evidence belongs to the killer.
JMO
Originally posted by MyrDawn
Who's to say there wasn't any proof left behind by the killer? The DNA, many unidentified fibers and hairs, the tape, and the rope haven't been traced to anyone yet. I believe that at least some of that unidentified evidence belongs to the killer.
JMO
Exactly MryDawn. There is still an aweful lot of evidence that has not been identified as belonging to anyone that lived in that house, so what's to say it did not belong to the actual killer? The RDI's seem to forget that there was unidentified evidence left at the crime scene. It is so much easier for them to brush that aside, as it doesn't fit their RDI theory.
Coloradokares
11-18-2006, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Zoey
Exactly MryDawn. There is still an aweful lot of evidence that has not been identified as belonging to anyone that lived in that house, so what's to say it did not belong to the actual killer? The RDI's seem to forget that there was unidentified evidence left at the crime scene. It is so much easier for them to brush that aside, as it doesn't fit their RDI theory.
Hi MryDawn and Zoey!! I wonder if the rest of the forum even knows we are open and over here at the crimelibraries forum? How would we get ahold of them as the list is far to quiet.
Its possible alot of that evidence is dwarfed by the evidence that actually points to commission of the murder. Some evidence is just people trapsing through their home at parites and showings not in relation to the murder as well.
Athena
11-18-2006, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Zoey
Exactly MryDawn. There is still an aweful lot of evidence that has not been identified as belonging to anyone that lived in that house, so what's to say it did not belong to the actual killer? The RDI's seem to forget that there was unidentified evidence left at the crime scene. It is so much easier for them to brush that aside, as it doesn't fit their RDI theory.
:seeya: Good to see you MyrDawn.
Hi all,
You know I agree with you both. I've been questioning the other fibers since I've been on this board. There were over 4000 fibers found yet people jump all over a couple of fibers found alleged to belong to Patsy and John which IMO can easily be explained away as they live there moreso than the ones that cannot be explained.
I'm still trying to figure out how blue fibers that were reportedly found on JBR's vaginal area and brown fibers found on the duct tape have since turned to black and red? :shrug:
Originally posted by Athena
:seeya: Good to see you MyrDawn.
Hi all,
You know I agree with you both. I've been questioning the other fibers since I've been on this board. There were over 4000 fibers found yet people jump all over a couple of fibers found alleged to belong to Patsy and John which IMO can easily be explained away as they live there moreso than the ones that cannot be explained.
I'm still trying to figure out how blue fibers that were reportedly found on JBR's vaginal area and brown fibers found on the duct tape have since turned to black and red? :shrug:
It's easier to turn things around to fit the RDI theory than to see the evidence for what it is; that an intruder was in that house. What's that saying, can't see the forest from the trees? I think that fits perfectly here.
Originally posted by Coloradokares
<snipped>
I wonder if the rest of the forum even knows we are open and over here at the crimelibraries forum? How would we get ahold of them as the list is far to quiet.
HELLO EVERYONE!!
My gosh, I missed each and every one of you guys...and yes..even the IDI's (LOL). Glad that I finally found you...it was like looking for a needle in a haystack!! Geesh!!!!
Coloradokares
11-18-2006, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Ames
HELLO EVERYONE!!
My gosh, I missed each and every one of you guys...and yes..even the IDI's (LOL). Glad that I finally found you...it was like looking for a needle in a haystack!! Geesh!!!!
Do you suppose we should IM a bunch of the regular posters. IDI as well as RDI...I mean really they need to know how to get here.
Originally posted by Coloradokares
Do you suppose we should IM a bunch of the regular posters. IDI as well as RDI...I mean really they need to know how to get here.
Yep, that would not be a bad idea....now if I can remember myself, how I got here. LOL I bookmarked it, when I found it....I will have to go back and try and figure out how I found it first, and then I can start pming the regular posters. PM me with the people that you PM and, I will do the same...so that we don't PM the same person, twice. Thanks!
shill
11-18-2006, 10:18 PM
Thanks for the hook up. My old link just said it didn't exist anymore. I thought they closed this site.
shill
11-18-2006, 10:23 PM
Could the reason JB was found in the panties she was wearing, was because they have Rosebuds on them?
MissOtisRegrets
11-18-2006, 10:41 PM
Next Saturday, CBS 48 Hours: a new show on the murder of JonBenet.
:seeya:
MissO
Originally posted by shill
Thanks for the hook up. My old link just said it didn't exist anymore. I thought they closed this site.
You are welcome...it took me FOREVER to find it!! I thought that it had closed too. It was just a matter of spending huge amounts of time clicking on different things, I had almost given up.
shill
11-19-2006, 01:10 AM
Rosebud, rosebud, rosebud....
Originally posted by shill
Rosebud, rosebud, rosebud....
What are you saying? Theres a poster here, that goes by Rosebud...do you want me to pm her and give her this link?
shill
11-19-2006, 01:37 AM
Sorry, I was refering to the rosebuds on the panties.
The rosebud is a huge metaphor in the movie "Citizen Kane" and represented his lost youth he would never get back.
