Patsy's clothes

[shill]

Have you ever asked some hard questions to these people who keep their dogs in a kennel all day? Imo keeping dogs in a kennel all day is dog abuse.


At least they didn't eat them or make them into coats for Puff Daddy.

[shill]

What I want to examine is the psychological make-up of Patsy Ramsey, who decided not to turn herself in to the police after realizing she had done irreparable damage to her child by attacking her in a fit of rage.

What I want to examine is the psychological make-up of Patsy Ramsey, who decided not to turn herself in to the police for a crime she didn't do.

[Louisadelmar]

For a case to move forward, a prosecutor must be willing to act on the evidence. For whatever reason, Alex Hunter was unwilling to. Mary Lacy is also unwilling to act on the evidence. This is why DAs should be appointed, not elected. It would minimize the amount of politics and personal agenda involved in prosecuting cases.

Hunter didn't think the evidence was there. Kane didn't think it was prosecutable, Lee has been quoted as believing the same. I don't understand why RDIs were so ancy to get the Ramseys on trial if those who knew the case best felt it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Patsy or John would be found not guilty and double jeopardy would apply. Finding one not guilty would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the State to then say WHOOPS! we really should have charged the other.

It would not surprise me if the grand jury wasn't allowed to vote. If they voted to indict you still had prosecutors who didn't think they had enough evidence to prevail. If they voted to not indict it would make any subsequent trial that much more difficult.

[thewhitewitch1]

What quote? Read what? I read your post about the Ramseys' dog and your problem with the way they left it with the neighbors. Is that what you are talking about? If so, then I repeat, if a Ramsey did it, an RDI has a problem with it. It really is that simple.

Umm, no. I have a problem with anyone treating animals as disposable.
I will repeat once more: It doesn't have anything to do with this case.

[thewhitewitch1]

Shill, I agree. That's why I say, let them bring what they've got to the jurors. I believe JR would take the chance, he's living in a prison now, anyway. His chance to have his name cleared and all the speculation gone once and for all.


I'd love to live in his kind of "prison". I don't believe he is suffering one bit.

[bullmoose]

Have you ever asked some hard questions to these people who keep their dogs in a kennel all day? Imo keeping dogs in a kennel all day is dog abuse.

It's not an attempt to "point a negative finger at the Ramseys". The circumstantial evidence has done that job already.
What I want to examine is the psychological make-up of Patsy Ramsey, who decided not to turn herself in to the police after realizing she had done irreparable damage to her child by attacking her in a fit of rage.
I do not know how thick your glasses are, but you might consider getting a new prescription before you examine the psychological make-up of Patsy Ramsey. IMO you are not getting a very clear picture; perhaps the distortion is because of the RDI lenses in your frames. :biggrin:

[shill]

I'd love to live in his kind of "prison". I don't believe he is suffering one bit.

If he's guilty, yes it's a cush prison.
If he is not guilty, he has suffered a living Hell.

[rashomon]

What I want to examine is the psychological make-up of Patsy Ramsey, who decided not to turn herself in to the police for a crime she didn't do.
I doubt if you IDIs want to examine Patsy's psychological make-up, for you prefer shutting your eyes to the truth.

[bullmoose]

Whether or not our IDI eyes are closed is hard to distinguish for someone with an out of focus RDI set of interpretive glasses.:biggrin:

[rashomon]

Again, I ask the question: if she was SO thorough covering ALL these details, why in the world did she leave the pad the ransom note was written on on the kitchen counter? She thought to wipe Jonbenet's crotch with JR's shirt to divert suspicion, but didnt think to destroy the rough draft of the ransom note?
If Patsy wanted to implicate John she could leave the pad and paper in the kitchen.
I believe Patsy Ramsey ran this staging show from start to finish, with John helping her, for whatever reasons. In this marriage, what Patsy wanted was what Patsy got, and the same pattern seems to have continued after her tragic rage attack on her daughter.

[andU]

I'd love to live in his kind of "prison". I don't believe he is suffering one bit.

But then, you are not in his shoes, can you feel his pain? Men of his age were reared to believe that 'men don't cry nor show emotion'; he also has military experience, which trains men to not show emotion. I believe he does suffer tremendous pain over the loss of his loved ones .... and that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

[Zoey]

But then, you are not in his shoes, can you feel his pain? Men of his age were reared to believe that 'men don't cry nor show emotion'; he also has military experience, which trains men to not show emotion. I believe he does suffer tremendous pain over the loss of his loved ones .... and that a man is innocent until proven guilty.


Well said andU. I totally agree with you on this one.

[thewhitewitch1]

I can very well imagine myself in "his shoes". I just don't see the grief and pain that you all see. All I see is a man more upset over the "assasination" of his character and reputation than I do over the "assasination" of his child.
I didn't/don't see it in his eyes, on his face, in his words and certainly not in his actions.
Sorry.

[Zoey]

I can very well imagine myself in "his shoes". I just don't see the grief and pain that you all see. All I see is a man more upset over the "assasination" of his character and reputation than I do over the "assasination" of his child.
I didn't/don't see it in his eyes, on his face, in his words and certainly not in his actions.
Sorry.

I guess being an IDI, I saw such a different man on TV ithan you did being an RDI. You were looking for the guilt, and I looked at a man that has lost three of the most important people in his life; his daughter Beth, his daughter JonBenet and his wife. I thought he had such pain and sorrow in his eyes, but that's what being an IDI made me see.

[Tober]

But then, you are not in his shoes, can you feel his pain?

What pain? Being "hounded" by police for an interview or to hand over the clothes they wore the night JonBenet was killed while in their home with them present while she was under their care and supervision? Like John and Patsy said, they wanted to get on with "their" lives. (IMO)

[LindaA]

Like John and Patsy said, they wanted to get on with "their" lives. (IMO)

That is not at all what they said. You twist their words as much as a certain police detective we all know.

[bullmoose]

I can very well imagine myself in "his shoes". I just don't see the grief and pain that you all see. All I see is a man more upset over the "assasination" of his character and reputation than I do over the "assasination" of his child.
I didn't/don't see it in his eyes, on his face, in his words and certainly not in his actions.
Sorry.To tww: By any chance, do you get your RDI-lensed glasses at the same Vision Center as rashoman? :biggrin:

[bullmoose]

That is not at all what they said. You twist their words as much as a certain police detective we all know.
Don't be an angry inferrer; I think Tober is truly Twisterific.:biggrin:

[rashomon]

That is not at all what they said. You twist their words as much as a certain police detective we all know.
Then please explain what you think John meant when he used the elliptic sentence "we've got to go on"?

[LindaA]

Then please explain what you think John meant when he used the elliptic sentence "we've got to go on"?

I have already posted a response to this. The phrase "Go on" has quite a different connotation from "get on with." The former implies somehow finding the wherewithall to continue with life, as it doesn't stop no matter how tragic an event has occurred. "Get on with" implies putting the event in the past an getting on with whatever else one wants to do. The Ramsey's said "go on" not "get on with." They are, IMO, two very different concepts.

[thewhitewitch1]

To tww: By any chance, do you get your RDI-lensed glasses at the same Vision Center as rashoman? :biggrin:

You must be bored with this case. You seem to have nothing constructive to say anymore.

[bullmoose]

No, I'm not bored with this case; some times I make a joke, instead of saying something like: Having watched John Ramsey in that interview, I saw, from my perspective as a man, a man with a very strong grip on his public face. Evident to me was a great depth of feelings and suppressed rage at the monsters that committed the murder of his daughter; and at the monsters who have hounded his wife and family since then.What actions could he possibly take to satisfy an RDI like yourself, who takes every action of his as evidence of his guilt?----- There, is that better?:punch:

[thewhitewitch1]

No, I'm not bored with this case; some times I make a joke, instead of saying something like: Having watched John Ramsey in that interview, I saw, from my perspective as a man, a man with a very strong grip on his public face. Evident to me was a great depth of feelings and suppressed rage at the monsters that committed the murder of his daughter; and at the monsters who have hounded his wife and family since then.What actions could he possibly take to satisfy an RDI like yourself, who takes every action of his as evidence of his guilt?----- There, is that better?:punch:


Well, I guess we are not so different, are we? You so strongly believe your IDI theory that you see in the Ramseys what you want to see.
Perhaps I do the same in the opposite way. So why does that give you the right to make snide comments towards RDIs when none of us knows for a fact who is guilty or not? You seem to think you are superior in some way as if your opinion holds more value. You can call me or Rashomon biased if you wish, but don't you think that's a wee bit hypocritical of you? :punch:

Oh yeah...and I'd rather be accused of wearing RDI fogged glasses than be walking around with blinders on, like you.

[bullmoose]

Well, I guess we are not so different, are we? You so strongly believe your IDI theory that you see in the Ramseys what you want to see.
Perhaps I do the same in the opposite way. So why does that give you the right to make snide comments towards RDIs when none of us knows for a fact who is guilty or not? You seem to think you are superior in some way as if your opinion holds more value. You can call me or Rashomon biased if you wish, but don't you think that's a wee bit hypocritical of you? :punch:

Oh yeah...and I'd rather be accused of wearing RDI fogged glasses than be walking around with blinders on, like you. Are you stating then that since none of us knows for a fact who is guilty or not that I should refrain from diagreeing with you or rashoman when you make statements of opinion as fact? Your opinions are of equal validity to mine but I have the equal right to disagree with your opinions; I don't see in any of my posts a claim of superiority. To say" You seem to think you are superior in some way as if your opinion holds more value" is showing one of the real weaknesses of your particular RDI reasoning: you are telling me what you interpret my attitude and motive to be as fact when it is just your opinion. Moreover, you judge me as a hypocrite based on just your self-righteous opinion, stated as fact; it is what you constantly do with regards to the Ramseys, and it is fatally flawed. You say' they strangled their daughter after mashing her skull' when the only undisputed facts of the murder are that she had a fatal skull fracture but died of strangulation. Everything else is speculation: yours, mine, the BPD, all the bookwriters. Get off your high horse, tww, when it comes to having a superiority complex, I have to take a backseat to you. Wake up and smell the coffee. Clean your glasses and take a look around; we all have equally valid opinions and ideas. I never said you were biased, what I was saying is I think you're wrong. Isn't that why we come here? To hear out people with opposing views is why I'm here and then to change my mind or to disagree.with those views.:biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

Are you stating then that since none of us knows for a fact who is guilty or not that I should refrain from diagreeing with you or rashoman when you make statements of opinion as fact? Your opinions are of equal validity to mine but I have the equal right to disagree with your opinions; I don't see in any of my posts a claim of superiority. To say" You seem to think you are superior in some way as if your opinion holds more value" is showing one of the real weaknesses of your particular RDI reasoning: you are telling me what you interpret my attitude and motive to be as fact when it is just your opinion. Moreover, you judge me as a hypocrite based on just your self-righteous opinion, stated as fact; it is what you constantly do with regards to the Ramseys, and it is fatally flawed. You say' they strangled their daughter after mashing her skull' when the only undisputed facts of the murder are that she had a fatal skull fracture but died of strangulation. Everything else is speculation: yours, mine, the BPD, all the bookwriters. Get off your high horse, tww, when it comes to having a superiority complex, I have to take a backseat to you. Wake up and smell the coffee. Clean your glasses and take a look around; we all have equally valid opinions and ideas. I never said you were biased, what I was saying is I think you're wrong. Isn't that why we come here? To hear out people with opposing views is why I'm here and then to change my mind or to disagree.with those views.:biggrin:


I do not have a problem with you disagreeing with me. I have a problem with the sarcastic, rude and juvenile way with which you choose to do it.
I suppose I could just go away too like CK and Ames. Then all of you IDI people will have nothing to dispute or discuss and you, personally, will have no one to ridicule, except Rashomon and Nuisanceposter.
You are not "hearing opposing views". You just wait until someone says something you disagree with and then make smartassed comments about their views.
Well, it's not in my habit to let someone run me off of a forum so have fun. I can always ignore you, I guess.

[KingCoyote]

tww1:

You go girl! You tell 'em!

KC

[LindaA]

tww1:

You go girl! You tell 'em!

KC

Sorry, KC, I have to disagree. I'd really like for this arguing to stop.

[bullmoose]

tww:If you left I would have to paddle my canoe up to my computer in the morning on the river of tears I would weep each night from loneliness.:biggrin:

[KingCoyote]

LindaA:

I guess I should have quoted tww1's last line only...that she would not be run off of a forum as a result of the flaming......my mistake....As to ending the arguing...yeah....I will agree to that...but I don't really have my hopes up....too much emotion...two sides too well entrenched....

KC

[Sprocket]

When you take the two comments together (the Ramsey's were not "angry" at the death of their child) and the comment about "go on," when you put these two comments together, right after each other, (just like the Ramsey's did) and in the manner that they did it (going on national television) the whole statement and intent is suspect.

Take everything in context. They refused to speak to police and went directly to the public to "plead" their innocence.

[LindaA]

The other day the mother of the boy who was rescued after four years of captivity was interviewed on radio. She was asked if she was angry about her son being held for so long, and she said something like this (I am paraphrasing) -- "No. I can't allow myself to be consumed by anger if I want to go on with my life." I believe the Ramseys were saying the same thing. I believe it if part of thier faith. I believe they all -- the R's and the mother of the kidnapped boy -- were right. Anger does nothing but destroy the person who feels it and can't let it go. The Ramseys were wise enough to realize that.

[aussiesheila]

As I've said before, if the fibers found on Jonbenet had matched her father's shirt there would have been an indictment , trial and probably a conviction. One or the other or both would have arrested shortly after if the BPD ever had such evidence; they were not,IMO that is proof it never existed. ;)No bullmoose, don't you remember the explanation you were given? The Ramseys were given special treatment by the DA. That's why, although John's shirt fibres were found in JonBenet's crotch area, he wasn't arrested.

[aussiesheila]

Its an interesting study in human behaviour imo. People interpret things thru their own personal biases. I see it on this board all the time.Yes I agree with you elvis, I know I am guilty of it.
The Rs didnt console each other that morning, so they must be guilty. Patsy put on makeup that morning, so she clearly did it. John checked the mail, therefore he killed JB. Burke didn't ask what all the fuss was about, he must have done it. Fleet White took notes and was angry--he must have killed her. Santa was incoherent at the funeral--so he probably killed her. Even Mrs Claus was someone's suspect based on something she did. Thats why I try to stay away from behaviour as "evidence"...its just too subjective.However, I do think there is a case to be made for looking at the behaviour of suspects. Although it can never be proof, it can be a guide as to which direction to go in the investigation.

[shill]

Wow, I thought this thread was Patsy's clothing.

The thing with RDI, they have suspects. I think RDI fights so strongly because they have two people that they can dissect and try and make the evidence fit their behavior or implied MO.
IDI has not pointed to a suspect that we can dissect with such scrutiny as the RDI's do with the Ramseys. But if you take Fleet White for instance, you can show the evidence pointing to him just as easily as the Ramseys. I've already listed several reasons for suspecting him and his behavior is as suspicious as anything the Ramseys did.
To say IDI has blinders on is just arrogant. Obviously the GJ disagrees with the RDI's point of view. Here is a group of people that have been exposed to way more evidence then the entire blog sites devoted to JB, and they have no bases to bring the Ramseys to trial. But RDI's are so sure they did it that they think IDI's choose to be ignorant.

Bottom line, the GJ agreed with the IDI point of view, not the RDI point of view.

[bullmoose]

RDI's seem to get very angry whenever challenged on what they believe is beyond dispute, that is that the evil Ramseys and their lawyers and the tame DA's office have rigged the whole Colorado justice system to let evil Ramseys get away with murder. I do not know for sure, maybe on some boards this has been agreed upon; but not here has it been. And I don't believe it for a second, nor ,I suspect, do the other IDI's here either. I like RDI input to debate;but like you say, shill, the grand jury, in the end really did agree with the IDIs. No indictment; a former poster here :CK was seemingly confident that with the new governer in Colorado, that the RDI's could finally get their way and the evil Ramsey that is left would be brought to RDI justice; however, although I keep checking the news out of Colorado, no special independent prosecutor on the Ramsey case has been appointed, to my knowledge. And always the RDI's continue to state false information as fact; for example everybody knows that the Ramseys talked to the police all afternoon on the day Jonbenet's body was found, they gave all the samples requested of them. They then flew to Atlanta to bury their daughter. As soon as they left, that bastion of public virtue, the BPD, was telling the Boulder paper that there was no killer on the loose in Boulder, and was falsely claiming that the Ramseys were being uncooperative with them. Eller himself told the Boulder mayor that they ,the BPD knew it was the evil Ramseys, that the town was perfectly safe as long as the Ramseys were in Atlanta. This got onto the TV news; so the Ramseys did a CNN interview to try to clear things up; it did not dispel the suspicion sown by the BPD. If you read a post like sprockets last one, it is clear that no matter what the Ramseys actually did, it will be twisted to show them in an evil light.

[LindaA]

Your last post ! :beer: Right on!

[sweetcharlotte]

Your last post ! :beer: Right on!

Make that two of us, bullmoose - :beer:

[thewhitewitch1]

Sorry, KC, I have to disagree. I'd really like for this arguing to stop.


LindaA, I did not start this. Bullmoose is just another example of an IDI getting away with rude behavior. I do not intend to argue with him anymore but I will feel free to ridicule him and his opinions.
I did not mean to imply that all IDIs have blinders on, either. It was just my response to BullWinkles redundant comments about "RDI glasses".
IMO No one should be ridiculed for what they believe happened because not one of us is 100% sure of anything. It's nice that most of the people in here can discuss opposing view points in a civilized and mature manner.

[Zoey]

Make that three:beer:

[nuisanceposter]

I do not have a problem with you disagreeing with me. I have a problem with the sarcastic, rude and juvenile way with which you choose to do it.
I suppose I could just go away too like CK and Ames. Then all of you IDI people will have nothing to dispute or discuss and you, personally, will have no one to ridicule, except Rashomon and Nuisanceposter.
You are not "hearing opposing views". You just wait until someone says something you disagree with and then make smartassed comments about their views.
Well, it's not in my habit to let someone run me off of a forum so have fun. I can always ignore you, I guess.

I completely agree with every word of this. Bullmoose frequently makes me feel uncomfortable with his inability to stop using insults and snide comments every time he posts. He's very condescending. It's uncalled for and doesn't promote a healthy environment for debate.

And I have to agree that he's not presenting opposing viewpoints, he's waiting for the next opportunity to put down someone who disagrees with him. Thoroughly frustrating is his insistence that the fiber evidence is "imaginary." You don't know that. None of us do. We have not seen the actual reports on the testing done by CBI Labs, so it's not okay to sit here and insist daily that any part of the evidence that you don't like is imaginary and a fantasy without some proof to back your claim up. And you sit here and act we who may believe the fiber evidence are stupid for believing it may exist.

I'm not leaving this board, either. I've been here for some time, and I stay to maintain an RDI viewpoint for any fence sitters...and because I like to debate. That doesn't mean I'm here to be demeaned and insulted by those who don't share the same opinion.

[LindaA]

Likewise, let's not insist that the fiber evidence does exist. You can not be any more sure of that that Bullmoose is that it doesn't, yet that doesn't stop most RDIs from insisting that it does exist and is proof of JR's guilt.

I agree with you about Bullmoose's behavior, but he has gotten away with nothing more than some RDIs have gotten away with since I've been here. He'[s jsut more open about it.

And let's not resort to the "I didn't start it." Be the bigger person and end it by not responding in kind. I think Bullmoose's retorts are a response to real or perceived insults from the RDI camp.

[nuisanceposter]

I didn't say it does exist, I said it may exist. I think that's fair, since we haven't seen the test reports to confirm it one way or another.

Bullmoose is open about bad behavior - what, so that makes it okay? He's had some from someone else, now he's entitled to dish it up to anyone he likes? I don't think so. I'm being open - yet again, at least the third time now - about how I dislike his insults and comments and how it makes me uncomfortable because I feel it is uncalled for. Now I'm ready to start reporting this harrassing behavior to the mods and let them know how much it bothers me. I've tried to ignore it and I've tried asking him to stop. Why should any of us have to tolerate it? Stop making excuses for him. If he was an RDI, you'd be all over him to knock it off and grow up.

[LindaA]

Nuisanceposter,I'd like everyone who is bickering back and forth to stop it and grow up. I'd also like the snide comments made by RDIs about how blind IDIs are and how they just ignore what they don't want to believe that is so obviously the truth to stop. There is definitely a feeling of snideness and condescention among the RDIs here towards anyone who does not share their beliefs. I've seen it and others have mentioned it as well.

And you have to admit that in regard to the fibers many RDI do state their existence as if it were a fact. Maybe you are the exception, but we are not talking about just you.

As for Bullmoose, look again at my post. I said I agree with you about his behavior. Ignore it and I bet it will stop. Ratting him out to the mods will only serve to increase it. I learned in grade school not to feed into teasing.

[sweetcharlotte]

<snip>
Now I'm ready to start reporting this harrassing behavior to the mods and let them know how much it bothers me.
<snip>



:rolleyes:

[rashomon]

Ratting him out to the mods will only serve to increase it. I learned in grade school not to feed into teasing.

This has nothing to do with 'ratting out' anybody. This is no classroom, but a public forum where everyone (including the mods) can see what everyone is posting. Like all forums, this forum has its TOS, and personal insults violate the TOS.

[rashomon]

And always the RDI's continue to state false information as fact; for example everybody knows that the Ramseys talked to the police all afternoon on the day Jonbenet's body was found
This is not true and just another example of an IDI trying to distort case facts.
The first time the police had a chance to speak with a Ramsey since John and Patsy had left the house after JB had been found was on the night of Dec 27.
The police went to the Fernie home (where the Ramseys were staying) to schedule formal intervies with them. John Ramsey was there but refused to talk to them alone. Also present in the room were: John Ramsey's brother Jeff, the family pediatrician Dr. Beuf, John Ramsey's financial adviser Rod Westmoreland who presented himself as an attorney, and the influential local lawyer Mike Bynum. When the detectives asked to speak to Patsy, Dr. Beuf said she was too medicated to talk to anyone tonight.

So John Ramsey sat there surrounded by four people, two of them lawyers.
Interesting also that he did not ask one question about the murder or how JonBenet was killed, nor about the result of the autopsy. Hardly surprising imo.

[shill]

I didn't say it does exist, I said it may exist. I think that's fair, since we haven't seen the test reports to confirm it one way or another.


You have on many occasions said it exists, as in it was a fact.
Just use the term alleged evidence, since it is not been shown to be a fact.
It has also been pointed out that many of us feel if the alleged evidence did exist, John would be in jail right now. I don't remember your explanation why this wouldn't be true, but I hope it's not some kooky conspiracy theory.
So if this alleged fiber evidence existed, it would surely be the smoking gun the prosecution would be looking for. We have not seen this claim from the prosecution which IMO proves it does not exist.

[KingCoyote]

I am going to throw my two cents in again on this issue of fibers. If the black shirt fibers in JBR's crotch/panty area exist, JR would probably not be in jail; I highly doubt there would even have been a trial. That is simply because if PR's jacket fibers allegedly at the scene also exist then they are reasonable doubt that JR did it. Conversely JR's fibers now become reasonable doubt that PR did it. You can't try two people and ask a jury to decide which one did what. I am going to hedge my bets and say either both sets of fibers exist exactly as LE has indicated in the interviews or neither set of fibers exist. But I am betting that if only one set of fibers existed somebody would have been prosecuted and an aggressive prosecution effort would have been made to seriously mitigate the "intruder" defense.

Just my humble thoughts and opinions

KingCoyote

[bullmoose]

This is not true and just another example of an IDI trying to distort case facts.
The first time the police had a chance to speak with a Ramsey since John and Patsy had left the house after JB had been found was on the night of Dec 27.
The police went to the Fernie home (where the Ramseys were staying) to schedule formal intervies with them. John Ramsey was there but refused to talk to them alone. Also present in the room were: John Ramsey's brother Jeff, the family pediatrician Dr. Beuf, John Ramsey's financial adviser Rod Westmoreland who presented himself as an attorney, and the influential local lawyer Mike Bynum. When the detectives asked to speak to Patsy, Dr. Beuf said she was too medicated to talk to anyone tonight.

So John Ramsey sat there surrounded by four people, two of them lawyers.
Interesting also that he did not ask one question about the murder or how JonBenet was killed, nor about the result of the autopsy. Hardly surprising imo.Steve Thomas, page 53--except for the Hardly surprising imo. If you read my post again you'll see I was speaking of12/26 with the cops all around at the Fernie house; family friend and former prosecuting attorney Mike Bynum could see that the BPD was not there for the protection of the family but was treating them as suspects. He told the stunned John that they needed legal counsel and arranged it. The next day, as you've remarked John was there with counsel; he doubtless was told to say very little. Again, your lack of understanding of the American legal system shows---the officers werent going there to tell their prime suspect anything about the results of the autopsy; they didn't have it. Or the murder or how she was killed,not to a suspect. they wanted to talk to him alone to try to get a confession,but thats Hardly surprising, IMO.

[rashomon]

The next day, as you've remarked John was there with counsel; he doubtless was told to say very little. Again, your lack of understanding of the American legal system shows---the officers werent going there to tell their prime suspect anything about the results of the autopsy; they didn't have it. Or the murder or how she was killed,not to a suspect. they wanted to talk to him alone to try to get a confession,but thats Hardly surprising, IMO.

John didn't say that little, he talked for forty minutes after all. And not once did he ask a question about JB's death. How could John Ramsey know that the police didn't have the results of the autopsy (and in case they had them, wouldn't inform him)? You assume that John as a layperson was familiar with police proceedings in criminal cases, which was probably not the case.
So wouldn't you expect him to ask what exactly happened to his daughter?

I also don't think the police wanted to talk to him alone to get a confession on that day. As a first step they wanted to talk to both parents alone and then compare their stories. This is SOP in similar cases (see the Stephanie Crowe case). And they should have taken both Ramseys to the police station right after JB's dead body was found.

[nuisanceposter]

I would definitely have expected JR to be asking questions about what happened to his daughter. And Rashomon is right about SOP - the Rs should have been taken to the police station and questioned separately as soon as the body was found. I don't think they were looking for a confession at all - I think they wanted to get the parent's individual stories asap...which is SOP in any other child murder case.

[createthis]

:beer: Make that two of us, bullmoose - :beer:
That makes three of us Bull moose.

[createthis]

Wow, I thought this thread was Patsy's clothing.

The thing with RDI, they have suspects. I think RDI fights so strongly because they have two people that they can dissect and try and make the evidence fit their behavior or implied MO.
IDI has not pointed to a suspect that we can dissect with such scrutiny as the RDI's do with the Ramseys. But if you take Fleet White for instance, you can show the evidence pointing to him just as easily as the Ramseys. I've already listed several reasons for suspecting him and his behavior is as suspicious as anything the Ramseys did.
To say IDI has blinders on is just arrogant. Obviously the GJ disagrees with the RDI's point of view. Here is a group of people that have been exposed to way more evidence then the entire blog sites devoted to JB, and they have no bases to bring the Ramseys to trial. But RDI's are so sure they did it that they think IDI's choose to be ignorant.

Bottom line, the GJ agreed with the IDI point of view, not the RDI point of view.

Shill: You are hilarious!
And I agree strongly with what you wrote. Good job on that post.

[elvislives]

This is a true crime forum where people can discuss and debate aspects of this unsolved murder. Debate is healthy. And as a FS I appreciate hearing both sides of the issues.
This is not a black and white case, it is very complex. If the evidence led to an obvious perpetrator, the case would have been solved years ago.
Again I think the purpose of this forum is to discuss and yes, debate the issues. Some make their points better than others. But everyone has the right to express their opinions, theories and conclusions. JMO

[elvislives]

Elvislives- I'm a kindergarten teacher who works in groups which also include children with special needs, like for example children suffering from fragilitas ossium. Fragilitas ossium usually is diagnosed in children very soon, which is why I'm interested in the exact name of the 'almost unheard of genetic disorder' you mentioned in your post.
And how was it possible for the family pediatrician to overlook signs of fragilitas ossium, I ask myself. Don't you as a doc ask yourself this too, Elvilsives?

Hi Rash, this was definitely not a case of FO or OI--called brittle bone disease here in the states. These are well known disorders and obviously were the first things they tested for. Both of these disorders are caused by mutations of genes which codify for type 1 procollagen...and the tests run on this child came back negative. What this child had was a variation of Cole-Carpenter Syndrome. It actually presented very differently from Cole Carpenter and they assigned it a new name--Kushings Syndrome (may be Cushings Syndrome). I am sure they assigned it a latin name as well. I'll see if I can find it for you.
As far as the family pediatrician, they didnt have one. The family, if memory serves, were Christian Scientists and did not believe in mds...they didnt even vaccinate this child. I dont know about Germany, but in the US, parents are not required to vaccinate their children or even to take them to doctors. It is part of our freedoms....Dont even get me started on this topic.
Anyway, hats off to you for working with special needs children. My sister in law does this and I consider it to be one the most noble professions in the world.:beer:

[elvislives]

Yes I agree with you elvis, I know I am guilty of it.
However, I do think there is a case to be made for looking at the behaviour of suspects. Although it can never be proof, it can be a guide as to which direction to go in the investigation.

No question. But sometimes, the conclusions some posters draw from peoples' behavior is ridiculous imo.

[elvislives]

Hi Rash, this was definitely not a case of FO or OI--called brittle bone disease here in the states. These are well known disorders and obviously were the first things they tested for. Both of these disorders are caused by mutations of genes which codify for type 1 procollagen...and the tests run on this child came back negative. What this child had was a variation of Cole-Carpenter Syndrome. It actually presented very differently from Cole Carpenter and they assigned it a new name--Kushings Syndrome (may be Cushings Syndrome). I am sure they assigned it a latin name as well. I'll see if I can find it for you.
As far as the family pediatrician, they didnt have one. The family, if memory serves, were Christian Scientists and did not believe in mds...they didnt even vaccinate this child. I dont know about Germany, but in the US, parents are not required to vaccinate their children or even to take them to doctors. It is part of our freedoms....Dont even get me started on this topic.
Anyway, hats off to you for working with special needs children. My sister in law does this and I consider it to be one the most noble professions in the world.:beer:

Sorry, its called Kershings Syndrome aka osteogenesis rarefaction immunitas

[elvislives]

The other day the mother of the boy who was rescued after four years of captivity was interviewed on radio. She was asked if she was angry about her son being held for so long, and she said something like this (I am paraphrasing) -- "No. I can't allow myself to be consumed by anger if I want to go on with my life." I believe the Ramseys were saying the same thing. I believe it if part of thier faith. I believe they all -- the R's and the mother of the kidnapped boy -- were right. Anger does nothing but destroy the person who feels it and can't let it go. The Ramseys were wise enough to realize that.

Then obviously she was a co-conspirator of Devlins and did not care one iota about her child. She should be executed imo...

[createthis]

Then obviously she was a co-conspirator of Devlins and did not care one iota about her child. She should be executed imo...

Is that comment really necessary?
It is natural for people to disagree on this board...but you just let off a personal attack on someone not even related to this case.

[elvislives]

Is that comment really necessary?
It is natural for people to disagree on this board...but you just let off a personal attack on someone not even related to this case.

For heavens sake, I was KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We have been discussing how people often jump to silly conclusions based on persons behavior in stressful circumstances, which imo is very unfair. Have you ever heard of sarcasm???

[bullmoose]

Is that comment really necessary?
It is natural for people to disagree on this board...but you just let off a personal attack on someone not even related to this case.Actually,createthis, elvislives was not attacking anybody; it was just some facetious humor, and not the least bit mean-spirited. IMO it was funny

[Louisadelmar]

For heavens sake, I was KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We have been discussing how people often jump to silly conclusions based on persons behavior in stressful circumstances, which imo is very unfair. Have you ever heard of sarcasm???

Actually I was going to nominate the Amish parents for execution too.... :-)

[createthis]

For heavens sake, I was KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We have been discussing how people often jump to silly conclusions based on persons behavior in stressful circumstances, which imo is very unfair. Have you ever heard of sarcasm???

Okay, okay. No...I've never heard of sarcasm! What is it? ; )

[Tober]

Patsy was no slouch in the intelligence department, which leads me to believe that she knew the police would be suspicious of her wearing the same clothes when they arrived that she had worn to the White's. She certainly would have known any photos taken at the White's would be checked and the police would become aware she had on the same clothes when they arrived. Any reasonably intelligent adult would likely realize such. An overt knowledge of police procedure wouldn't be required to be aware of such a thing. This tells me that Patsy "had to be" wearing those particular clothes that morning. Why? Is there an innocent explanation that I haven't thought of? What reason would she have to do so? This post is my opinion.

[shill]

Patsy was no slouch in the intelligence department, which leads me to believe that she knew the police would be suspicious of her wearing the same clothes when they arrived that she had worn to the White's. She certainly would have known any photos taken at the White's would be checked and the police would become aware she had on the same clothes when they arrived. Any reasonably intelligent adult would likely realize such. An overt knowledge of police procedure wouldn't be required to be aware of such a thing. This tells me that Patsy "had to be" wearing those particular clothes that morning. Why? Is there an innocent explanation that I haven't thought of? What reason would she have to do so? This post is my opinion.

You're rambling and seem to have failed to make a point.

Are you OK? Should we call 911?:eek:

[bullmoose]

You're rambling and seem to have failed to make a point.

Are you OK? Should we call 911?:eek:

:rolleyes: Tell them to bring a bottle of synthroid tablets and he'll be as right as rain in no time at all.:lol:

[Tober]

You're rambling and seem to have failed to make a point.