Originally posted by shill
Sorry, I was refering to the rosebuds on the panties.
The rosebud is a huge metaphor in the movie "Citizen Kane" and represented his lost youth he would never get back.
LOL...sorry about that. I have a terrible headache...and cannot think straight. I saw your post about the rosebuds on her panties, but for some reason thought that you were trying to tell me to contact rosebud (the poster)...LOL DUH!!! Whoa..I never knew that about "Citizen Kane"...I never have watched that movie. I need to rent it now...
bullmoose
11-19-2006, 07:13 AM
Weren't the rosebuds on his sled in the movie? By the way, thank-you Ames for leading me back to the site from the darkness' as it were. I'm looking foward to renewing the discussions with everybody. bullmoose
LadyFisher
11-19-2006, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Next Saturday, CBS 48 Hours: a new show on the murder of JonBenet.
:seeya:
MissO I saw that advertised, PLEASE somebody remind me before next Saturday airing time, I want to see it...with the busy holiday preparations...I don't want to forget it! :)
LadyFisher
11-19-2006, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Ames
You are welcome...it took me FOREVER to find it!! I thought that it had closed too. It was just a matter of spending huge amounts of time clicking on different things, I had almost given up. WAA WAA, nobody pm'd me.....I had to find this on my own! Nobody loves me, I guess! :(
LadyFisher
11-19-2006, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by shill
Sorry, I was refering to the rosebuds on the panties.
The rosebud is a huge metaphor in the movie "Citizen Kane" and represented his lost youth he would never get back. :eek: That sounds just like something JMK would think or do! Ewwwwwww :chicken:
Originally posted by LadyFisher
WAA WAA, nobody pm'd me.....I had to find this on my own! Nobody loves me, I guess! :(
I am SOOOO sorry LF...I didn't mean to leave you out...I PROMISE!! I thought that I had PM'd you, and went back and checked my sent messages...I had left you AND Hartz out. I was trying to send pm's to everyone, and I had a terrible headache, I am sure that you and Hartz aren't the only ones that I left out...but none of it is intentional. I am going to go back today, and sent some more pm's. WE DO LOVE YOU!!! ...and this board would not be the same without you here.
Originally posted by bullmoose
<snipped>
By the way, thank-you Ames for leading me back to the site from the darkness' as it were. I'm looking foward to renewing the discussions with everybody. bullmoose
You are quite welcome...I just feel really bad about leaving some people out. It was not intentional.
Hi Guys,
Here is a list of everyone that I have PM'd about our new home. Please, let me know if I have left anyone out...because I want to make sure that everyone is included. Some of these I did last night, and some I did this morning.
LadyFisher, Hartz, LindaA, bullmoose, thewhitewitch1, humanpolygraph, Athena, docg, sweetcharlotte, MissOtisRegrets, lucky13, breezy1234, mimi428, MyrDawn, Shill, WallyCleaver.
I just realized that I left out sunsplashed...I will pm her right now. Hopefully we will have everybody back together again, real soon!
Ames
thewhitewitch1
11-19-2006, 12:04 PM
Hi Ames and everyone! I didn't get your PM, Ames but thank you anyway. I just fumbled my way back here. At first I thought this thread was just GONE and I was a bit upset. Glad to see it's not.
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Hi Ames and everyone! I didn't get your PM, Ames but thank you anyway. I just fumbled my way back here. At first I thought this thread was just GONE and I was a bit upset. Glad to see it's not.
Hi! I pm'd you last night, I wonder why you didn't get it...thats weird. Oh well....at least you found us. Yes, it took a bit of fumbling to find my way back here too. I wonder why they made it such a pain in the rear to find? I thought that it had been taken down too...and was gone forever. Glad to see that its here, and almost all of my friends have made it, I missed all of you guys! I was having withdrawal symptoms...it was HORRIBLE!
Athena
11-19-2006, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Ames
Hi! I pm'd you last night, I wonder why you didn't get it...thats weird. Oh well....at least you found us. Yes, it took a bit of fumbling to find my way back here too. I wonder why they made it such a pain in the rear to find? I thought that it had been taken down too...and was gone forever. Glad to see that its here, and almost all of my friends have made it, I missed all of you guys! I was having withdrawal symptoms...it was HORRIBLE!
Thanks for the pm Ames. I think I had found it just as you and Colorado... were sending pms. :)
LindaA
11-19-2006, 02:42 PM
Thank you so much Ames. I was watching the old board to see when the little padlock icon would disappear and was not pleased when the whole board went! I probably would have waited a few days more before trying to find you guys! I missed ALL of you!!
You are so very welcome guys!! This board would not be the same without all of our friends!! We are so glad that you finally made it.