Point being that Patsy intentionally wore the same clothes because she felt she had to for some reason. (IMO)

[nuisanceposter]

I agree, Tober. Even Patsy's friends said it was out of character for her to dress in the same clothes two days in a row. I think she thought she needed to be in the same clothes for some reason...so she came up with the broken shower excuse (only three or four other showers in the house and was her shower really broken? Hadn't there been a repairman there around Thanksgiving time for that?) and claimed she pulled her clothes out of the bathtub where she'd left them the night before (in the bathtub? Why would you put clothes that you want to put on the next morning in the bathtub? That's a strange place to leave clothes.)

[andU]

I agree, Tober. Even Patsy's friends said it was out of character for her to dress in the same clothes two days in a row. I think she thought she needed to be in the same clothes for some reason...so she came up with the broken shower excuse (only three or four other showers in the house and was her shower really broken? Hadn't there been a repairman there around Thanksgiving time for that?) and claimed she pulled her clothes out of the bathtub where she'd left them the night before (in the bathtub? Why would you put clothes that you want to put on the next morning in the bathtub? That's a strange place to leave clothes.)

NP, I agree that is a strange place to put clothes, although I admit to laying mine over the tub's edge if I knew I were going to be in a bit of a hurry the next day. IMO, there isn't much about this case that isn't strange. Being and IDI, does not put blinders on my eyes nor is my thinking inhibited (at least I want to think it isn't). I believe there was an issue or a hx of issues with Patsy's bathroom/shower. I find it strange that clothes were left lying around, but since I have grown/married children and visit them for overnight stays; I have seen (and couldn't believe my eyes) clothes left wherever a grandchild had taken them off for longer than I care to say. Don't second generation adults teach a child (even one 6 yrs. old should know better) to pick up clothes and put them in the proper place? But, then when the mother throws hers in the bath tub, how can you expect more of the child? Maybe I'm too old and/or too set in my ways.....


GO COLTS!

[Louisadelmar]

I agree, Tober. Even Patsy's friends said it was out of character for her to dress in the same clothes two days in a row. I think she thought she needed to be in the same clothes for some reason...so she came up with the broken shower excuse (only three or four other showers in the house and was her shower really broken? Hadn't there been a repairman there around Thanksgiving time for that?) and claimed she pulled her clothes out of the bathtub where she'd left them the night before (in the bathtub? Why would you put clothes that you want to put on the next morning in the bathtub? That's a strange place to leave clothes.)

How would her friends know if she wore the same clothes two days in a row? Melinda wouldn't know she'd worn it the evening before. The White's wouldn't know she wore it the next day. My guess is in situations where she'd be seeing the same people two days in a row she didn't wear the same outfit.

Also the bathtub sounds like a logical place if she knew she'd be putting them on the next day or if she just generally tended to leave her clothes around where she took them off. We know she wasn't a stickler for neatness.

[Zoey]

Patsy was no slouch in the intelligence department, which leads me to believe that she knew the police would be suspicious of her wearing the same clothes when they arrived that she had worn to the White's. She certainly would have known any photos taken at the White's would be checked and the police would become aware she had on the same clothes when they arrived. Any reasonably intelligent adult would likely realize such. An overt knowledge of police procedure wouldn't be required to be aware of such a thing. This tells me that Patsy "had to be" wearing those particular clothes that morning. Why? Is there an innocent explanation that I haven't thought of? What reason would she have to do so? This post is my opinion.

Tober, there is no reason Patsy "had to be" wearing those particular clothes that morning. She wore them because she wanted to. If she had changed her clothes, she would have been accused of changing her clothes because she had murdered her daughter.

Oh wait a minute. Because she didn't change her clothes, she was accused of murder. IMO, she should have shown up at the door buckassed naked. Then no one could have accused her of anything.

[nuisanceposter]

Personally, I wouldn't have thought much of it had Patsy been dressed in a different outfit on 12/26. That would be completely normal and evidence of nothing. When you're discussing the wife of a millionaire, who was a former beauty pageant winner and by all accounts devoted to presenting a certain image and taking pains with appearances enjoying a huge wardrobe, whose own friends wondered about her wearing the same clothes two days in a row, it's not the same as any random person out there throwing on the same thing the next day. It's a completely different situation when you consider all aspects.

The IDI who like to claim the RDI will see guilt in everything the Rs did is a broad generalization that, imo, only serves to discredit the RDI without accounting for what exactly is being debated.

[bullmoose]

Personally, I wouldn't have thought much of it had Patsy been dressed in a different outfit on 12/26. That would be completely normal and evidence of nothing. When you're discussing the wife of a millionaire, who was a former beauty pageant winner and by all accounts devoted to presenting a certain image and taking pains with appearances enjoying a huge wardrobe, whose own friends wondered about her wearing the same clothes two days in a row, it's not the same as any random person out there throwing on the same thing the next day. It's a completely different situation when you consider all aspects.

The IDI who like to claim the RDI will see guilt in everything the Rs did is a broad generalization that, imo, only serves to discredit the RDI without accounting for what exactly is being debated.Every situation is a completely different situation when you consider all of the aspects involved. Any random person is going to dress in a random fashion from whatever point of view that the person viewing has.What is completely normal from one persons' point of view may be silly, strange or pointless to another. That Patsy wore the same clothes was probably a normal thing to do for her; now if she had been in jeans, which she didn't normally wear: that would have been strange.I find the fact that she was wearing the same clothes the next morning to probably be normal for her; and evidence of nothing sinister at all.

[nuisanceposter]

But that's one of my points...Patsy's own friends, who knew her on a personal and daily basis, thought it was outside of normal for her to wear the same outfit two days in a row...so it wasn't normal for her. Patsy doing something abnormal on the same day her daughter is kidnapped and found dead is cause for interest and discussion.

[Louisadelmar]

But that's one of my points...Patsy's own friends, who knew her on a personal and daily basis, thought it was outside of normal for her to wear the same outfit two days in a row...so it wasn't normal for her. Patsy doing something abnormal on the same day her daughter is kidnapped and found dead is cause for interest and discussion.

Which friends and when did they say it? Is there a transcript because information being passed around the internet tends to undergo a sea-change.

[nuisanceposter]

That's true. Let me look and see what details I can find.

[sweetcharlotte]

Tober, there is no reason Patsy "had to be" wearing those particular clothes that morning. She wore them because she wanted to. If she had changed her clothes, she would have been accused of changing her clothes because she had murdered her daughter.

Oh wait a minute. Because she didn't change her clothes, she was accused of murder. IMO, she should have shown up at the door buckassed naked. Then no one could have accused her of anything.

ROFL.

And I wonder how many of her friends were around on the days she and her family took a flight of out town.

I still think one of the funniest things is when she appeared on TV the day after one of her interviews with ST and he was sure she was wearing the same clothes "to get to him."

[andU]

While searching for the answer to a question that I have, I ran onto this article about Patsy and the Ramsey family. I hadn't seen it before and it gave me more insight to Patsy's personality. I encourage each of you to read it.


http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0817jon1.shtml




GO COLTS !

[sweetcharlotte]

That is a really nice article and the comments are believable because they are from genuine friends and people who knew them (including John's ex-wife.)

[Louisadelmar]

I think it says something that those who knew them longest and presumably best continue to believe in their innocence. I also think someone like Priscilla White who worries about what is or isn't "done" is likely to be swayed by public opinion.

[andU]

Evidently she wasn't the 'don't mess my hair up' type of lady that I had the impression of. I had come to think of her as not being guilty, but I stll had a picture of her being a person with a 'celebrity' personality. I was wrong.




GO COLTS !

[LindaA]

Hmmm... I wonder what Ck would have to say aout that article.

[sweetcharlotte]

I had a previous poster accuse me of being "enamored" with the Ramseys. I never thought I was nearly as "enamored" as that particular poster was "envious." :)

[Tober]

I still think one of the funniest things is when she appeared on TV the day after one of her interviews with ST and he was sure she was wearing the same clothes "to get to him."

IMO, she did that to "demonstrate" that she would sometimes wear the same clothes two days in a row. I seriously doubt that was her habit, she just wanted people to think it was. Another example of Patsy attempting to manipulate the situation to her favor. This post is my opinion.

[sweetcharlotte]

I think the fact that we are still discussing what Patsy wore emphasizes the depth of ST's tunnel vision and how far he was willing to go to prove Patsy killed her child.

[Tober]

I think the fact that we are still discussing what Patsy wore emphasizes the depth of ST's tunnel vision and how far he was willing to go to prove Patsy killed her child.

What does Steve Thomas have to do with our discussion of Patsy's clothes?

[sweetcharlotte]

What does Steve Thomas have to do with our discussion of Patsy's clothes?

Because Steve Thomas thought that Patsy having on the same clothes on 12/26/96 was proof that Patsy had been up all night and was one of the "smoking guns" that was going to nail her. This is my opinion.

[Tober]

Because Steve Thomas thought that Patsy having on the same clothes on 12/26/96 was proof that Patsy had been up all night and was one of the "smoking guns" that was going to nail her. This is my opinion.

But what does Steve have to do with "our" discussion about Patsy's clothes? Are you suggesting that RDIs can't think for themselves and base their opinions on Steve's opinions?

[LindaA]

But what does Steve have to do with "our" discussion about Patsy's clothes? Are you suggesting that RDIs can't think for themselves and base their opinions on Steve's opinions?

It wouldn't be unreasonable to think that at least in some cases.

[sweetcharlotte]

I don't think we would be having this discussion if it hadn't brought to our attention that Patsy was wearing the same clothes (by Steve). How would we even have known? I don't see many discussions about what John or Burke were wearing on the 26th.

RDIs thinking for themselves? I think there are several RDIs on the board who have demonstrated repeatedly that they are very capable of thinking for themselves. Don't you?

This is just my opinion.

[Zoey]

I don't think we would be having this discussion if it hadn't brought to our attention that Patsy was wearing the same clothes (by Steve). How would we even have known? I don't see many discussions about what John or Burke were wearing on the 26th.

RDIs thinking for themselves? I think there are several RDIs on the board who have demonstrated repeatedly that they are very capable of thinking for themselves. Don't you?

This is just my opinion.

IMO, if, and I do stress the word if, Patsy had indeed killed little JB in the velvet pants and the red sweater, then the velvet pants and the red sweater would have been dirty, smelly, sweaty, stained and just down right unwearable the next day. They were not, nor have I read anywhere where they had the appearance of being freshly laundered.

IMO, she did not wear them to prove a point or anything else. She wore them because they were handy and she was headed out on a flight and no one had seen her in those particular clothes the night before so it made no difference to her.

Way too much enphasis has been put on what Patsy had to wear. As Sweetcharlotte posted, what about what John had on at the party and the next morning. What about Burke? What about the Fernies? What about the Whites? What about the Rev? What about anyone else that walked throught that door that day?

[sweetcharlotte]

Has anyone heard before that Patsy was still wearing the clothes from the White's party - the next morning after the kidnapping? I apologize if this has been stated before. See the quote below. Also - I take it that this Steve Thomas that I'm quoting is not very credible...can someone shed some light on that? thanks.
----------
The Smoking Gun

As part of her staging, Thomas wrote that Patsy put a strip of duct tape over JonBenet's mouth. "There was bloody mucus under the tape, and a perfect set of the child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance," indicating that JonBenet had not been alive when the tape was affixed to her mouth. The ransom note and the staging of the body took so much of the night that Patsy did not have time to change the clothes she wore to the Whites' Christmas Day party. To Thomas, Patsy's not changing her clothes was the smoking gun. He knew she was wearing the same clothes because a picture taken at the Whites' dinner party on Christmas night showed her wearing a red turtleneck sweater and black pants. A Boulder police officer had noted in his report that when he arrived at the Ramsey home on December 26 in response to the kidnapping emergency that Patsy was wearing a red turtleneck and black pants.

"This woman, to whom looking good appeared always so important that she had a closet full of designer clothes, had attended a party, come home late, put her children to bed, gone to sleep herself, arose early to fly across the country, put on fresh makeup and fixed her hair, and then put on the same clothes she had worn the previous night? Not likely, in my opinion," Thomas wrote.

This is the first post on this thread. Seems Steve has been a part of the discussion since Post # 1.

[bullmoose]

This is the first post on this thread. Seems Steve has been a part of the discussion since Post # 1.
In more ways than one:biggrin: IMO.To AndU: Thank-you for putting that link up, I had never read that particular one. Really, all these posts and opinions because basically: Steve Thomas didn't believe it was likely that Patsy would wear the same clothes twice; whenever she did so after it was part of her clever manipulation of the media. It couldn't be that he'd made such a basic error in judgement on his first murder case, completely misreading the parent of a victim as the evil culprit; which gave him license to interpret everything he saw through that tunnelvision mindset, whispering to himself every couple of minutes: Patsy did it, Patsy did it, Patsy did it. Maybe in his years chasing dopers around Boulder he came to think of everyone he came into contact with as evil, guilty perps and in that light he saw everybody[the Ramseys] on his first murder case.I posted yesterday some contradictory parts of his book; do the contradictions mean that he had a part in Jonbenet's murder? Not IMO, but this is the paperback I have, how could contradictions in his storyline continue over from his hardback to his paperback uncorrected? Could it be that errors in his story are unimportant because he knows he's right about the main issue? I hear it, rising from his book, a mantra-- over and over--Patsydidit, Patsydidit, Patsy did it. Of course, I'm a retired miner and a bit deaf, maybe thats just tinnitus. This is all JMHO.:biggrin:

[Tober]

Patsy's personality, background, and circumstances were such that it's highly unlikely she was in the habit of sometimes wearing the same clothes two days in a row. The notion that she was is based on conjecture, rather than on Patsy's actual situation. This post is my opinion.

[createthis]

Patsy's personality, background, and circumstances were such that it's highly unlikely she was in the habit of sometimes wearing the same clothes two days in a row. The notion that she was is based on conjecture, rather than on Patsy's actual situation. This post is my opinion.

Wasn't she pretty materialistic? It is odd that she put her partied-in Christmas clothes back on to leave out to Michigan the next day. Kind of gross. I have worn the same pair of jeans the next day or sweats, but I am not rich and flying out of town the next day either...lol. JMO.

[thewhitewitch1]

Wasn't she pretty materialistic? It is odd that she put her partied-in Christmas clothes back on to leave out to Michigan the next day. Kind of gross. I have worn the same pair of jeans the next day or sweats, but I am not rich and flying out of town the next day either...lol. JMO.

Not that I take her wearing the same clothes so much as an indication of guilt, but it does seem kind of weird since she did her hair and make-up and was concerned about making an impression on Melissas fiance'. It would seem like she'd have wanted to shower and put on fresh clothes. I don't get the excuse that her shower was broken either. They had 7 bathrooms in that house.

[Louisadelmar]

Not that I take her wearing the same clothes so much as an indication of guilt, but it does seem kind of weird since she did her hair and make-up and was concerned about making an impression on Melissas fiance'. It would seem like she'd have wanted to shower and put on fresh clothes. I don't get the excuse that her shower was broken either. They had 7 bathrooms in that house.

The fiance didn't know she'd worn it the evening before.

[Louisadelmar]

Wasn't she pretty materialistic? It is odd that she put her partied-in Christmas clothes back on to leave out to Michigan the next day. Kind of gross. I have worn the same pair of jeans the next day or sweats, but I am not rich and flying out of town the next day either...lol. JMO.

Why gross? What do you mean by 'materialistic?'

[thewhitewitch1]

The fiance didn't know she'd worn it the evening before.


Can't argue with that. Just thought that maybe she'd have wanted to shower and wear fresh clean clothes. Doesn't make her guilty that she didn't, though.

[createthis]

Not that I take her wearing the same clothes so much as an indication of guilt, but it does seem kind of weird since she did her hair and make-up and was concerned about making an impression on Melissas fiance'. It would seem like she'd have wanted to shower and put on fresh clothes. I don't get the excuse that her shower was broken either. They had 7 bathrooms in that house.

That's all I'm saying too TWW...not an indication of guilt, but yes...considering the hair and make-up and such. I wouldn't find it as strange if she had put the same clothes on, yet didn't fix her hair and put on any make-up, but that is not what she did.

[LindaA]

Sheesh, people. She had worn that outift for a few hours at a party the evening before. It wasn't gross -- unless she had killed JBR while wearing it. It was a holiday outfit and she wanted to wear a holiday outfit. She knew she could shower when she got to Michigan. The people she was going to see wouldn't have known she had worn it the night before. I don't understand what the big deal is and how it indicates she was guilty. I agree with whoever posted that if she had worn it during the murder it would be obvious the next day.

[Zoey]

That's all I'm saying too TWW...not an indication of guilt, but yes...considering the hair and make-up and such. I wouldn't find it as strange if she had put the same clothes on, yet didn't fix her hair and put on any make-up, but that is not what she did.

I posted this when the thread first started I think, because it sounds familiar to me, but, I do not leave my house unless my hair is fixed and my make-up is just right. I will, on the other hand, wear an outfit that I have only worn for a few hours, if I did not get it dirty the night before. I come from a very good background, very clean family. To me, there is nothing unusual about this behaviour.