LadyFisher
11-19-2006, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Ames
I am SOOOO sorry LF...I didn't mean to leave you out...I PROMISE!! I thought that I had PM'd you, and went back and checked my sent messages...I had left you AND Hartz out. I was trying to send pm's to everyone, and I had a terrible headache, I am sure that you and Hartz aren't the only ones that I left out...but none of it is intentional. I am going to go back today, and sent some more pm's. WE DO LOVE YOU!!! ...and this board would not be the same without you here. Thank you, Ames, it's nice to be back with everyone on the board. Someone once said they rarely check their pms, was it Wally? I hope everyone makes it back soon! I enjoy everybodys unique perspective on this case whether I agree with them or not! :)
Originally posted by LadyFisher
Thank you, Ames, it's nice to be back with everyone on the board. Someone once said they rarely check their pms, was it Wally? I hope everyone makes it back soon! I enjoy everybodys unique perspective on this case whether I agree with them or not! :)
Yeah, we are not all here, yet. I suppose that more posters than Wally, haven't checked their pm's, yet. I agree with you...I hope that everyone makes it back real soon.
MissOtisRegrets
11-20-2006, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Ames
Yeah, we are not all here, yet. I suppose that more posters than Wally, haven't checked their pm's, yet. I agree with you...I hope that everyone makes it back real soon.
Ames, this was so kind of both you and Colorado to do this. I know it took considerable time. Thank you again. If some people haven't returned yet, it might be because the pm's that are sent from here don't show up in the CTV pm box. They are two separate boxes now.
:seeya:
MissO
shill
11-20-2006, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by bullmoose
Weren't the rosebuds on his sled in the movie? By the way, thank-you Ames for leading me back to the site from the darkness' as it were. I'm looking foward to renewing the discussions with everybody. bullmoose Yes, it was a sled he never got to ride because he had to become a man when he was just a kid and misses out on his childhood.:rose: :rose::rose:
Originally posted by Ames
Yep, that would not be a bad idea....now if I can remember myself, how I got here. LOL I bookmarked it, when I found it....I will have to go back and try and figure out how I found it first, and then I can start pming the regular posters. PM me with the people that you PM and, I will do the same...so that we don't PM the same person, twice. Thanks!
I found my way back!
Originally posted by andU
I found my way back!
Awesome! Glad that you made it!!
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Ames, this was so kind of both you and Colorado to do this. I know it took considerable time. Thank you again. If some people haven't returned yet, it might be because the pm's that are sent from here don't show up in the CTV pm box. They are two separate boxes now.
:seeya:
MissO
Oh my gosh...you are SO sweet!! I just hate it that I accidently left some people out. It did take a considerable amount of time...BUT...I did it for MY FRIENDS....so it was worth every second!!!
chatwuann
11-21-2006, 08:31 AM
It seems to me that a garotte doesn't necessarily have to be made of rope or cord because Ted Bundy carried one around in his car made of nylons. I wish I could remember all the details. I think I read it in the stranger next door. The thing that stuck in my mind was that the garotte was made of nylons. And also on the news a couple of years ago the anchor told of a man that made a garotte out of a garden hose and used it to strangle his wife. I might go into the archives and see if I can find the article and get a link to it. I'll let you know if I do. JMO
chatwuann
11-21-2006, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by barbsthoughts
Well, knots and garrottes. There is a gruesome history concerning garrottes and how they were used to kill people. That is one of the unique features of this crime. And simply by this unique feature, shouldn't someone emerge in investigation as a "unique perpetrator"? Physical evidence. Keeps me wondering. Personally, I do want to know the truth, however horrible it may be, because the killer(s) must be found. I cannot understand how one can say "I really don't want to know".
I think garotting was once used as a form of execution in medeival times.
LadyFisher
11-21-2006, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by chatwuann
I think garotting was once used as a form of execution in medeival times. I was thinking that, too. Could this perp have gotten the idea from some of the medieval board games that was popular back in '96? He might have even researched it on the internet! jmho
Originally posted by LadyFisher
I was thinking that, too. Could this perp have gotten the idea from some of the medieval board games that was popular back in '96? He might have even researched it on the internet! jmho
Some countries and some religions and/or religious sects have used it much more recent than mideval... ie: muslims
shill
11-21-2006, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by chatwuann
I think garotting was once used as a form of execution in medeival times. It's still legal in the Philippines, home of the infamous Subic Bay Training Center.
bullmoose
11-21-2006, 04:32 PM
Actually, as far as I know, Spain still had the Garrotte as a form of execution up into the 70's, although I don't how often it was used. Under Franco and the Fascists that ran Spain until Franco's death, it was still on the books. I have a hazy memory from the late 70's that a Basque separatist that had been sentenced to death by the Garrotte was instead shot by firing squad; it was considered to be a real concession to the Basques.
Athena
11-21-2006, 11:47 PM
I posted this some time ago but am posting it again due to the last few posts and it describes different ways they are used and different materials to make them:
Short History of the Garrotte
Some people say, "Well, the garrotte is a..." and then they define it to the exclusion of anything else. The simple fact of the matter is, a "Garrotte" was an execution device that was utilized in Spain up until the mid-1970s. A few other countries used it now and again. And there were many different types of garrottes used as execution devices.
When someone says, "The garrotte is only a killing weapon..." Technically, they are correct, but they are not usually speaking of the execution device that was once used for Capital Punishment, therefore, they are incorrect in reality.