[bullmoose]

That's all I'm saying too TWW...not an indication of guilt, but yes...considering the hair and make-up and such. I wouldn't find it as strange if she had put the same clothes on, yet didn't fix her hair and put on any make-up, but that is not what she did.Here is just a thought as to why she'd be so fastidious about her hair and make-up: stage four ovarian cancer. Think about it, her hair fell out, her complexion got bad and she looked like death warmed over because of the chemo, unless she was carefully made-up. None of her clothes would have fit anyways, but she could present a decent face to the world by being carefully made up. I think that would become second nature just as a result. What do you think?

[thewhitewitch1]

Here is just a thought as to why she'd be so fastidious about her hair and make-up: stage four ovarian cancer. Think about it, her hair fell out, her complexion got bad and she looked like death warmed over because of the chemo, unless she was carefully made-up. None of her clothes would have fit anyways, but she could present a decent face to the world by being carefully made up. I think that would become second nature just as a result. What do you think?

I don't agree with that because her cancer was in remission; no more chemo and her hair had already grown back. You can correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure that her cancer had been in remission for at least a year or more. I am also pretty sure that she always wore make-up and had her hair "fixed up".

And LindaA...lighten up. Every one of us has said that wearing the same clothes does not make her guilty.

[Zoey]

Here is just a thought as to why she'd be so fastidious about her hair and make-up: stage four ovarian cancer. Think about it, her hair fell out, her complexion got bad and she looked like death warmed over because of the chemo, unless she was carefully made-up. None of her clothes would have fit anyways, but she could present a decent face to the world by being carefully made up. I think that would become second nature just as a result. What do you think?

I think you have probably explained it better than any of the rest of us have been able to and something I had never thought about. Good job Bullmoose. I can see her doing exactly that and for those very reasons.

[createthis]

Why gross? What do you mean by 'materialistic?'

Surely you know what I mean by that. No offense.

[createthis]

Sheesh, people. She had worn that outift for a few hours at a party the evening before. It wasn't gross -- unless she had killed JBR while wearing it. It was a holiday outfit and she wanted to wear a holiday outfit. She knew she could shower when she got to Michigan. The people she was going to see wouldn't have known she had worn it the night before. I don't understand what the big deal is and how it indicates she was guilty. I agree with whoever posted that if she had worn it during the murder it would be obvious the next day.

I never said it was an indication of guilt...nope...didn't say it:no:

[bullmoose]

I don't agree with that because her cancer was in remission; no more chemo and her hair had already grown back. You can correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure that her cancer had been in remission for at least a year or more. I am also pretty sure that she always wore make-up and had her hair "fixed up".

And LindaA...lighten up. Every one of us has said that wearing the same clothes does not make her guilty. My mother has suffered with alopecia for fifty years[Her hair falls out suddenly for no known reason overnight]; sometimes it goes four or five years between episodes of it. But she remains very, very careful of the way her hair looks and never goes anywhere without a couple [just in case] wigs, to match most occasions. She doesn't let her guard down in just one year, and I doubt Patsy did, either. JMHO

[thewhitewitch1]

Sheesh, people. She had worn that outift for a few hours at a party the evening before. It wasn't gross -- unless she had killed JBR while wearing it. It was a holiday outfit and she wanted to wear a holiday outfit. She knew she could shower when she got to Michigan. The people she was going to see wouldn't have known she had worn it the night before. I don't understand what the big deal is and how it indicates she was guilty. I agree with whoever posted that if she had worn it during the murder it would be obvious the next day.

Why would it be obvious if she'd worn the clothes during the murder? Since I believe the head blow came first, how messed up and smelly can you get from hitting someone on the head? I think JR did most, if not all of the staging so I can see no reason why Patsys clothes would be "mussed up" at all. You'd think they might be a bit disheveled and perspired in with all of the alleged frantic running around she did that morning, though. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

Surely you know what I mean by that. No offense.

No. I'm actually curious. She didn't over-spend the budget and cause her family to have to do without. She was supportive of her kids school both financially and with her time. She was a concerned friend and neighbor. If someone needed help, she was there giving it. Her level of spending may have risen along with the family's financial success but I think that happens with most people.

She didn't strike me as a shallow, self-centered person.

[KingCoyote]

If you assume PR "did it"...could you also assume that she was wearing pajamas when she possibly went down at midnight to have JBR go to the bathroom...(See Pam Griffin Factor - First Post - Entry 3)....didn't find JBR in her bedroom because JBR did manage to wake up on her own and is already downstairs waiting for her special Santa Visit ....went downstairs...slips on her red/black and grey pea jacket, that is in the kitchen where she left it the night before, because it was too chilly in just her pajamas....had some kind of first floor confrontation with JBR that led to the basement..leaves no trace fibers from pajamas but does leave trace fibers from jacket...does her running around after the event for the staging...returns to JAR's bathroom where she takes a quick shower (which may be where earlier in her running around she finds something of value for the staging in those mysterious 2 open drawers in JAR bath (PR 98 Interview P.284) ....slips the pajamas back on...goes back to bed....JR never misses her...she gets up as she says at about 5:30....takes pajamas off...tosses them in laundry chute....dresses in red turtleneck...black velvet pants since they are right there in her bathroom on 3rd floor....goes down to 2nd floor....and on down to first floor...starts the whole routine about RN and 911 call. Now her clothes aren't dirty and the dirty clothes/pajamas are in a laundry shute being hidden in "plain sight" so to speak and PBD doesn't sieze them in the search...because they think she must have kept her other clothes on all night and therefore don't consider other options...

Just a few thoughts and speculations.....

KingCoyote

[LindaA]

So why are we discussing this if you don't see it as an indication of her guilt? I believe that was the opening post of this thread -- ST's view. If we are just her to slam Patsy Ramsey and her hygiene and grooming, then that's apretty shallow conversation. If we are talking about indicators of her guilt, then there's a point.

And TWW1, I have to accept your entire premise that PR only hit her over the head and did nothing else? What if I don't buy that -- and I don't? Even if I did I would certainly think that her reaction to the realization of what she had done would cause a physical response -- cold sweat, nausea, etc. Besides if we are to believe the fiber evidence was not secondary transfer -- not saying I do -- then we can assume she had everything to do with the staging. If there are no fibers from JR in the rope, on the tape -- and I've never read there were -- than how can we assume he did the staging? Nope, I just can't see her accidentally nearling killing her little girl in a fit of rage and not having a very visceral reaction to it.

[LindaA]

If you assume PR "did it"...could you also assume that she was wearing pajamas when she possibly went down at midnight to have JBR go to the bathroom...(See Pam Griffin Factor - First Post - Entry 3)....didn't find JBR in her bedroom because JBR did manage to wake up on her own and is already downstairs waiting for her special Santa Visit ....went downstairs...slips on her red/black and grey pea jacket, that is in the kitchen where she left it the night before, because it was too chilly in just her pajamas....had some kind of first floor confrontation with JBR that led to the basement..leaves no trace fibers from pajamas but does leave trace fibers from jacket...does her running around after the event for the staging...returns to JAR's bathroom where she takes a quick shower (which may be where earlier in her running around she finds something of value for the staging in those mysterious 2 open drawers in JAR bath (PR 98 Interview P.284) ....slips the pajamas back on...goes back to bed....JR never misses her...she gets up as she says at about 5:30....takes pajamas off...tosses them in laundry chute....dresses in red turtleneck...black velvet pants since they are right there in her bathroom on 3rd floor....goes down to 2nd floor....and on down to first floor...starts the whole routine about RN and 911 call. Now her clothes aren't dirty and the dirty clothes/pajamas are in a laundry shute being hidden in "plain sight" so to speak and PBD doesn't sieze them in the search...because they think she must have kept her other clothes on all night and therefore don't consider other options...

Just a few thoughts and speculations.....

KingCoyote

Hmmm... lots of speculation here. I remember when you posted this before that I figure if it were cold enough in the house to warrent something over her nightclothes she would have had a bathrobe handy in her bedroom. She got up routinely, so she would have been used to putting it on. But more importantly, wouln't had pjs have shed some fibers? Hard to think they wouldn't have when her jacket did.

Now I do remember reading that it was warm in the basement, so my guess is that it was warmer in other parts of the house, as the basement is usually the coolest part of a multi-level house. That's just a guess, too, but IMO a logical one. She might not have needed the robe, hence not the jacket either.

As for the BPD not finding them, I assume that's possible, likely even -- but not a certainty.

[KingCoyote]

Linda:

Actually since heat rises PR probably doesn't feel the cooler air until she gets to a lower floor, possibly the kitchen, and I distinctly remember that JR said that JBR's room was a warm one so possibly the common area was warm as well.....also, if the pajamas do shed and the police don't collect the pajamas from the laundry shute...they have nothing to source them to. The reason there may be no pajama shedding is because at least the top half is covered by the jacket which does the shedding for us. I also remember that JR specifically stated in an interview that she would wear the pea jacket in the house sometimes when she was chilly (actually I think LouisaDelmar got that quote for me)....I would assume that being only in your pajamas when it is only 9 degrees outside in the middle of the night might be one of those chilly times especially if you turn the heat down at night as some people normally do. My last thought is that since she is possibly in the middle of a confrontation, that even if the basement area is warmer, its probably not the time you stop what you are doing to take off a jacket. She may have other things on her mind.

Yes I do tend to add to my previous speculations....I figure if all of us did this kind of scenario speculation and just kept building on it and adjusting where necessary we just might come up with a whole lot of different ideas from which we can take a little here and a little there and come up with something that actually fits the information that we do have...

Working on my speculations tonight.....

KingCoyote

[shill]

Personally, I wouldn't have thought much of it had Patsy been dressed in a different outfit on 12/26. That would be completely normal and evidence of nothing. When you're discussing the wife of a millionaire, who was a former beauty pageant winner and by all accounts devoted to presenting a certain image and taking pains with appearances enjoying a huge wardrobe, whose own friends wondered about her wearing the same clothes two days in a row, it's not the same as any random person out there throwing on the same thing the next day. It's a completely different situation when you consider all aspects.

The IDI who like to claim the RDI will see guilt in everything the Rs did is a broad generalization that, imo, only serves to discredit the RDI without accounting for what exactly is being debated.

Ya right!
It would have been why did Patsy take the time to put on clean clothes, shouldn't she be more concerned with her daughter then her appearance. (Which was said about the make up)
Or, why would she put clean clothes on but not take a shower unless she was up all night and wanted it to look like she had gone to bed.

If she had worn another outfit, you RDI's would be calling foul, who are you kidding?

[shill]

Not that I take her wearing the same clothes so much as an indication of guilt, but it does seem kind of weird since she did her hair and make-up and was concerned about making an impression on Melissas fiance'. It would seem like she'd have wanted to shower and put on fresh clothes. I don't get the excuse that her shower was broken either. They had 7 bathrooms in that house.

Wasn't she wearing wigs because of the chemo? And there are many many women who wouldn't be caught dead without makeup.

A shower takes a lot more time then throwing on some clothes already set out and ready to go.

[shill]

Sheesh, people. She had worn that outift for a few hours at a party the evening before. It wasn't gross -- unless she had killed JBR while wearing it. It was a holiday outfit and she wanted to wear a holiday outfit. She knew she could shower when she got to Michigan. The people she was going to see wouldn't have known she had worn it the night before. I don't understand what the big deal is and how it indicates she was guilty. I agree with whoever posted that if she had worn it during the murder it would be obvious the next day.

They don't give you a hot wash clothe at the beginning of a flight, they give it to you at the end.
Why should Patsy take a shower before the flight instead of after?

[shill]

Linda:

Actually since heat rises PR probably doesn't feel the cooler air until she gets to a lower floor, possibly the kitchen, and I distinctly remember that JR said that JBR's room was a warm one so possibly the common area was warm as well.....also, if the pajamas do shed and the police don't collect the pajamas from the laundry shute...they have nothing to source them to. The reason there may be no pajama shedding is because at least the top half is covered by the jacket which does the shedding for us. I also remember that JR specifically stated in an interview that she would wear the pea jacket in the house sometimes when she was chilly (actually I think LouisaDelmar got that quote for me)....I would assume that being only in your pajamas when it is only 9 degrees outside in the middle of the night might be one of those chilly times especially if you turn the heat down at night as some people normally do. My last thought is that since she is possibly in the middle of a confrontation, that even if the basement area is warmer, its probably not the time you stop what you are doing to take off a jacket. She may have other things on her mind.

Yes I do tend to add to my previous speculations....I figure if all of us did this kind of scenario speculation and just kept building on it and adjusting where necessary we just might come up with a whole lot of different ideas from which we can take a little here and a little there and come up with something that actually fits the information that we do have...

Working on my speculations tonight.....

KingCoyote

How about Patsy didn't kill JB and fibers from Patsy's jacket transferred to the white top that JB was wearing when Patsy put her to bed. Those fibers transferred from JB's shirt to the other objects that were found on her.
The tough question is; what is the source of the Beaver fur and who transferred it to JB?

[LindaA]

They don't give you a hot wash clothe at the beginning of a flight, they give it to you at the end.
Why should Patsy take a shower before the flight instead of after?

Were there flight attendants on this private jet? I always had the idea there were none.

[LindaA]

How about Patsy didn't kill JB and fibers from Patsy's jacket transferred to the white top that JB was wearing when Patsy put her to bed. Those fibers transferred from JB's shirt to the other objects that were found on her.
The tough question is; what is the source of the Beaver fur and who transferred it to JB?

That IMO about where the fibers came from. I still think PR most likely wore a robe when up around midnight.

[sweetcharlotte]

Wasn't she wearing wigs because of the chemo? And there are many many women who wouldn't be caught dead without makeup.

A shower takes a lot more time then throwing on some clothes already set out and ready to go.

Her last chemo was in summer 1994 and if I'm not mistaken there is talk that she dyed her hair Christmas Day before going to the White's party.

[LindaA]

Aweet, I belive you are right.

Shill, disregard my response to your post about the wash cloths. I thought I had deleted it, but apparently I didn't. I see your point now.

[nuisanceposter]

The tough question is; what is the source of the Beaver fur and who transferred it to JB?

Many paintbrushes and make up brushes are made of animal hair, including beaver. That may be the answer.

PR probably had to put on her jacket when she got downstairs because the butler pantry door was allegedly open...but somehow Patsy was completely oblivious to the draft of frigid 9 degree air that was coming in and failed to notice the door open. Lol.

And seriously, Shill, had Patsy put on an outfit she hadn't worn the night before, I wouldn't think anything of it. That would be completely normal and expected, whether her daughter was missing or not. And you have to remember that supposedly she didn't know her daughter was missing when she got up and got dressed before leaving her bedroom.

[andU]

Was it ST that first noticed or mentioned that PR wore the same clothes? Did she tell him that or how was it brought forth?

[KingCoyote]

Linda:

As to transferance of PR's jacket fibers being the reason her fibers are at the scene, I think you may be absolutely correct. In fact there is clear logic that this is the reason that the fibers are in the garrote/paint brush stick...PR's fibers naturally transferred to JBR's hair when JBR put to bed and eventually became entangled in the garrote stick. As to the blanket that is quite possible too since PR had close contact with a blanket that is normally in JBR's room....or was it?...now where was that blanket..on the bed or in the dryer? (See Pam Griffin Factor Item #3)...Now as to fibers that were in the paint tote I am going to take PR for her word...I do not wish to call her a liar but I do not want to be called IDI either for taking PR's side...so...looking to her own statements in her 98 interview....(I will let you reread the interview because I have tired of doing so amny many times) she stated that she doesn't paint in the basement and doesn't paint while wearing that jacket and LHP took the paint tote to the basement... so what is the event that put PR's fibers in the paint tote that was very, very close to JBR's body and connected to the murder because we know the "murder" weapon came from the paint tote....If you have an alternate interpretation of PR's statements connected to the paint tray from the 98 interview, please let me know and I will correct or withdraw or revise as necessary my speculations. As to PR wearing a robe on a routine basis....I would like to see evidence of that from her statements....I can't remember any but then again I have swiss cheese for a brain sometimes.

KingCoyote

[rashomon]

How about Patsy didn't kill JB and fibers from Patsy's jacket transferred to the white top that JB was wearing when Patsy put her to bed. Those fibers transferred from JB's shirt to the other objects that were found on her.
The tough question is; what is the source of the Beaver fur and who transferred it to JB?
Doesn't it say in S's book that Patsy left the Ramsey home in her fur coat after JB's body had been found? Does anyone know what fur coat that was?

[andU]

I recall something being said about PR having fur lined boots (not sure if that is a fact) but I don't recall reading about her waring a fur coat...