The number one deciding factor is intent. How you use it. You can use some "garrottes" as a Flexible Weapon with no intent whatsoever to kill.
http://www.donrearic.com/thegarrotte.html
shill
11-26-2006, 06:17 PM
Was the blanket in the suitcase black?
thewhitewitch1
11-27-2006, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by shill
Was the blanket in the suitcase black?
Good question, Shill. I caught a glimpse of the document Erin Moriarty was holding on 48 Hrs. and saw "black blanket with semen stains" on it. Or at least I think it said "blanket" but I am positive that it said "black".
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Good question, Shill. I caught a glimpse of the document Erin Moriarty was holding on 48 Hrs. and saw "black blanket with semen stains" on it. Or at least I think it said "blanket" but I am positive that it said "black".
I wonder if anyone taped this, or still has it on DVR....where they can go back and pause, and read the entire page/document that she was holding up????
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Good question, Shill. I caught a glimpse of the document Erin Moriarty was holding on 48 Hrs. and saw "black blanket with semen stains" on it. Or at least I think it said "blanket" but I am positive that it said "black".
It does say black blanket....I stumbled across this on another forum. Someone had paused the screen and this is what the document says:
22. "RE: Barbie Doll's Nightgown?"
In response to message #21
This is what I could 'read' from the screen capture (I believe it was Why_Nut who posted it).
LAB CLASS XX???-2136(?)-4153(?) SECTION: DNA TESTING
AGENCY(?) NAME – CD0878136 – F2 ACBLDER(?)
EXTRACTED(?) BY: blacked out EXTRACTION DATE: 123196(?)
ABSTRACT(X) AFA(?) ?/? ??? (would this be the control sample?)
RAMSEY, PATSY W/F
RAMSEY, JOHN W/M
RAMSEY, JONBENET W/F
Two lines BLACKED OUT
DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997
EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
#5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
#7 Bloodstains from panties
#14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
#14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
#14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
#15A, #15B Samples from tape
Bloodstains from white blanket
#17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??
#13A, #13B Semen ??? stain from black blanket
Bloodstain Standard from John Andrew Ramsey
__________________________________________________ _______________(fold in page??)
LABORATORY REPORT
BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
??????? Section Testing WB
BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
WB WB
BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
WA WB WB W18 (?)
THE DNA PROFILES DEVELOPED FROM EXHIBITS #5A, 5B, AND 17C MATCHED THE PROFILE FROM JONBENET RAMSEY.
(the left side of the page seems to be cut off and starts with)
FED FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M REVEALED A MIX-
(left side cut off) COMPONENT MATCHED JONBENET RAMSEY. IF THE MINOR
(left side cut off) 5 (or S or?) #7, 14L AND 14M WERE CONTRIBUTED BY A SINGLE
(JOHN is cut off) ANDREW RAMSEY, MELINDA RAMSEY, JOHN B. RAMSEY, JEFF
RAMSEY (blacked out)
(cut off??) EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE DNA ANALYZED.
Athena
12-01-2006, 10:57 PM
Hi Ames,
Can't believe I missed this. Would you happen to have a link to the forum that you pulled this off of? Very interesting.
I also realized in Beckner's depo that there is other DNA that was found at the crime scene that was NOT from JBR's body or clothing. I had always "assumed" that the DNAX that is referred to was the second blood spot found in her underwear later and isolated so I never really gave it much thought. But here it's saying it wasn't -- so there is DNA that apparently has not been publicized:
19 Q Obviously you're telling me there was DNA
20 that was not on JonBen t or on her clothing; is that
21 correct?
22 A Correct.
23 Q Where was that?
24 A We're getting into areas where I feel like
25 we can't go.
124
1 Q Well, I'm trying to figure out what was
2 done with Chris Wolf, and then obviously I'm trying
3 to find out if it's been matched with anyone since
4 that's the larger picture of the case in its
5 entirety. But I don't know what I'm getting if I
6 don't know what I'm asking about. You raised the
7 question, you've indicated there was DNA that was
8 found somewhere other than on her body or on her
9 clothing.
10 I had initially asked you about the crime
11 scene, I thought. Pull that back up. I asked you
12 specifically, you did not match the DNA from the
13 scene? Answer --
14 "Question: Has anyone matched the DNA
15 from the scene?
16 "Answer: No."
17 And you seem to be telling me now that you
18 want to modify that answer, that there was DNA from
19 the scene foreign to JonBent. And I'm asking you
20 where?
21 A What I'm saying is I am getting into
22 evidence that goes beyond Chris Wolf.
http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11262001Depo-MarkBeckner.htm
Athena
12-01-2006, 11:04 PM
This is really the first time I've thoroughly read Beckner's depo all the way through and it is quite interesting. He says noone is cleared during an open investigation and this case obviously is still being investigated. (even if DNA did not match)
Please note also that this depo was taken in November 2001. The reason I point this out is because this depo contradicts JR's depo with Levin where he is told that black fibers were found in JBR's private area. JR's depo re: black fibers was in August 2000. In previous posts you may remember me saying so how did the blue and brown fibers found turn black? I just could not remember where I read it.