[rashomon]

Linda:

As to transferance of PR's jacket fibers being the reason her fibers are at the scene, I think you may be absolutely correct. In fact there is clear logic that this is the reason that the fibers are in the garrote/paint brush stick...PR's fibers naturally transferred to JBR's hair when JBR put to bed and eventually became entangled in the garrote stick. As to the blanket that is quite possible too since PR had close contact with a blanket that is normally in JBR's room....or was it?...now where was that blanket..on the bed or in the dryer? (See Pam Griffin Factor Item #3)...Now as to fibers that were in the paint tote I am going to take PR for her word...I do not wish to call her a liar but I do not want to be called IDI either for taking PR's side...so...looking to her own statements in her 98 interview....(I will let you reread the interview because I have tired of doing so amny many times) she stated that she doesn't paint in the basement and doesn't paint while wearing that jacket and LHP took the paint tote to the basement... so what is the event that put PR's fibers in the paint tote that was very, very close to JBR's body and connected to the murder because we know the "murder" weapon came from the paint tote....If you have an alternate interpretation of PR's statements connected to the paint tray from the 98 interview, please let me know and I will correct or withdraw or revise as necessary my speculations. As to PR wearing a robe on a routine basis....I would like to see evidence of that from her statements....I can't remember any but then again I have swiss cheese for a brain sometimes.

KingCoyote
But all of these fibers belionging to Patsy's jacket were found in very incriminating locations: on the duct tape which covered JB's mouth, in the garrote handle wrappings, and in the paint tray. Is it a far stretch to assume that the person who left the fibers there was wearing Patsy's jacket?
No one would do painting with her Christmas party clothes on. So how did those fibers get into the paint tray?
Why were Patsy's fiber not found on other parts of JB's body, but only in locations connected to the actual crime itself?
Imo this makes the fiber evidence against Patsy very damaging.

[KingCoyote]

Rashomon:

I think that hair fibers could be from transferrance...The duct tape was stuck to the blanket at one point and the fibers may or may not have transferred from a blanket but the fibers in the paint tray/tote give me cause for concern that PR was at the scene during the murder....

Just a little speculation and wonderment:

KingCoyote

[nuisanceposter]

Doesn't it say in S's book that Patsy left the Ramsey home in her fur coat after JB's body had been found? Does anyone know what fur coat that was?

ST, hb, page 33

"Patsy Ramsey, wearing a long fur coat, walked out sobbing uncontrollably and still leaning on her friends."

[nuisanceposter]

Rashomon:

I think that hair fibers could be from transferrance...The duct tape was stuck to the blanket at one point and the fibers may or may not have transferred from a blanket but the fibers in the paint tray/tote give me cause for concern that PR was at the scene during the murder....

Just a little speculation and wonderment:

KingCoyote

Were any fibers from the blanket found on the tape, or was it completely out of adhesive by then?

KC, what do you think the source of the tan/brown fibers on the tape was?

[nuisanceposter]

But all of these fibers belionging to Patsy's jacket were found in very incriminating locations: on the duct tape which covered JB's mouth, in the garrote handle wrappings, and in the paint tray. Is it a far stretch to assume that the person who left the fibers there was wearing Patsy's jacket?
No one would do painting with her Christmas party clothes on. So how did those fibers get into the paint tray?
Why were Patsy's fiber not found on other parts of JB's body, but only in locations connected to the actual crime itself?
Imo this makes the fiber evidence against Patsy very damaging.

I really have to agree. It's not just that the fibers were found, it's WHERE they were found. Add to that the consistently inconsistent statements from the Rs throughout the investigation, their hesitation to cooperate, the lack of forensic evidence of an intruder, lawyering up and hiring people not to search for the killer but to Keep the Rs out of jail, and it's looking pretty bad for the Rs.

[sweetcharlotte]

<snip>


And seriously, Shill, had Patsy put on an outfit she hadn't worn the night before, I wouldn't think anything of it. That would be completely normal and expected, whether her daughter was missing or not. And you have to remember that supposedly she didn't know her daughter was missing when she got up and got dressed before leaving her bedroom.

Putting on the clothes I wore the previous evening for appx. 5 hours is not out of the norm for me especially if I am going to do nothing except fly on a plane (or ride in a car) for the next few hours.

Reflects a personal preference and proves nothing - IMO.

[rashomon]

I recall something being said about PR having fur lined boots (not sure if that is a fact) but I don't recall reading about her waring a fur coat...
I've just found the passage in ST's book. (p. 33 hardback):
"Patsy Ramsey, wearing a long fur coat, walked out sobbing uncontrollably and still leaning on her friends."

[rashomon]

Putting on the clothes I wore the previous evening for appx. 5 hours is not out of the norm for me especially if I am going to do nothing except fly on a plane (or ride in a car) for the next few hours.

Reflects a personal preference and proves nothing - IMO.
But party clothes, usually smelling of stale smoke? Patsy's make-up was perfect, but would a multimillionaire's wife with a closet probably as big as other people's living rooms really do that - wear smelly party clothes from the night before on a flight?

[Louisadelmar]

But party clothes, usually smelling of stale smoke? Patsy's make-up was perfect, but would a multimillionaire's wife with a closet probably as big as other people's living rooms really do that - wear smelly party clothes from the night before on a flight?

What makes you think there was smoking at the White's house? I only know one couple who allows smoking at their parties. They are French and both smoke. Are the Whites smokers?

[sweetcharlotte]

By 1996 no one I know allowed smoking in their home. If you wanted to smoke you stepped outside. Plus, at that time Patsy had quit smoking and didn't start again until after JonBenet was murdered...and John only smoked cigars.

[nuisanceposter]

Wow, a lot of my friends smoked in 1996, and many of them are still smoking today - in their houses, in their cars, on the way from the car to the store or restaurant...

Even if Patsy didn't smoke then and John only smoked cigars, that doesn't mean no one else at the Whites' party was smoking. And now that I consider, a Christmas party is a pretty good place to enjoy a cigar with friends.

We don't know for sure if the Whites smoke, or that no one was smoking at their party, and even if individual posters here don't, that still doesn't mean no one there was. There's certainly no requirement to be French to enjoy a cigarette or cigar...but that reminds me of what a Francophile Patsy was.

[rashomon]

As far as the family pediatrician, they didnt have one. The family, if memory serves, were Christian Scientists and did not believe in mds...they didnt even vaccinate this child. I dont know about Germany, but in the US, parents are not required to vaccinate their children or even to take them to doctors. It is part of our freedoms....Dont even get me started on this topic.
Anyway, hats off to you for working with special needs children. My sister in law does this and I consider it to be one the most noble professions in the world.:beer:

Thanks Elvislives for your kind words. But my hat is off to those children really, whose courage and determination can only be admired. When I see these children, whose everyday life is often a battle against adverse circumstances, I think how often we take so much for granted: our health, or that our health will stay that way. But often people who should be grateful for what they have are dissatisfied because they want more and more. They expect life to shower all its blessings onto them while in reality they already have so much, but they don't appreciate it. And when it happens that they have lost what they had, only then do they realize how fortunate they had been before.

In terms of the 'vaccination slackness': don't get me started on that topic either for I'll go through the roof too, Elvislives,!
It's the same in Germany as in the US: although we have excellent medical care here for children and all vaccinations are covered by insurance, parents are neither required to take their children to the doctor nor to have them vaccinated. As opposed to countries where vaccinating children is mandatory, we can now observe the 'return' of measles in Germany because quite a few parents refuse to vaccinate their children against them, claiming that "it is good for the body to battle a virus, for after the children have overcome measles, their immune system will be strenghtened."
One should show these ignorant parents some children who were not that lucky in their battle with measles, i. e. who contracted meningitis with permanent brain damage.
It's ironic, isn't it: we pity the third-world countries, where countless poor children die every day because no vaccination serum is available, and what are some parents in our affluent countries doing: they refuse to vaccinate their children based on some obscure beliefs.
Imo parents who refuse to vaccinate their children play Russian Roulette with their health.
Sorry about the off-topic rant, folks, but I just had to vent!

[thewhitewitch1]

That IMO about where the fibers came from. I still think PR most likely wore a robe when up around midnight.

And she was questioned about a robe. I will have to go look it up but among the fibers found, I believe there were some pink ones that may have come from Patsys robe. Since it took the LE weeks to gather all of the "evidence" from the house and Pam Paugh removed many things from it shortly after the murder, her bathrobe may have been removed at that time and a connection to it would have never been made. P was asked about the robe in the interview months after the fact and all we have (again) is her word about what color her robe was and I believe she was never asked to hand it over.
I am reciting this from memory so I hope I have my "facts" straight.
LindaA, maybe Patsy did have a reaction like you described. I fail to see how that would make her rumpled and sweaty so much that a little deoderant and/or cologne wouldn't cover it. How gross do you get when you sweat or vomit? I can't imagine it would be obvious from your clothes. Besides, as I said, wouldn't she have gotten the same way from her hysterical running around and hyperventilating after finding the RN?
As far as JR goes and his help with the staging, how do we know he wasn't just wearing his underclothes?
Question...does anyone know what color the blanket was that was found in the suitcase under the window? Was it black? Was it the blanket that was normally on JARs bed?

[sweetcharlotte]

Wow, a lot of my friends smoked in 1996, and many of them are still smoking today - in their houses, in their cars, on the way from the car to the store or restaurant...

Even if Patsy didn't smoke then and John only smoked cigars, that doesn't mean no one else at the Whites' party was smoking. And now that I consider, a Christmas party is a pretty good place to enjoy a cigar with friends.

We don't know for sure if the Whites smoke, or that no one was smoking at their party, and even if individual posters here don't, that still doesn't mean no one there was. There's certainly no requirement to be French to enjoy a cigarette or cigar...but that reminds me of what a Francophile Patsy was.

And we don't know if anyone WAS smoking but I'd be willing to bet with children around they were not smoking in the house. JMO

[LindaA]

If you sweat into your clothes your clothes smell sweaty. Applying deoderant to your body won't change that. If you vomit some may splash on your clothes and that would be obvious.

I'd be interested in reading your link to the pink fiber dicsussion as I've never heard that before. WHat would stop LE from subpeoning the robes or anything else the R's had had Pam remove from the house?

And yes, KC, as I live in a 3 storey home myself, I am aware that heat rises. ;) That's part of my point. Since it was said that the basement was very warm, I would assume -- perhaps incorrectly -- that the rest of the house was warmer than the basement.

[bullmoose]

I recall something being said about PR having fur lined boots (not sure if that is a fact) but I don't recall reading about her waring a fur coat... I remember ColoradoKares stating that Patsy Ramsey had a beaver coat and boots; when I asked for a link, as I 'd never heard that before, she came up with a link to a 1997 National Enquirer article stating that; Alas, only the old reliable unnamed source was quoted: the RUS also stated that an arrest was expected any day; since obviously that had never occurred I reluctantly had to discount the otherwise overwhelming proof of a RUS.:biggrin:

[Zoey]

If you sweat into your clothes your clothes smell sweaty. Applying deoderant to your body won't change that. If you vomit some may splash on your clothes and that would be obvious.

I'd be interested in reading your link to the pink fiber dicsussion as I've never heard that before. WHat would stop LE from subpeoning the robes or anything else the R's had had Pam remove from the house?

And yes, KC, as I live in a 3 storey home myself, I am aware that heat rises. ;) That's part of my point. Since it was said that the basement was very warm, I would assume -- perhaps incorrectly -- that the rest of the house was warmer than the basement.

LindaA, I have wondered the same thing about the items that Pam took out. If anything she took out was suspicious, why would she not be issued a subpeona to return those items for inspection?

I believe it was in DOI that I read that she had a list of items that she was being requested to get out of the home, and the LE kept another list of the items as she was putting them in the car. So, if everyone had a list, surely, IMO, they would have known what was coming out of that house.

[Zoey]

I remember ColoradoKares stating that Patsy Ramsey had a beaver coat and boots; when I asked for a link, as I 'd never heard that before, she came up with a link to a 1997 National Enquirer article stating that; Alas, only the old reliable unnamed source was quoted: the RUS also stated that an arrest was expected any day; since obviously that had never occurred I reluctantly had to discount the otherwise overwhelming proof of a RUS.:biggrin:


Link to picture of Patsy's fur boots and hat. Don't have one to the fur coat, though, sorry.

http://s79.photobucket.com/albums/j149/whynut/?action=view&current=patsyfurboots.jpg

[KingCoyote]

Let me see if I can respond to all comments in one fell swoop:
NuisancePoster:

The brown/tan fibers confuse me somewhat. At first I simply thought of transferrance from your standard "Jersey Gloves" which I have several pairs of. They are light to medium brown in color. I speculated that they may just come from workers who used that area on and off including maybe the Pughs when the unloaded Christmas Decorations. I have also speculated that the killer wore a pair even availing him or herself of a pair that had been left in the basement area prior to the killing. (I actually got that idea when my plumber left a pair of gloves in a work area in my house but I recognized them as his usual style and he picked them up the next appointment).

I also have a little problem with the duct tape itself. I have heard through other forums that this particular duct tape does not have strong adhesive quality. One would think that any duct tape torn from a roll has its strongest adhesive quality immediately after being torn from the roll....(I am not sure what that means to the case...I am just winging it right now.)

If the duct tape's adhesive quality was, in fact, low then you can speculate that the duct tape was either low quality or recently removed from some other object where the adhesive has been drying due to aeration. If it was attached to some previous object prior to being used on JBR, then it is not a great leap that the brown/tan fibers possibly came from a workman who applied the tape to the previous object. You could even go all the way to transferance if a gloved worker picked up the object that the tape was previously applied to. If I remember correctly JR was asked about that and was somewhat sure that the tape was tightly affixed to JBR's mouth but I really haven't anayzed the issue. Let me think more about the matrix of possibilities of this duct tape and how it could have come in contact with the fibers.

LindaA:

My memory is working a little better right now but not perfect. I believe the Ramseys house has some radiator heat in the house and may not have been heated evenly. I grew up with radiator heat and can attest that you melt in some areas of the house and shiver in others. Just a possibility though.

To Whom It May Concern:

Please post any info regarding pink robe and pink fibers...I have missed that one completely!

Rashomon:

See PR 1998 Interview Pages 304-307 (circa) for discussion of PR clothing, boots, furs, etc.

Somebody send the Beer Man this way if you see him.

Whew, I am thirsty.

KingCoyote

[Louisadelmar]

I remember ColoradoKares stating that Patsy Ramsey had a beaver coat and boots; when I asked for a link, as I 'd never heard that before, she came up with a link to a 1997 National Enquirer article stating that; Alas, only the old reliable unnamed source was quoted: the RUS also stated that an arrest was expected any day; since obviously that had never occurred I reluctantly had to discount the otherwise overwhelming proof of a RUS.:biggrin:

A beaver coat and boots that never shed in a single closet in the house.
Kind of reminds me of Patsy's magic makeup which still looks fresh after 15 hours. I want some.

[elvislives]

we can now observe the 'return' of measles in Germany because quite a few parents refuse to vaccinate their children against them, claiming that "it is good for the body to battle a virus, for after the children have overcome measles, their immune system will be strenghtened."
One should show these ignorant parents some children who were not that lucky in their battle with measles, i. e. who contracted meningitis with permanent brain damage.



We in the US have also seen the return of measles. And these irresponsible parents are not only risking the health of their own children, but of the community at large--esp. infants, pregnant women, and others who have compromised or supressed immune systems.

You and I could probably rant about this endlessly! It is definitely one of my hot buttons...

[shill]

But all of these fibers belionging to Patsy's jacket were found in very incriminating locations: on the duct tape which covered JB's mouth, in the garrote handle wrappings, and in the paint tray. Is it a far stretch to assume that the person who left the fibers there was wearing Patsy's jacket?
No one would do painting with her Christmas party clothes on. So how did those fibers get into the paint tray?
Why were Patsy's fiber not found on other parts of JB's body, but only in locations connected to the actual crime itself?
Imo this makes the fiber evidence against Patsy very damaging.
Are you saying you have read a LE report that no other fibers from Patsy's jacket were found on JB's body?
Are you saying the killer never touched JB?
Are you saying there is no way fibers could transfer to the killers hands?
The killer touched/ tied the garrote and ligature?
The killer touched the tape on JB's mouth?
The killer touched the paintbrush and broke it and put the broken bristle end of the paintbrush back in the tote where the fibers are found?
Are you saying you have read that LE has matched the beaver fur to something in the Ramseys house?

[thewhitewitch1]

KC...I am still searching for the list of the fibers found in/near the crime scene. No luck so far. :mad: I swear I saw it somewhere.

[Jayelles]

In terms of the 'vaccination slackness': don't get me started on that topic either for I'll go through the roof too, Elvislives,!
It's the same in Germany as in the US: although we have excellent medical care here for children and all vaccinations are covered by insurance, parents are neither required to take their children to the doctor nor to have them vaccinated. As opposed to countries where vaccinating children is mandatory, we can now observe the 'return' of measles in Germany because quite a few parents refuse to vaccinate their children against them, claiming that "it is good for the body to battle a virus, for after the children have overcome measles, their immune system will be strenghtened."
One should show these ignorant parents some children who were not that lucky in their battle with measles, i. e. who contracted meningitis with permanent brain damage.
It's ironic, isn't it: we pity the third-world countries, where countless poor children die every day because no vaccination serum is available, and what are some parents in our affluent countries doing: they refuse to vaccinate their children based on some obscure beliefs.
Imo parents who refuse to vaccinate their children play Russian Roulette with their health.
Sorry about the off-topic rant, folks, but I just had to vent!