10 Q Because there were blue fibers found on
11 the crime scene?
12 A Yes.
13 Q So do we know whether the fiber test was
14 conducted on the blue cotton sweater and, if so, the
15 results of whether there was any type of consistency
16 in the fibers with the fibers found at the crime
17 scene?
18 A That I don't know.
19 Q Fiber evidence in and of itself would not
20 eliminate any individual as being under suspicion,
21 would it?
22 A In what way?
23 Q In any way.
24 A Well, fiber evidence -- it's not evidence
25 if it's not a match. So what do you mean by
117
1 evidence?
2 Q When you say it's not a match, that's
3 loose. I mean matches are rare in fiber analysis,
4 aren't they? What you generally come up with --
5 A I don't know how rare they --
6 Q -- is consistent with, isn't that what you
7 generally get?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Okay. Because it would take a very unique
10 fiber to say that we can absolutely tell you that
11 this is a match?
12 A Yes.
13 Q That's a very rare, if ever, occurrence,
14 true?
15 A Yes.
16 Q So if I have got Chris Wolf and he's got a
17 blue cotton sweater and he submits that to the
18 authorities and you check and you say, okay, we've
19 got a fiber from this sweater of Mr. Wolf's and it's
20 consistent with the blue cotton fiber that we found
21 at the crime scene, that doesn't tell you that Chris
22 Wolf was involved in the murder, does it?
23 A No.
24 Q And if it comes back that it's not
25 consistent with, that doesn't tell you that he was
118
1 not involved in the murder, does it?
2 A Correct.
3 Q But you would want to know, it would seem,
4 if he's under suspicion and he submits material to
5 you, in this case hypothetically blue cotton, you
6 would expect it to be analyzed because there were
7 blue cotton fibers found on the crime scene, true?
8 MR. MILLER: Objection. Asked and
9 answered.
10 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Am I right?
11 MR. MILLER: You can answer it again.
12 A Yes.
13 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Okay. To your knowledge,
14 have those blue fibers at the crime scene ever been
15 sourced?
16 MR. MILLER: Wait a minute. What is the
17 question?
18 MR. WOOD: To his knowledge, have the blue
19 fibers found at the crime scene ever been sourced.
20 A There are a lot of reports around on fiber
21 evidence. To the best of my recollection, no.
22 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Were there any other color
23 fibers found at the crime scene that had not been
24 sourced?
25 A That have not been sourced?
119
1 Q Yes.
2 A Yes.
3 Q What colors?
4 A Brown.
5 Q So blue, brown, anything else?
6 A Not off the top of my head, no.
http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11262001Depo-MarkBeckner.htm
Athena
12-01-2006, 11:13 PM
November 2001
20 Q I mean, you have not excluded Chris Wolf
21 as being involved in this murder?
22 A As far as clearing him, no, we have not.
23 Q And would I be safe without going into
24 specific names, would I be safe in saying that there
25 are, it's a considerable number of individuals who
132
1 have not been cleared, even though they may not at
2 this moment be under the umbrella of suspicion?
3 A I think that's true any time you have an
4 open case.
5 Q And it's true in this case?
6 A Yes.
http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11262001Depo-MarkBeckner.htm
Originally posted by Athena
Hi Ames,
Can't believe I missed this. Would you happen to have a link to the forum that you pulled this off of? Very interesting.
I also realized in Beckner's depo that there is other DNA that was found at the crime scene that was NOT from JBR's body or clothing. I had always "assumed" that the DNAX that is referred to was the second blood spot found in her underwear later and isolated so I never really gave it much thought. But here it's saying it wasn't -- so there is DNA that apparently has not been publicized:
19 Q Obviously you're telling me there was DNA
20 that was not on JonBen t or on her clothing; is that
21 correct?
22 A Correct.
23 Q Where was that?
24 A We're getting into areas where I feel like
25 we can't go.
124
1 Q Well, I'm trying to figure out what was
2 done with Chris Wolf, and then obviously I'm trying
3 to find out if it's been matched with anyone since
4 that's the larger picture of the case in its
5 entirety. But I don't know what I'm getting if I
6 don't know what I'm asking about. You raised the
7 question, you've indicated there was DNA that was
8 found somewhere other than on her body or on her
9 clothing.
10 I had initially asked you about the crime
11 scene, I thought. Pull that back up. I asked you
12 specifically, you did not match the DNA from the
13 scene? Answer --
14 "Question: Has anyone matched the DNA
15 from the scene?
16 "Answer: No."
17 And you seem to be telling me now that you
18 want to modify that answer, that there was DNA from
19 the scene foreign to JonBent. And I'm asking you
20 where?
21 A What I'm saying is I am getting into
22 evidence that goes beyond Chris Wolf.
http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11262001Depo-MarkBeckner.htm
Hi there...it came from Forums For Justice....I believe that the link is forumsforjustice.com Go to the page with the threads, and it is under the thread "John Ramsey on "48 Hours" tonight".....or something like that....I just remember that the thread had something to do with John being on 48 Hours. There are two threads that have the words 48 Hours in them, but the one that I found that document on, specifically says John Ramsey on 48 Hours (and there may be more words....but thats all that I can remember). Anyway...if you cannot find it...just let me know... I can pm you with the link. It will get deleted if I try to stick it here in this post.
Athena
12-01-2006, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Ames
Hi there...it came from Forums For Justice....I believe that the link is forumsforjustice.com Go to the page with the threads, and it is under the thread "John Ramsey on "48 Hours" tonight".....or something like that....I just remember that the thread had something to do with John being on 48 Hours. There are two threads that have the words 48 Hours in them, but the one that I found that document on, specifically says John Ramsey on 48 Hours (and there may be more words....but thats all that I can remember). Anyway...if you cannot find it...just let me know... I can pm you with the link. It will get deleted if I try to stick it here in this post.
OK thanks Ames!!! :)
Originally posted by Athena
OK thanks Ames!!! :)
You are welcome!!
WOW you are quick....I wanted to say also that there are THREE different pictures of documents on there. I believe that all three come from the same page as Erin Moriary held up....but, the poster had to break it down, to make them fit. Anyway...what I posted was just PART of it. Part of the document had the people listed that had given dna (blood samples)...and the other one was some question and answers from the housekeeper...I have posted that one, but I cannot remember what thread I put it under.
roostermuffin
12-15-2006, 05:51 PM
Please post your thoughts...The whole garrotte thing. I've viewed the photos. If I were an investigator I would ask, "Who would have the knowledge and skill to wrap and tie these knots in this braided fashion?" It couldn't have been someone studying a book on macrame for goodness sakes! This action (of tying the knots---look at the crime scence photos) must have been performed by a person with some of of background that included experience and hands on technique with "knots". Other than tying my shoelaces, I am clueless. Who has this knowledge to (quickley)? construct the knots/braiding of this garrotte?Hi, new to this forum. But, and forgive me, because I cannot remember the "expert" who discussed the knots, I think it was something like Dalmar, Delmar, Dagmar, he is in Candyrose, a posting from England, anyway I know it will come to me. In the meantime, let me, from what I have learned from this medium--it was a double knot around her neck. Simple, you tie and then you tie again. That's it. I hope to continue to meet you on this forum. Will be posting my theory soon, and will wait for your critique.
roostermuffin
12-15-2006, 05:55 PM
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.Yes, why there,?? Anybody? If they wrote the note, why there? Anybody?
Louisadelmar
12-15-2006, 06:20 PM
Yes, why there,?? Anybody? If they wrote the note, why there? Anybody?
Why not there? The spiral stairs are close to the kitchen so it doesn't take a Moriarty to figure they probably get used. But even if Patsy was in the habit of using the front stairs, once it was discovered that JonBenet wasn't in her bed they would have torn up the peapatch looking for her and the note would still have been found.
SnarkyCow
12-15-2006, 06:31 PM
Yes, why there,?? Anybody? If they wrote the note, why there? Anybody?
In my opinion they put the note there because Linda Hoffman Pugh (or however you spell it) knew Patsy used those stairs - which they were quick to tell LE, just like they were quick to tell LE that LHP needed money. If I am not mistaken LHP is the first person they pointed to - they also made references to her knowledge of the "wine cellar" because of her setting up the Christmas trees, etc.
roostermuffin
12-15-2006, 06:32 PM
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.
MOOHi,MyrDawn, new to this forum, but I think, considering everything that is available to us, your point about the note is mote. moot, mout, mote, I think, what I am trying to say is: why is this imprortant considering everything else we "know". Let us move on or expand on what we think we do know. I have a theory, hope you will critique when it is online. Glad to meet you and I am glad you are still here after all this time, think about it--over ten years. Wow,I know what you are thinking--get a life!--Am I right?
roostermuffin
12-15-2006, 06:38 PM
Surely Patsy Ramsey had to have some knowledge of garrote knotting what with all of her pageant experience.
:rolleyes:
Good question Barb. Maybe the intruder was a boy scout? An S&M practitioner? A cowboy? A magician?
I wish we knew.Slicky. Nothing complicated about it. Around her neck was a tie and then a double tie. Simple. It was not Patsy Ramsey. Stand by for my theory and I welcome your critique.
roostermuffin
12-15-2006, 06:44 PM
<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.
MOOAbsolutely true, so why wasn't it done??? Because, that was not the motive--if there was one!
SnarkyCow
12-15-2006, 06:44 PM
This so totally has nothing to do with this thread or discussion, but Roostermuffin I love your name - it made me snort! :D :beer:
:chicken: ----> This is Roostermuffin!
Cheers,
Snarks
aussiesheila
12-15-2006, 07:43 PM
Please post your thoughts...The whole garrotte thing. I've viewed the photos. If I were an investigator I would ask, "Who would have the knowledge and skill to wrap and tie these knots in this braided fashion?" It couldn't have been someone studying a book on macrame for goodness sakes! This action (of tying the knots---look at the crime scence photos) must have been performed by a person with some of of background that included experience and hands on technique with "knots". Other than tying my shoelaces, I am clueless. Who has this knowledge to (quickley)? construct the knots/braiding of this garrotte?You are so absolutely right barb, IMO. The design of the garotte indicates to me, that the person who constructed it knew precisely what they were doing and put considerable time and effort into making it.