We are also seeing a resurgence of measles here, but it's mainly attributed to fears about the MMR causing autism and the difficulty which parents have faced in getting separate vaccines. Measles is awful. I know three people who are deaf as a result of getting measles.

[Jayelles]

They don't give you a hot wash clothe at the beginning of a flight, they give it to you at the end.
Why should Patsy take a shower before the flight instead of after?

Patsy wrote about wanting to make a good impression on her future son-in-law Stewart Long. The plan was for the Ramseys to fly to Minneaplolis. meet JAR, Melinda and Stewart there and for all of them to fly in the Ramsey plane to Charlevoix. Therefore, Patsy wouldn't have an opportunity to "freshen up" before making her impression on the young doctor.

Patsy doesn't actually specify WHEN she last had a shower. In her 1997 interview, she said she didn't have a shower on the morning of 26th but didn't mention that the shower was broken. In the same interview, she says she doesn't recall whether they had showers on Christmas Day. I find this odd. If her shower was broken - surely that would make a shower more memorable? Either from the POV of it being a troublesome experience for the showeree OR from the POV that the showeree had to take a shower elsewhere in the house? In my experience, trouble-free, routine activities are the least memorable.

[Tober]

Though secondary transfer might account for fibers from Patsy's jacket being on the duct tape, can it really account for those fibers being in the paint tray? Based on Patsy's own words, those particular fibers shouldn't be in the paint tray. Remember, too, that Patsy said there were no broken paint brushes in the tray prior to JonBenet being killed. The tray was located outside of the "body room." So we have fibers from the very jacket Patsy was wearing when JonBenet was last seen alive found in the body room (tied into the neck ligature, on the sticky side of the duct tape) and outside the body room in the paint tray, the very tray from which JonBenet's killer took the paint brush handle which was used to make the "fake garrote" neck ligature. The most logical explanation for the fibers in the tray is that Patsy used/had contact with the tray while wearing that jacket prior to or during JonBenet being killed. On the basis that Patsy said she never wore that jacket while painting, we can eliminate those fibers being deposited there prior to JonBenet being killed. We cannot, however, eliminate those fibers being deposited in the tray at the time JonBenet was killed on the very basis that they were found in the tray.

[shill]

Though secondary transfer might account for fibers from Patsy's jacket being on the duct tape, can it really account for those fibers being in the paint tray?
I'll talk slower this time for you Tober.
JB was carried to the basement boiler room. It would take both hands to carry her touching her body and transferring fibers. With fibers on his hands, the killer fishes around in the paint tote for the right brush, transferring fibers. After selecting a brush, he breaks off the bristle end with his hands, transferring fibers to that piece which he tosses back into the tote transferring more fibers into the tote. Funny how brushes are used to sweep up fibers and the brush was tossed back into the tote after sweeping on the killer’s hand. Based on Patsy's own words, those particular fibers shouldn't be in the paint tray. Remember, too, that Patsy said there were no broken paintbrushes in the tray prior to JonBenet being killed. The tray was located outside of the "body room." So we have fibers from the very jacket Patsy was wearing when JonBenet was last seen alive found in the body room (tied into the neck ligature, on the sticky side of the duct tape) and outside the body room in the paint tray, the very tray from which JonBenet's killer took the paint brush handle which was used to make the "fake garrote" neck ligature. Patsy didn't wear her jacket around the paint tote, hence her statement. Logically you have to conclude it was second hand transfer. Nor is the garrote "fake"
You make me laugh every time you start talking how logical your conclusions are based on your opinion of the evidence being lies and fakes.
The only logical conclusion is that your wrong and you have to say the witness is a liar and the evidence is make believe for your allegations to fit the crime.
The most logical explanation for the fibers in the tray is that Patsy used/had contact with the tray while wearing that jacket prior to or during JonBenet being killed.The most logical explanation for the fibers in the tray is that the Killer used/had contact with the tray prior to or during JonBenet being killed. On the basis that Patsy said she never wore that jacket while painting, we can eliminate those fibers being deposited there prior to JonBenet being killed. We cannot, however, eliminate those fibers being deposited in the tray at the time JonBenet was killed on the very basis that they were found in the tray.
Duh!

[thewhitewitch1]

I'll talk slower this time for you Tober.
JB was carried to the basement boiler room. It would take both hands to carry her touching her body and transferring fibers. With fibers on his hands, the killer fishes around in the paint tote for the right brush, transferring fibers. After selecting a brush, he breaks off the bristle end with his hands, transferring fibers to that piece which he tosses back into the tote transferring more fibers into the tote. Funny how brushes are used to sweep up fibers and the brush was tossed back into the tote after sweeping on the killer’s hand. Patsy didn't wear her jacket around the paint tote, hence her statement. Logically you have to conclude it was second hand transfer. Nor is the garrote "fake"
You make me laugh every time you start talking how logical your conclusions are based on your opinion of the evidence being lies and fakes.
The only logical conclusion is that your wrong and you have to say the witness is a liar and the evidence is make believe for your allegations to fit the crime.
The most logical explanation for the fibers in the tray is that the Killer used/had contact with the tray prior to or during JonBenet being killed.
Duh!

Shill, it's amazing how you take every word the Ramseys say as the truth. You allow no possibility for them to be lying and this is what you base your opinion on as "the only logical conclusion". It isn't the only logical conclusion.
You wouldn't make a very good detective. IMO

[User615]

Patsy's personality, background, and circumstances were such that it's highly unlikely she was in the habit of sometimes wearing the same clothes two days in a row. The notion that she was is based on conjecture, rather than on Patsy's actual situation. This post is my opinion.

Since those clothes had only been worn for a few hours at a party the night before, I don't see it as a stretch that she would have worn them the next day to fly to Michigan, where no one there would have seen them on her the night before. Remember, they were already packed for a trip to Michigan, and later a cruise. Maybe most of her favorite things were already in clothes bags or suitcases. This was also a Xmas outfit, and fitting to wear that day, or later that week. Since all she would be doing that day is sitting on a plane, I don't find it that unusual.

[Zoey]

Since those clothes had only been worn for a few hours at a party the night before, I don't see it as a stretch that she would have worn them the next day to fly to Michigan, where no one there would have seen them on her the night before. Remember, they were already packed for a trip to Michigan, and later a cruise. Maybe most of her favorite things were already in clothes bags or suitcases. This was also a Xmas outfit, and fitting to wear that day, or later that week. Since all she would be doing that day is sitting on a plane, I don't find it that unusual.

My sentiments exactly!

[shill]

Shill, it's amazing how you take every word the Ramseys say as the truth. You allow no possibility for them to be lying and this is what you base your opinion on as "the only logical conclusion". It isn't the only logical conclusion.
You wouldn't make a very good detective. IMO

People say we never landed on the moon and the government lied to us about it and a lot of people believe that. Should I believe the Government or those who say they are lying?

I take what the Ramseys say as truth because it fits the evidence.
Just because the evidence doesn't fit them being the killers doesn't mean I'm going to consider them liars and the crime scene staged just so I can make them fit as suspects.
If that makes me a bad detective, then so be it. At least I am relying on eyewitnesses and evidence and not excluding them to justify my conclusions.

Saying they are guilty and trying to make everything about the crime scene point to them IMO is not detective work at all, it's a witch trial.

[bullmoose]

People say we never landed on the moon and the government lied to us about it and a lot of people believe that. Should I believe the Government or those who say they are lying?

I take what the Ramseys say as truth because it fits the evidence.
Just because the evidence doesn't fit them being the killers doesn't mean I'm going to consider them liars and the crime scene staged just so I can make them fit as suspects.
If that makes me a bad detective, then so be it. At least I am relying on eyewitnesses and evidence and not excluding them to justify my conclusions.

Saying they are guilty and trying to make everything about the crime scene point to them IMO is not detective work at all, it's a witch trial.I would hope, shill, that I can be considered to be as bad of a detective as you by those RDI's that think so. I would consider that to be a compliment.:beer:

[thewhitewitch1]

People say we never landed on the moon and the government lied to us about it and a lot of people believe that. Should I believe the Government or those who say they are lying?

I take what the Ramseys say as truth because it fits the evidence.
Just because the evidence doesn't fit them being the killers doesn't mean I'm going to consider them liars and the crime scene staged just so I can make them fit as suspects.
If that makes me a bad detective, then so be it. At least I am relying on eyewitnesses and evidence and not excluding them to justify my conclusions.

Saying they are guilty and trying to make everything about the crime scene point to them IMO is not detective work at all, it's a witch trial.


Unfortunately, much of the evidence does point to them. You (and others) find excuses to point the evidence away from the Ramseys.
I guess it's all in how you look at things.

[shill]

Unfortunately, much of the evidence does point to them. You (and others) find excuses to point the evidence away from the Ramseys.
I guess it's all in how you look at things.

It points to them when you disregard their testimony and choose to look at the evidence as a cover up.
So if you look at it that way, it is all in how you look at it.
I look at it at it's face value as it appears, not as lies, staging, and prosecution conspiracies.

And I believe we put a man on the moon.:patriot:

[Louisadelmar]

Unfortunately, much of the evidence does point to them. You (and others) find excuses to point the evidence away from the Ramseys.
I guess it's all in how you look at things.

I think part of the problem is nobody else can be discussed in any kind of depth. I would love to have transcripts of the interviews with LHP and her family members, the Whites, McSantas, and whoever else has come up. I'd love to know their handwriting 'scores' and see their samples. I'd like some time tables of what they were doing when and to know who their friends, habits and hobbies are. What movies had they seen? What clothes had they been wearing?

Before Gary Ridgeway was arrested there were several good suspects. People in LE (and elsewhere) had their favorites and they vociferously defended their beliefs. I can't remember who Ann Rule thought was 'good for it' but it wasn't Ridgeway. In Green River,Running Red she talks about the fierceness of the disagreements within LE over these suspects.

Here, the Ramseys are the only ones about whom we have information to discuss. Those of us who don't believe they did this can only explain why we don't think the evidence points to them. The lack of information on others completely limits the discussion.

I would love to have a suspect. But until more information is available about a wide range of people I can't get too excited about any one person.

[packer48]

Since those clothes had only been worn for a few hours at a party the night before, I don't see it as a stretch that she would have worn them the next day to fly to Michigan, where no one there would have seen them on her the night before. Remember, they were already packed for a trip to Michigan, and later a cruise. Maybe most of her favorite things were already in clothes bags or suitcases. This was also a Xmas outfit, and fitting to wear that day, or later that week. Since all she would be doing that day is sitting on a plane, I don't find it that unusual.

Well, i find it unusual.
Who in the world would want to put back on thier DRESS UP clothes from the night before.
If I was taking a plane ride I'd want to be comfortable in casual close.

It was mentioned that they were not the neatest people in the world, I can just imagine that Patsy's bedroom was strewn with all kinds of clothes she could have grabbed to put on.

JMHO

packer

[shill]

I think part of the problem is nobody else can be discussed in any kind of depth. I would love to have transcripts of the interviews with LHP and her family members, the Whites, McSantas, and whoever else has come up. I'd love to know their handwriting 'scores' and see their samples. I'd like some time tables of what they were doing when and to know who their friends, habits and hobbies are. What movies had they seen? What clothes had they been wearing?

Before Gary Ridgeway was arrested there were several good suspects. People in LE (and elsewhere) had their favorites and they vociferously defended their beliefs. I can't remember who Ann Rule thought was 'good for it' but it wasn't Ridgeway. In Green River,Running Red she talks about the fierceness of the disagreements within LE over these suspects.

Here, the Ramseys are the only ones about whom we have information to discuss. Those of us who don't believe they did this can only explain why we don't think the evidence points to them. The lack of information on others completely limits the discussion.

I would love to have a suspect. But until more information is available about a wide range of people I can't get too excited about any one person.

I totally agree.

But pursuing other suspects leaves the RDI's out of the conversation because the only response they have is "couldn't be someone else because we know the Ramseys did it" It seems all that the public forums discuss is the RDI because that's the only large source of public info we have as you stated.

That's why I belong to a private web site where we discuss the different suspects with what little info we have on them.
PM me if you want to join Louisadelmar.

[Tober]

I've commented before how I'm of the opinion that Patsy wore the same clothes because she felt she had to for some reason. I wonder if she did so for the purpose of getting them out of the house? The police didn't realize she had on the same clothes when they arrived that she wore the previous night until after the photos from the White's were developed. By wearing them on Dec. 26 she could easily get them out of the house without arousing police suspicion. Perhaps she feared that if she left them there, they'd be taken into evidence. Maybe that's what she was trying to avoid. This post is my opinion.

[bullmoose]

I've commented before how I'm of the opinion that Patsy wore the same clothes because she felt she had to for some reason. I wonder if she did so for the purpose of getting them out of the house? The police didn't realize she had on the same clothes when they arrived that she wore the previous night until after the photos from the White's were developed. By wearing them on Dec. 26 she could easily get them out of the house without arousing police suspicion. Perhaps she feared that if she left them there, they'd be taken into evidence. Maybe that's what she was trying to avoid. This post is my opinion.The evil master criminals John and Patsy cleverly schemed to sneak the clothes that Patsy wore when first bopping her daughter, then strangling and abusing her[sequence insisted upon by PDI's,not believed by most] out past the unassuming yet heroic BPD. This group of supersleuths, led by Synthroid Stevie were not fooled by their diabolic trickery for long; in fact only a year later the BPD asked for the clothes worn that day by the trickster Ramseys to compare with fibers found by the BPD in their investigation.Snap! Lightning speed! By the quick reaction of the BPD, Patsy was foiled from her fiendishly clever plot to keep her clothes from being taken into evidence. How can any evildoers ever think that they can fool such Sherlocks as these? Why don't the guilty parties just confess to their crimes when faced with the inevitable solving of the case by these Colorado Crimefighters? They will never rest until justice is done, although they might quit and write a book espousing their opinions. Of course, thats different, right? All of this, of course, is JMHO.:biggrin:

[shill]

I've commented before how I'm of the opinion that Patsy wore the same clothes because she felt she had to for some reason. I wonder if she did so for the purpose of getting them out of the house? The police didn't realize she had on the same clothes when they arrived that she wore the previous night until after the photos from the White's were developed. By wearing them on Dec. 26 she could easily get them out of the house without arousing police suspicion. Perhaps she feared that if she left them there, they'd be taken into evidence. Maybe that's what she was trying to avoid. This post is my opinion.

She should have put her clothes in JB's coffin with the scarf, that's the smart way of getting rid of evidence.

[Tober]

Patsy didn't wear her jacket around the paint tote, hence her statement.

And therein lies the problem. We essentially have two options for Patsy's jacket fibers being deposited in the paint tote: 1) They were deposited there prior to JonBenet being killed; or 2) They were deposited there during JonBenet being killed. Patsy's own statements eliminate option number one. What does that leave us with? (This post is my opinion.)

[Zoey]

And therein lies the problem. We essentially have two options for Patsy's jacket fibers being deposited in the paint tote: 1) They were deposited there prior to JonBenet being killed; or 2) They were deposited there during JonBenet being killed. Patsy's own statements eliminate option number one. What does that leave us with? (This post is my opinion.)

At one time the paint tote was upstairs. IMO, Patsy probably wore the infamous jacket with the infamous fibers more than just that one time, that one day. Fibers could have gotten in the paint tray then, and when LH-P took it downstairs, she took the fibers with her and they were then deposited downstairs.

[Tober]

At one time the paint tote was upstairs. IMO, Patsy probably wore the infamous jacket with the infamous fibers more than just that one time, that one day. Fibers could have gotten in the paint tray then, and when LH-P took it downstairs, she took the fibers with her and they were then deposited downstairs.

Every contact leaves a trace. The more complicated a scenario, the less likely it is to be true. What is the contact scenario that deposits fibers from a jacket Patsy said she never wore while painting, in the paint tote? How does the scenario you present account for those fibers being "tied into" the neck ligature? Remember, we have those fibers from Patsy's jacket found in the body room (on the blanket JonBenet was wrapped in, tied into the neck ligature, on the sticky side of the duct tape) and outside of the body room (in the paint tote). This post is my opinion.

[LindaA]

PR put JBR to bed that night, holding her in order to change her into her night clothes and transferring her fibers to JBR's hair, body, and clothes. When JBR was killed, we have no idea how close to the paint tote she may have been at any point in time, but it is not unreasonable to infer -- to use Tober's favorite word -- that she was close to it at some time. It is also not unreasonable to infer that the killer whether they be a Ramsey or an intruder may have transferred the fibers from JBR to the paint tote when he/she took the paintbrush out of it to use in the garotte.

[elvislives]

She should have put her clothes in JB's coffin with the scarf, that's the smart way of getting rid of evidence.

Too funny. And just to throw my opinion into the ring, I don't think JR is so stupid to have buried the murder weapon with JB. If that scarf was the murder weapon, he would have burned it or cut it up into a thousand pieces and flushed it down the toilet. Some of you people read things into everything.

[Zoey]

Every contact leaves a trace. The more complicated a scenario, the less likely it is to be true. What is the contact scenario that deposits fibers from a jacket Patsy said she never wore while painting, in the paint tote? How does the scenario you present account for those fibers being "tied into" the neck ligature? Remember, we have those fibers from Patsy's jacket found in the body room (on the blanket JonBenet was wrapped in, tied into the neck ligature, on the sticky side of the duct tape) and outside of the body room (in the paint tote). This post is my opinion.

Patsy wore the jacket in the house. It was her house. The paint tote was in her house, where she wore the jacket. Regardless whether she wore it to paint in it or not, fibers have a tendancy to transfer from one place to another.

Patsy wore the jacket to the party. She then tucked little JB into bed, hugged her and went about her business. Transferance of fibers from the jacket to JB's hair, body, bedding, clothing, etc.

Duct tape was taken off JB's mouth and dropped on the blanket. Same blanket that some say was on JB's bed, the same bed where Patsy tucked her little girl in, hugged her and went about her business. Transferance of fibers from the jacket to JB's hair, body, bedding, clothing, etc.

[Zoey]

This is just my own opinion, but here goes:

I am sitting here at my home at my computer. I look around my home. On my couch I notice a white hair. I don't have white hair, nor do my grandchildren. Hmmmm...wonder where that came from? Light goes on....ahhh yes, my sister has a white dog. White dog has never been to my house. Hmmmm...must have carried it with me from my sister's to my house.

Go out in my vehicle. Look around. Hmmm...brown fibers, white hairr, pink fibers. Now where did those come from? Let's see, I helped my BIL move some wood. He gave me some gloves to wear. The fibers must have gotten on my hands or clothing and transferred to my vehicle. White hairs, I assume are hairs from that dang dog again.

Pink fibers. Hmmmm...I don't have anything pink. Don't like the color. Reminds me of Pepto Bismol and I hate that stuff. Pink fibers...ahhh yes. My little granddaughter wore a pink sweater about a week ago and I picked her up to go swimming. I wonder if that could be the source of those fibers.

Fibers move from place to place. It is not a stretch of an IDI's imagination to think that fibers from Patsy or John or Burke could not be in places they should not be. It was their home. I would be more suspicious if there were no fibers from the Ramsey's.

This is all just my opinion, of course.

[bullmoose]

Every contact leaves a trace. The more complicated a scenario, the less likely it is to be true. What is the contact scenario that deposits fibers from a jacket Patsy said she never wore while painting, in the paint tote? How does the scenario you present account for those fibers being "tied into" the neck ligature? Remember, we have those fibers from Patsy's jacket found in the body room (on the blanket JonBenet was wrapped in, tied into the neck ligature, on the sticky side of the duct tape) and outside of the body room (in the paint tote). This post is my opinion.
Tober: You are very close telling us your true name when you say "we have those fibers." Come on , fess up to your true identity, you can do it. This post is my opinion.

[Coloradokares]

Tober: You are very close telling us your true name when you say "we have those fibers." Come on , fess up to your true identity, you can do it. This post is my opinion.

Bullmoose I am parking on this to live up to a long awaited promise from me to you to provide you with a picture of the Beaver Boots. Remember? Well I got real sick and ended up in the hospital...very ill. I want one opportunity before leaving the link I promised you to say I don't hate this forum or its posters. Most of all I don't hate the Ramseys I forget who said I did was it supposedly shill...I don't hate anyone that alone the Ramseys. And....to all naysayers I always provide what I say no matter how long it might take. But this is the last time I waste what strength I have left to live up to something I promised someone regarding the Ramsey Murder. My life has become infintely more valuable to me in the last weeks. Spending time in intensive care does that. Sorry Elvis lives if you really want me I'll find a way to chat with you about the local perspective. But at last Bullmoose to you the long awaited link on the Patsy Ramsey Beaver Boots. Here is your picture.

http://s79.photobucket.com/albums/j149/whynut/?action=view&current=patsyfurboots.jpg


hope this helps your quest. CK

[sweetcharlotte]

Interesting. Zoey posted the same link I believe on the 24th.

http://s79.photobucket.com/albums/j149/whynut/?action=view&current=patsyfurboots.jpg

[bullmoose]

But when was the photo taken:?what kind of fur is she wearing.? The picture is pretty grainy, So while it is interesting, is there beaver fur or some other kind or faux fur? It's not at all clear.

[Zoey]

But when was the photo taken:?what kind of fur is she wearing.? The picture is pretty grainy, So while it is interesting, is there beaver fur or some other kind or faux fur? It's not at all clear.

Very good questions Bullmoose, of which I have no answers. Just like most everything else in this case, you can find a lot of information but it is never quite enough. Someone posts a picture on a website, and you think, great, that just goes to show you she had beaver boots. But it really doesn't show that, does it? It shows she had boots. :shrug:

[shill]

Every contact leaves a trace. The more complicated a scenario, the less likely it is to be true. What is the contact scenario that deposits fibers from a jacket Patsy said she never wore while painting, in the paint tote? How does the scenario you present account for those fibers being "tied into" the neck ligature? Remember, we have those fibers from Patsy's jacket found in the body room (on the blanket JonBenet was wrapped in, tied into the neck ligature, on the sticky side of the duct tape) and outside of the body room (in the paint tote). This post is my opinion.

Fibers tied into the ligature, fibers on the tape, and fibers in the tote. All these fiber traces are from hand contact with the items, not direct contact with the jacket. They are second hand transfer, not direct.

[Tober]

When I have the time, we'll examine a secondary transfer scenario to determine how likely it is to have occurred. This post is my opinion.

[Tober]

Patsy wore the jacket to the party. She then tucked little JB into bed, hugged her and went about her business. Transferance of fibers from the jacket to JB's hair, body, bedding, clothing, etc.

The problem I see with that scenario is that Patsy's jacket fibers weren't found in JonBenet's bed. I find it highly unlikely that those fibers would transfer from Patsy to JonBenet, but wouldn't transfer to JonBenet's bed from Patsy and/or JonBenet, but would transfer from JonBenet to her killer, and then from the killer to the paint tote. This post is my opinion.

[sweetcharlotte]

The problem I see is that we don't know that the fibers in question were from Patsy's jacket. If I recall correctly the fibers were identified as being "consistent with" - which according to Dr. Lee does not mean "same as."

What about the other unidentified 4000 fibers found in the house. Where were those fibers found and what were they "consistent with?"

[Tober]

The problem I see is that we don't know that the fibers in question were from Patsy's jacket. If I recall correctly the fibers were identified as being "consistent with" - which according to Dr. Lee does not mean "same as."

It's highly unlikely that there was another jacket of that type in the home, owned by someone other than Patsy, at the time JonBenet died. This post is my opinion.

[Tober]

What about the other unidentified 4000 fibers found in the house. Where were those fibers found and what were they "consistent with?"

Our concern is fibers directly associated with elements of the crime. This post is my opinion.

[sweetcharlotte]

It's highly unlikely that there was another jacket of that type in the home, owned by someone other than Patsy, at the time JonBenet died. This post is my opinion.

It is not highly unlikely that there was another jacket of that type in the home, owned by someone other than Patsy, at some point in time. Fibers in paint tray weren't necessarily depoisted at the time of JonBenet's death. Fibers on JonBenet from her mother's jacket - not a problem. Patsy's jacket, Patsy's house, Patsy's child. IMO

[Athena]

Can someone please identify a source as to the conclusion that red fibers were found in the garrotte and the paint tray other than the questions posed to PR RE: them.

Even ST only says the fibers were found on the duct tape based on a report by CBI.

It is known that these fibers were found or just part of the questioning prepared to try to trip PR up?

[sweetcharlotte]

Our concern is fibers directly associated with elements of the crime. This post is my opinion.

The house was the crime scene. Anything found in it that can't be ruled out as being related to the crime should be of concern - including the 4000 fibers that have not been identified. This is my opinion.

[Louisadelmar]

I'd like to know where else these red fibers were found. If they did come from Patsy's jacket they should have also been found in the sunroom, in her bedroom, and anywhere else she spent time. Otherwise we have a jacket that appears to shed a single color, and only shed that at the crime scene.

[thewhitewitch1]

I'd like to know where else these red fibers were found. If they did come from Patsy's jacket they should have also been found in the sunroom, in her bedroom, and anywhere else she spent time. Otherwise we have a jacket that appears to shed a single color, and only shed that at the crime scene.

I'm sure her jacket fibers were found elswhere in the house. You're not going to read about it because who is going to publicize that "Patsy Ramseys jacket fibers were found throughout the house" when such a thing would be normal. We've heard about them being in the paint tote etc because it was at the actual crime scene. IMO

[Zoey]

The problem I see with that scenario is that Patsy's jacket fibers weren't found in JonBenet's bed. I find it highly unlikely that those fibers would transfer from Patsy to JonBenet, but wouldn't transfer to JonBenet's bed from Patsy and/or JonBenet, but would transfer from JonBenet to her killer, and then from the killer to the paint tote. This post is my opinion.


The problem I see is we don't know for a fact that Patsy's fibers from the jacket were not found in JB's bed. Not every little bit of information has been released. This post is my opinion.

[sweetcharlotte]

Page 182, PM/PT - ISBN 0-06-019153-8

"Patsy started to take a painting class, and JonBenet drew a lot with crayons and markers. People and flowers. They had a big easel, but most of the time JonBenet painted on a card table in the butler's kitchen. Patsy had her paints and brushes in a white paint tote. Sometimes she asked me to take her paints down to the basement when she was having some kind of party. That's what she'd say about everything, any kind of clutter: "Just take it down to the basement. I don't want to see it." On the day of the Ramseys' Christmas party, I took the paint tote downstairs."
Linda Hoffman-Pugh

If I recall correctly the party was on the 23rd. I wonder if Patsy wore her jacket any other time during the months of Nov/Dec. Changes are she did - IMO.

[sweetcharlotte]

Above post should read "Chances" NOT "changes."

[thewhitewitch1]

Page 182, PM/PT - ISBN 0-06-019153-8

"Patsy started to take a painting class, and JonBenet drew a lot with crayons and markers. People and flowers. They had a big easel, but most of the time JonBenet painted on a card table in the butler's kitchen. Patsy had her paints and brushes in a white paint tote. Sometimes she asked me to take her paints down to the basement when she was having some kind of party. That's what she'd say about everything, any kind of clutter: "Just take it down to the basement. I don't want to see it." On the day of the Ramseys' Christmas party, I took the paint tote downstairs."
Linda Hoffman-Pugh

If I recall correctly the party was on the 23rd. I wonder if Patsy wore her jacket any other time during the months of Nov/Dec. Changes are she did - IMO.

"Chances are she did" is mere speculation. I believe she was asked the last time she painted and if she wore that jacket while she painted. I'd have to look up her answers but I believe she hadn't painted in a while and never wore the jacket when she did so for her fibers to be there is a long stretch.
If LHP took the tote to the basement, why weren't fibers from HER clothes in it? Or were they? If they were, innocent explanation. IMO

[sweetcharlotte]

"Chances are she did" is mere speculation. I believe she was asked the last time she painted and if she wore that jacket while she painted. I'd have to look up her answers but I believe she hadn't painted in a while and never wore the jacket when she did so for her fibers to be there is a long stretch.
If LHP took the tote to the basement, why weren't fibers from HER clothes in it? Or were they? If they were, innocent explanation. IMO\

Well of course it's speculation. She wouldn't necessarily have to be painting for fibers from her jacket to get in the tray though, right?

Maybe there were fibers from LHP's clothes in the tray. I don't know, do you? Are you saying an innocent explanation as to why LHP's fibers would be in the tote? Wouldn't the same apply to Patsy? Patsy's house, her tote, her jacket?

[Zoey]

"Chances are she did" is mere speculation. I believe she was asked the last time she painted and if she wore that jacket while she painted. I'd have to look up her answers but I believe she hadn't painted in a while and never wore the jacket when she did so for her fibers to be there is a long stretch.
If LHP took the tote to the basement, why weren't fibers from HER clothes in it? Or were they? If they were, innocent explanation. IMO

LHP's fibers in the tote would be an innocent explanation why? She carries the tote to the basement and so that makes an innocent explanation?

Patsy lives in that house, IMO, probably wore that jacket more than once, tote was normally kept upstairs, but her fibers in the tote could only have gotten in there when she reached for the paintbrush to sexually abuse her daughter?

Let's say the tote was kept by the china hutch (hypothetical, of course). Patsy has the jacket on one day, reaches for a cup out of the china hutch, fibers fall in there, tote gets taken downstairs. Seems like an innocent explanation could be used for Patsy as well, IMO.

[Tober]

Patsy lives in that house, IMO, probably wore that jacket more than once, tote was normally kept upstairs, but her fibers in the tote could only have gotten in there when she reached for the paintbrush to sexually abuse her daughter?

Statements made by suspects are evidence. Patsy's own statements greatly reduce (if not eliminate) the probability that fibers from her jacket were deposited in the paint tote prior to JonBenet being killed. She didn't use or have access to the paint tote after JonBenet was killed, so the only option we're left with is that those fibers were deposited in the paint tote during JonBenet being killed. Add to that, that it just so happens to be the very jacket Patsy was last seen wearing when JonBenet was last seen alive, and it's the very jacket she was wearing on Dec. 26 when police arrived, while JonBenet's dead body lay in the basement. It wouldn't be unreasonable to infer that she also wore that jacket in between those two times as well, as suggested by the fiber evidence. This post is my opinion.

[Zoey]

Statements made by suspects are evidence. Patsy's own statements greatly reduce (if not eliminate) the probability that fibers from her jacket were deposited in the paint tote prior to JonBenet being killed. She didn't use or have access to the paint tote after JonBenet was killed, so the only option we're left with is that those fibers were deposited in the paint tote during JonBenet being killed. Add to that, that it just so happens to be the very jacket Patsy was last seen wearing when JonBenet was last seen alive, and it's the very jacket she was wearing on Dec. 26 when police arrived, while JonBenet's dead body lay in the basement. It wouldn't be unreasonable to infer that she also wore that jacket in between those two times as well, as suggested by the fiber evidence. This post is my opinion.

One can infer that she had the jacket on when the police arrive, but Patsy states she had the shirt and black velvet pants on when the police arrive. I will have to hunt down her statement, as she does not mention having the jacket on, just the shirt and pants.

Again, the tote was upstairs prior to December 23rd. Again, it would be very easy for fibers from that same jacket to get in that tote, as again, IMO, the 25th was not the first or only time she wore that jacket.

Because she states she would not paint in that jacket, IMO, does not in any way eliminate the probability that being in that home at any time wearing that jacket at any time that fibers could not have gotten in that tote at any time. This post is my opinion.

[sweetcharlotte]

There is absolutely nothing to infer to me that she didn't wear the jacket sometime prior to December 23rd at which time she could have deposited fibers in the paint tote.

[Louisadelmar]

There is absolutely nothing to infer to me that she didn't wear the jacket sometime prior to December 23rd at which time she could have deposited fibers in the paint tote.

I think she said in one of the interviews she would occasionally put it on if it was chilly.

[Zoey]

Police Interview - June 23, 1998:


15 PATSY RAMSEY: Probably what I
16 thought I would do, you know, my thinking was I
17 have my underwear and all that is in these
18 drawers here, so I put my underwear on, but I
19 put the black velvet pants on the and the red
20 sweater, red top, and then we have clothes up at
21 the lake, and I took a few things with me. You
22 know, it was just so early, I was just going to
23 throw on whatever I had up there. Just get in,
24 tumble into bed and when we awake early, you
25 know, kind of almost get ready up there. You




I think one can infer from this that she did not immediately put the jacket on when she got dressed and headed downstairs, and therefore, I have no idea if she had the jacket on when the police arrived. This post is my opinion.

[elvislives]

I make very little of fiber evidence when the fibers found in the home are from its occupants. Even if they found Fleet WHites fibers all over that house, it wouldnt prove anything to me.
The phenomenon is called tertiary transfer and it can be observed in ones own home on a daily basis.
My sister (a germ phobe) recently came to visit with her toddler. I was constantly crawling around on the floor wiping things up. I cant tell you how many times I found my neighbor's dog's hair in weird places in my house (my neighbor's dog has never been in my house, so I am inferring that his hairs were transferred to me, then I transferred them to places in my house).
I also found all sorts of other foreign hairs and fibers and have no clue where they came from. If JMK's hair had been found in the R home, THAT would be significant imo.

[sweetcharlotte]

This is just my own opinion, but here goes:

I am sitting here at my home at my computer. I look around my home. On my couch I notice a white hair. I don't have white hair, nor do my grandchildren. Hmmmm...wonder where that came from? Light goes on....ahhh yes, my sister has a white dog. White dog has never been to my house. Hmmmm...must have carried it with me from my sister's to my house.