In the 'Patsy accidentally killed JonBenet with a headbash scenario' I just can't see how the making of such a garotte AFTER the killing can be fitted into any credible theory.
I don't think Patsy or even Patsy and John together could possibly have constructed it in the time available, given that the garotting would have had to have been done within seconds of the headbash to be consistent with the autopsy evidence of the amount of haemorrhaging.
They would have had to go looking for the cord and the pantbrush, then break the paintbrush handle and tie the relevant knots, then put it in place on JonBenet's neck and use it. And that, in addition to coming up with the idea of such a coverup in the first place when you were in a state of immense mental trauma. Even if Patsy wasn't into macrame and secretly practiced tying garotte knots in her leisure time, I still can't see it being done in the available time.
To believe that it was done, you have to be in denial about the autopsy evidence which was that the headbash and garotting occurred in pretty close sequence, and not as far apart as somewhere in the order of 90 minutes, which would be the absolute minimum time IMO, to perform the actions described above would require.
From my limited medical knowledge, I would have thought that there would have been far more bleeding from the actual head wound, and no signs at all of any bleeding at the neck around the tightened garotte, if the garotte had been applied 90 minutes or thereabouts after the headbash.
aussiesheila
12-15-2006, 07:57 PM
Well, knots and garrottes. There is a gruesome history concerning garrottes and how they were used to kill people. That is one of the unique features of this crime. And simply by this unique feature, shouldn't someone emerge in investigation as a "unique perpetrator"? Physical evidence. Keeps me wondering. Personally, I do want to know the truth, however horrible it may be, because the killer(s) must be found. I cannot understand how one can say "I really don't want to know".Yes again barb, a "unique perpetrator". You are spot on, IMO.
I believe the "unique perpetrator" was a group of pedophiles, who had used a garotte before in previous sessions of sexual abuse with her. The thing that I think was different about that last night was that a new member was in the group, one who brought a stungun, who pushed the hard object into her vagina and who bashed her over the head to silence her as she let out that terrible scream.
I think the whole kidnapping scenario was planned by another pedophile who wasn't there that night, but who had a vested interest in keeping the pedophile activities quiet because he had previously abused JonBenet as well and was a close family friend.
aussiesheila
12-15-2006, 08:51 PM
I just read an interesting article by a guy that is a knot expert in Canada law enforcement who analyze the knot from the pictures provided (it would be more useful if a knot expert could actually see all sides of the knot and maybe even untie it) but he says the knot is not intricate or professional at all, but is definitely the work of an amateur and that the garrote was most probably tied in the act (not brought with them and tied prior to the act) by placing the cord around the neck first then tying the knots.
tommieb, I would be interested to know any reasons this guy might have given in the article for saying that the garrote was most probably tied in the act by placing the cord around the neck first then tying the knots. Thanks
aussiesheila
12-15-2006, 09:10 PM
I think you made a lot of good points. I hope that, if nothing else, we've seen from the arrest of JMK what kind of person committed this crime. Some of us have lived a life far removed from the one that JMK lived--a life I think the perp lived as well.
Whoever killed JMK was a pedophile & into S&M. I don't think it's a random sailor or craft person but someone into S&M who learned how to tie the knot because they were into it. Not a sailor who just happened to come up with an idea of a garrotte at the last minute.
This case is definately out of the norm. All those statistics mean nothing because we happen to live amongst human abberrations. Most perps would have bragged to someone by now, or tried to ease their conscience by confessing or committed the same crime again. If the perp is still alive, he has garrotted and physically assaulted another victim. Someone like that doesn't just commit this sort of crime and then goes back to doing taxes and bowling for a hobby. JMOI agree completely with everything you have written here, ILOVEColumbo.
As for the perps having bragged to someone by now, it is my belief that one of them actually did so, giving out information that was not publically known on some pedophile underworld network.
Since it appears now that JMK could not have been present at the killing of JonBenet, it is my belief that he, being a pedophile, must have got his details of the killing that so aroused the suspicions of LE, through this network.
aussiesheila
12-15-2006, 09:54 PM
It's important to realize that the slip knot idea explains why the 'garotte' in this case has only one handle with only 1 end of he cord connected to it (which means it could never function as a proper garotte). It only needs 1 'handle' because that is the only end of the string that needs to be pulled to pull the string through the slip knot at the back of JB's neck, thereby tightening the loop on the other side of the knot uniformally all around her neck, making the completely circular ligature mark both back and front on the victims neck.
If true, and it sure appears to be then JB wasn't really 'garotted' but slip knotted to death by a slipped down loop or noose, by somone who planned just that and makes these wrapped and looped knots.So watson, you've looked at the 'garotte' again and decided it wasn't really a garotte. Someone at Websleuths said it should be properly be called a ligature which is what I then began calling it before getting lazy and using the shorter word.
So, the ligature - would you agree that it looks as though it is best designed to be used for repeated tightening and loosening of the noose by rotating the paintbrush handle in one direction causing the cord to do extra wraps around it, then rotating in the other direction to undo the extra wraps?
As I understand it, the purpose of such a device is that when applied to a victim (normally a female) she loses conciousness when the noose is tightened and regains conciousness as it is loosened, the purpose being to simulate female orgasm as the victim regains conciousness.
IMO this device was used by pedophiles on JonBenet and had been used before on her by them on a number of occasions prior to her death.
I think the fatal strangulation was non-premeditated and even unintentional. I think it occurred because the ligature operator panicked when JonBenet screamed when that foreign object was shoved up her vagina and in attempting to silence he he just kept pulling the noose tighter and tighter.
aussiesheila
12-16-2006, 02:03 AM
I've always found this part of the case particularly puzzling. It would seem the garrotte was intended to indicate a perverted killer but I've always wondered how the Rs would know about garrotting if they weren't pervs themselves. If they were pervs, it might not have been for staging, it might have been what killed her.
From my research I find that these devices are used in errotic asphyxiation - apparently in a child JBR's age, it would cause convulsions mimicing orgasam. But it's not constructed the right way for this purpose. Since the knot doesn't slip, it doesn't allow easing off - every tug makes it tighter, and it's very difficult to loosen. If it was an intruder perv with experience in this area, it would have been constructed with a slip knot.
Staging by someone not really familiar with such devices seems the best explanation.WallyCleaver, don't you think that the knot as shown in this photo of the neck ligature after it has been cut from JonBenet's neck clearly shows that it was in fact a 'slip knot' ie one that could slide along the cord allowing the noose around the neck to be tightened and loosened as the operator of the makeshift handle twisted the excess length of cord around it?
http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote4.jpg
I even managed to construct the same knot myself by studying this photo, and the one I constructed did slide along the cord quite easily, just as, I imagine the one shown in the photo did.
aussiesheila
12-16-2006, 03:03 AM
This is a very well written opinoin about the ropes and staging. Worth the read, IMO.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6751MSGatorslayer, I don’t think this is a well considered opinion at all, despite the pomposity of the style. I am surprised to find that others do.
The link EasyWriter gave to the 40 knots is a Boy Scout site for heavens sakes!!! I wouldn’t expect to find any knots related to garotte making there, so I am not surprised if none of the knots matched.
From reading EasyWriter’s discussion on the wrist ligatures is obvious that he/she can’t have looked at the photos of the wrist ties in place on the body, because if he had he would have seen that there were two knots on the right wrist loop, one on the upper and one on the under side of the wrist. EasyWriter could have only looked at the photo of the wrist ligatures after removal from the body showing only one knot on the right wrist loop. It seems pretty obvious to me that the coroner undid the knot on the upper side of the right loop in order to make it large enough to slip over her hand and that is why it appears much larger than the one from the left wrist. EasyWriter didn’t even notice this and it destroys his/her argument.
I do agree with EasyWriter though about the knot on the left wrist loop being different from the one on the right. I think this was because they were tied at different stages of the crime and might have even been tied by two different people. I think the red heart was drawn on the left palm and the left wrist loop was tied in the very early stages as part of a “prepping” ritual for the abuse that was to follow. I think that these might have been done in the kitchen prior to JonBenet being “led” down to the basement for the lovely surprise she had been told was awaiting her. I think the right wrist loop was only tied once all pretence that the surprise waiting for her in the basement was a pleasant one had been dropped and the wrist loop tie-ers were moving on into the business of some serious sexual abuse.
When EasyWriter discusses the neck ligature he insists that because the coroner erroneously called the noose a ‘double’ knot ie a fixed knot, that the noose was not a functional ligature but only a staged one. This, in spite of the fact that the autopsy photograph clearly shows it to be a ‘slip’ knot ie one that can slide along the cord and therefore that the ligature.
He then uses the fact that the coroner cut the noose from the body as further proof that the knot was a ‘double’ ie a fixed knot, because if it was a ‘slip’ knot he would have slid the knot to loosen the noose and get it off the body by lifting it over the head. I do not accept this as the correct reasoning. By cutting the noose to remove it from the body the coroner might have felt he was keeping the evidence more ‘intact’ that way. Certainly he seems to have been able to retain the hair caught in the knot that way, which he might have felt was a worthwhile aim.
LindaA
12-16-2006, 07:45 AM
Aussieshiela, I believe cutting a ligature that contains a knot to preserve the know for evidence and analysis is standard procedure.
aussiesheila
12-16-2006, 11:38 AM
Aussieshiela, I believe cutting a ligature that contains a knot to preserve the know for evidence and analysis is standard procedure.Oh thanks LindaA. Yes that does make sense. But why do you think he didn't cut the right wrist ligature? As far as I can tell he undid one of the knots on it, presumably to make it large enough to take off over the hand. Maybe it was because it was such a simple little knot he didn't see it as important, and he had taken a photo of the ligature while it was still in place on the wrist and the photo shows the existence of the knot.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.