Go out in my vehicle. Look around. Hmmm...brown fibers, white hairr, pink fibers. Now where did those come from? Let's see, I helped my BIL move some wood. He gave me some gloves to wear. The fibers must have gotten on my hands or clothing and transferred to my vehicle. White hairs, I assume are hairs from that dang dog again.

Pink fibers. Hmmmm...I don't have anything pink. Don't like the color. Reminds me of Pepto Bismol and I hate that stuff. Pink fibers...ahhh yes. My little granddaughter wore a pink sweater about a week ago and I picked her up to go swimming. I wonder if that could be the source of those fibers.

Fibers move from place to place. It is not a stretch of an IDI's imagination to think that fibers from Patsy or John or Burke could not be in places they should not be. It was their home. I would be more suspicious if there were no fibers from the Ramsey's.

This is all just my opinion, of course.

For experimental purposes only, take the lint out of your dryer and spead it on a paper towel. :)

[sweetcharlotte]

<snip>

The phenomenon is called tertiary transfer and it can be observed in ones own home on a daily basis.
<snip>




I agree and your post and Zoey's point that out extremely well.

[Tober]

I think one can infer from this that she did not immediately put the jacket on when she got dressed and headed downstairs, and therefore, I have no idea if she had the jacket on when the police arrived. This post is my opinion.

When Patsy refers to the "red sweater," that is what came to be known as the "jacket." It was a sweater-jacket. This post is my opinion.

[Zoey]

When Patsy refers to the "red sweater," that is what came to be known as the "jacket." It was a sweater-jacket. This post is my opinion.


No, I have to disagree with you on this. She had a red sweater/shirt on under the jacket. The jacket was a jacket. This post is my opinion.

[Athena]

When Patsy refers to the "red sweater," that is what came to be known as the "jacket." It was a sweater-jacket. This post is my opinion.

Nope. Patsy wore a red sweater under the jacket. The jacket that the fibers allegedly came from was red, black and grey checked.

I haven't seen an answer to my previous question. Is there any documentation anywhere other than in the line of questioning that red fibers were found in the garrotte and in the paint tote? Any documentation I have read other than the questioning only says red fibers on the duct tape? Anyone? I cannot find it in one book -- not ST, DOI or PMPT and even in ST's depo he only refers to the fibers found on the tape and says there was nothing else.

[Tober]

No, I have to disagree with you on this. She had a red sweater/shirt on under the jacket. The jacket was a jacket. This post is my opinion.

When Patsy refers to the "red top," she's talking about the turtleneck. When she refers to the "red sweater," she's talking about the sweater-jacket she wore over the turtleneck. The sweater-jacket was mostly red, but also contained black and gray. The fiber evidence in question came from the sweater-jacket, not the turtleneck. The sweater-jacket came to be known simply as the "jacket." This post is my opinion.

[Zoey]

Nope. Patsy wore a red sweater under the jacket. The jacket that the fibers allegedly came from was red, black and grey checked.

I haven't seen an answer to my previous question. Is there any documentation anywhere other than in the line of questioning that red fibers were found in the garrotte and in the paint tote? Any documentation I have read other than the questioning only says red fibers on the duct tape? Anyone? I cannot find it in one book -- not ST, DOI or PMPT and even in ST's depo he only refers to the fibers found on the tape and says there was nothing else.

To be honest Athena, I had always thought that the red fibers were found only on the duct tape. I thought I had read where there was four of them, which I found very strange that only four red fibers were found. It was not until I came on this forum that I read repeatedly that red fibers were found in the garrotte and paint tote.

Tober infers the fibers were in the tote and the garrotte. Perhaps he would provide a link as to where he gets his information, although I can't foresee that happening, since he started adding, this post is my opinion.

[Zoey]

When Patsy refers to the "red top," she's talking about the turtleneck. When she refers to the "red sweater," she's talking about the sweater-jacket she wore over the turtleneck. The sweater-jacket was mostly red, but also contained black and gray. The fiber evidence in question came from the sweater-jacket, not the turtleneck. The sweater-jacket came to be known simply as the "jacket." This post is my opinion.


Tober, for goodness sakes. In the interview I posted she states it was a red sweater, then says top. She wore a red sweater/top/shirt under a red/grey/black jacket. The sweater/top/shirt did not become a sweater/jacket. The jacket that she wore became the jacket with the fibers which then became known as the "jacket." This post is my opinion.

[LindaA]

One usually doesn't wear a jacket without another top under it. One often wears a top without a jacket over it. JMO.

[Tober]

Tober, for goodness sakes. In the interview I posted she states it was a red sweater, then says top.

In the interview you posted, Patsy makes a distinction between "red top" and "red sweater." She wasn't wearing any other top besides the turtleneck, that is the "red top." When she says "red sweater," she's talking about the sweater-jacket she wore over the turtleneck. This post is my opinion.

[shill]

The problem I see with that scenario is that Patsy's jacket fibers weren't found in JonBenet's bed. This post is my opinion.

Well I haven't read everything, so I must of missed the news flash that said no fibers from Patsy's jacket were found on JB's bed.
Funny how these jacket fibers don't transfer where the jacket is known to have been.
This post is my kick ass opinion.

[Tober]

Funny how these jacket fibers don't transfer where the jacket is known to have been.

The jacket isn't "known" to have been there, it's "said" to have been there according to the Ramsey version of events. The Ramsey version of events, however, doesn't square with the evidence. This post is my opinion.

[sweetcharlotte]

I make very little of fiber evidence when the fibers found in the home are from its occupants. Even if they found Fleet WHites fibers all over that house, it wouldnt prove anything to me.
The phenomenon is called tertiary transfer and it can be observed in ones own home on a daily basis.
My sister (a germ phobe) recently came to visit with her toddler. I was constantly crawling around on the floor wiping things up. I cant tell you how many times I found my neighbor's dog's hair in weird places in my house (my neighbor's dog has never been in my house, so I am inferring that his hairs were transferred to me, then I transferred them to places in my house).
I also found all sorts of other foreign hairs and fibers and have no clue where they came from. If JMK's hair had been found in the R home, THAT would be significant imo.


I tend to agree with elvis regarding fibers........

[Zoey]

I tend to agree with elvis regarding fibers........


As do I. It's what I have been saying all along.

[Tober]

If Patsy transferred her sweater-jacket fibers to JonBenet when putting her to bed (allegedly), and then JonBenet transferred them to the (alleged) intruder, and then the intruder transferred them to the paint tote; then why didn't the intruder's fibers transfer to JonBenet or to the paint tote? This post is my opinion.

[Zoey]

If Patsy transferred her sweater-jacket fibers to JonBenet when putting her to bed (allegedly), and then JonBenet transferred them to the (alleged) intruder, and then the intruder transferred them to the paint tote; then why didn't the intruder's fibers transfer to JonBenet or to the paint tote? This post is my opinion.


There are over 4000 fibers that the LE have on record. Fibers that could not be matched to anything in the Ramsey home, including the Ramseys. Seeing how we don't know who the intruder is, how do we know his fibers were not found on JB or the paint tote? IMO, we don't.

Not all information, IMO, has been released to the public. How do we know the fiber information is not part of that unreleased information? IMO, we don't.

[shill]

If Patsy transferred her sweater-jacket fibers to JonBenet when putting her to bed (allegedly), and then JonBenet transferred them to the (alleged) intruder, and then the intruder transferred them to the paint tote; then why didn't the intruder's fibers transfer to JonBenet or to the paint tote? This post is my opinion.

I'm sure the intruder did leave lots of fiber evidence.
This post is my brain dead opinion.

[bullmoose]

Could it be inferred that the reason that Tober is so stuck on the issue of fibers is that fibers were not only transferred , but also inferred? This may infer a breakthrough on the inferred inferences we've been inferring to one another! Yes, tertiary transfer makes perfect sense; but think of the possibilities that tertiary inferrence opens up. It explains how any fiber that we want to be found somewhere can be reasonably inferred to be there; no more interinference from anybody. It's all settled, right!!!??? This post is entirely my own silliness; any attempt to infer anything serious out of it is doomed to failure.:biggrin:

[aussiesheila]

IMO, if, and I do stress the word if, Patsy had indeed killed little JB in the velvet pants and the red sweater, then the velvet pants and the red sweater would have been dirty, smelly, sweaty, stained and just down right unwearable the next day. They were not, nor have I read anywhere where they had the appearance of being freshly laundered.

IMO, she did not wear them to prove a point or anything else. She wore them because they were handy and she was headed out on a flight and no one had seen her in those particular clothes the night before so it made no difference to her.

Way too much enphasis has been put on what Patsy had to wear. As Sweetcharlotte posted, what about what John had on at the party and the next morning. What about Burke? What about the Fernies? What about the Whites? What about the Rev? What about anyone else that walked throught that door that day?I think Patsy DID have those clothes on all night.

I think she slipped under the bedcovers with those clothes still on and pretended to be asleep when John came to bed. I think she waited for him to fall deeply asleep, then got up, crept downstairs and turned the kitchen light on as the signal for Santa waiting in the alleyway in his friend's van to come to the door and be let in. I think together they sat in the kitchen waiting for the photographer that Santa said would be arriving soon. Patsy might have passed the cup and teabag to Santa and boiled the kettle as well. I think Patsy started falling asleep and Santa suggested she go and lie down on the sofa and he would wake her when the photographer arrived. I think she stayed asleep until that scream. Then I think she wrote the ransom note as directed, went down to the cellar with the Barbie nightgown then fled back upstairs and under the bedcovers again until 5.30 am.

So I don't think her clothes would have been dirty or stained at all, just crushed. I do think however, that her sweater would have been pretty stinky from stress generated perspiration. But perhaps no-one, not even Patsy noticed that the next day, given the circumstances.

Of course, you may be right and she might have worn them because they were handy and she was headed out on a flight and no one had seen her in those particular clothes the night before so it made no difference to her.

Will we ever know?

[aussiesheila]

What about the Whites? What about the Rev? What about anyone else that walked throught that door that day?Yes, and what about the Whites? How well groomed was Priscilla when she arrived that morning just 10 minutes after Patsy called? I imagine she would have been without makeup, still with 'bed hair' and wearing yesterdays clothes grabbed from where she had left them the night before, seeing as how she had just been rudely awakened by that early morning phone call and wouldn't have had had time to do any more than throw on a few clothes.

[aussiesheila]

No, I have to disagree with you on this. She had a red sweater/shirt on under the jacket. The jacket was a jacket. This post is my opinion.I think this is correct. People seem to have been tailking about either a sweater or a jacket as though there was only one item. As I understand it there is a red sweater, the composition I am not sure of and a red, black and grey acrylic jacket. People need to be sure what is being referred to when they discuss fibres.

I haven't paid too much attention to fibres because I have never seen any lab reports on the fibres and I don't trust secondhand versions from LE as to what the lab reports stated.

[Jayelles]

There was a fair bit of fascinating discussion of fibres in the vanDam case. I remember one discussion which explained how some fibres shed more easily than others and how if a fabric was made of mixed fibres, some of these would shed more profusely than others (this was a discussion about a mixed fibre multi-coloured afghan which shed mainly one of its colours).

[LindaA]

There was a fair bit of fascinating discussion of fibres in the vanDam case. I remember one discussion which explained how some fibres shed more easily than others and how if a fabric was made of mixed fibres, some of these would shed more profusely than others (this was a discussion about a mixed fibre multi-coloured afghan which shed mainly one of its colours).

From my experience as a knitter, I can say that that is certainly true. But what is also true is that those fibers that shed get all over the house -- not just in the area where the yarn is stored or the item is kept. I suppose it is safe to assume that LE would feel that the presence of PR's clothing fibers in other parts of the house were not worth mentioning, but that they are important in the area the body was found. However, if they are present in the house at all, they could easily have been transferred to the areas in question by secondary or even tertiary transfer. I think the problem we have is that there is no published information on all the places the fibers were found, and, therefore, no way to judge how inicriminating they really are.

[Tober]

People seem to have been tailking about either a sweater or a jacket as though there was only one item. As I understand it there is a red sweater, the composition I am not sure of and a red, black and grey acrylic jacket. People need to be sure what is being referred to when they discuss fibres.

Patsy was wearing black velvet pants, a red turtleneck sweater, and a mostly red with black and gray sweater-jacket over the turtleneck. She wasn't wearing any other top besides the turtleneck. When she refers to "red top," she's talking about the turtleneck. When she refers to "red sweater," she's talking about the sweater-jacket. When LE refers to Patsy's "jacket," they're talking about the sweater-jacket that she wore over the turtleneck (which was also a sweater). The fibers in question are from the sweater-jacket. This post is my opinion.

[Louisadelmar]

From my experience as a knitter, I can say that that is certainly true. But what is also true is that those fibers that shed get all over the house -- not just in the area where the yarn is stored or the item is kept. I suppose it is safe to assume that LE would feel that the presence of PR's clothing fibers in other parts of the house were not worth mentioning, but that they are important in the area the body was found. However, if they are present in the house at all, they could easily have been transferred to the areas in question by secondary or even tertiary transfer. I think the problem we have is that there is no published information on all the places the fibers were found, and, therefore, no way to judge how inicriminating they really are.

I don't recall seeing anything to suggest the jacket was a mixed fiber fabric. Although LE seemed somewhat vague at first in the interview about what it was made of. Acrylic seemed to be what they ultimately all settled on.

Secondary and tertiary transfer seems quite possible. If I go by BPD's view of the world, my doberman spends a lot of time under and behind the washer and dryer.

[Zoey]

Patsy was wearing black velvet pants, a red turtleneck sweater, and a mostly red with black and gray sweater-jacket over the turtleneck. She wasn't wearing any other top besides the turtleneck. When she refers to "red top," she's talking about the turtleneck. When she refers to "red sweater," she's talking about the sweater-jacket. When LE refers to Patsy's "jacket," they're talking about the sweater-jacket that she wore over the turtleneck (which was also a sweater). The fibers in question are from the sweater-jacket. This post is my opinion.


Tober, trying to get something through to you is like talking to my grandchildren, IMO.

[shill]

Let's not forget about the static electricity factor which is very common in the winter. And latex gloves, like a balloon rubbed against the hair on your head, will generate static electricity that attracts fibers.

This post is my Mr. Science opinion.

[Athena]

To be honest Athena, I had always thought that the red fibers were found only on the duct tape. I thought I had read where there was four of them, which I found very strange that only four red fibers were found. It was not until I came on this forum that I read repeatedly that red fibers were found in the garrotte and paint tote.

Tober infers the fibers were in the tote and the garrotte. Perhaps he would provide a link as to where he gets his information, although I can't foresee that happening, since he started adding, this post is my opinion.

Zoey - thanks much for your response. I too read what you did and personally do not believe there were any red fibers found in the garrotte or the paint tray. I believe that was just another gimmick during the questioning which is very common that BPD try to make "suspects" believe there is more evidence than there really is. I've also read about blue and brown fibers which have not been identified but don't see much discussion about them.

According to PMPT the four fibers were reported by CBI with no mention of any other red fibers found anywhere.

If this is incorrect hopefully someone will provide a valid source. JMHO

[shill]

Valid source? Does that include someone just mentioning these things exist, so they must exist?

[Zoey]

Zoey - thanks much for your response. I too read what you did and personally do not believe there were any red fibers found in the garrotte or the paint tray. I believe that was just another gimmick during the questioning which is very common that BPD try to make "suspects" believe there is more evidence than there really is. I've also read about blue and brown fibers which have not been identified but don't see much discussion about them.

According to PMPT the four fibers were reported by CBI with no mention of any other red fibers found anywhere.

If this is incorrect hopefully someone will provide a valid source. JMHO


You don't see much discussion on any other fibers, because they can't be traced back to Patsy, and so therefore, the RDI's refuse to talk about them. If they aren't red, we are to just forget they exist at all, IMO.

[nuisanceposter]

I'll admit I don't talk about the fibers much because I don't know that much about them - but that doesn't mean I'll dismiss them because they aren't red. I'm specifically interested in the tan/brown fibers on the tape and body. How many fibers of the 4000 found were found in the paint tray, on the tape, in the knot, on the body? When can those fibers be traced back to? How many of them are we sure can be sourced to that night and that crime?

[andU]

This may have been posted somewhere here on the board, if so, I apologize for repeat posting. It is an FBI web site regarding forensics and the study of fibers and hair for crime solving. It is very interesting, IMO.


http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/deedrick.htm

[shill]

I'll admit I don't talk about the fibers much because I don't know that much about them - but that doesn't mean I'll dismiss them because they aren't red. I'm specifically interested in the tan/brown fibers on the tape and body. How many fibers of the 4000 found were found in the paint tray, on the tape, in the knot, on the body? When can those fibers be traced back to? How many of them are we sure can be sourced to that night and that crime?
Good questions NP. If we had those answers there would be a lot less pointing at the R's fiber evidence. The answers may very well dilute the significance of the number of fibers present from the Ramseys.

I would assume of the 4000 found, they would be from the same locations as the R's fiber were extracted from. 4 out of 4000 is a small percentile of the trace evidence to tie them to the crime.