Patsy's clothes

[lsu]

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.

[nuisanceposter]

Yes, it's true. Patsy was wearing the same outfit on the morning of the 26th that she had worn for some 5 hours the night before.

Thomas's credibility only comes into question with the people who don't want to believe what he says. He could say the sky is blue and people would argue just because he said it, and they don't like anything he says. The Ramseys themselves have a worse track record than Thomas does for being able to relate accurate information. The IDI say Thomas's depo and his book contradict, but no one can site specific examples of what contradicts. I'll be more than willing to point out contradictions in Ramsey statements.

You have to wonder why the wife of a multi-millionaire, a former beauty pageant contestant who prided herself on appearance, would put on the same outfit she'd worn the night before - and without taking a shower. She said her shower was broken, JR was taking a shower that morning, and there were, what...at least three other bathrooms she could have used? Even friends of Patsy's thought it odd that she would get up and dress herself in the same outfit she'd worn the night before. That outfit had to smell like cigarette smoke and perhaps even perspiration after having been worn for sevweral hours the night before, and it wasn't like she didn't have any other outfits to put on to fly to Michigan in. It's just weird.

[lsu]

Yes, it's true. Patsy was wearing the same outfit on the morning of the 26th that she had worn for some 5 hours the night before.

Thomas's credibility only comes into question with the people who don't want to believe what he says. He could say the sky is blue and people would argue just because he said it, and they don't like anything he says. The Ramseys themselves have a worse track record than Thomas does for being able to relate accurate information. The IDI say Thomas's depo and his book contradict, but no one can site specific examples of what contradicts. I'll be more than willing to point out contradictions in Ramsey statements.

You have to wonder why the wife of a multi-millionaire, a former beauty pageant contestant who prided herself on appearance, would put on the same outfit she'd worn the night before - and without taking a shower. She said her shower was broken, JR was taking a shower that morning, and there were, what...at least three other bathrooms she could have used? Even friends of Patsy's thought it odd that she would get up and dress herself in the same outfit she'd worn the night before. That outfit had to smell like cigarette smoke and perhaps even perspiration after having been worn for sevweral hours the night before, and it wasn't like she didn't have any other outfits to put on to fly to Michigan in. It's just weird.

I do agree w/you there. As a youth/teen, I have to admit I sometimes fell asleep in my clothes. But I have NEVER done that as an adult. It is even possible she threw on the clothes when she realized what was going on and that people were coming over - but still not likely. very strange.

As far as Steve Thomas - thanks for the info on him. Regardless of peoples' views of him - it sounds like his theories make sense. Makes you go hmmmm....

[nuisanceposter]

Patsy claimed she already had that outfit on when she came down and found the RN. I don't believe for a second that she'd get up and put on the same dirty worn clothes, intending to wear them on a flight to Michigan where they're meeting up with the other kids.

Of course, she gave two different stories about finding the RN...her first story was that she checked JB's room, and saw her gone and then went downstairs and found the note...then later she changed it to she went downstairs and found the note and then checked JB's room.

[Ames]

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.
----------



IMO...she never went to bed that night....AND HENCE...she had on the same clothes.

[Athena]

Yes, it's true. Patsy was wearing the same outfit on the morning of the 26th that she had worn for some 5 hours the night before.

Thomas's credibility only comes into question with the people who don't want to believe what he says. He could say the sky is blue and people would argue just because he said it, and they don't like anything he says. The Ramseys themselves have a worse track record than Thomas does for being able to relate accurate information. The IDI say Thomas's depo and his book contradict, but no one can site specific examples of what contradicts. I'll be more than willing to point out contradictions in Ramsey statements.

You have to wonder why the wife of a multi-millionaire, a former beauty pageant contestant who prided herself on appearance, would put on the same outfit she'd worn the night before - and without taking a shower. She said her shower was broken, JR was taking a shower that morning, and there were, what...at least three other bathrooms she could have used? Even friends of Patsy's thought it odd that she would get up and dress herself in the same outfit she'd worn the night before. That outfit had to smell like cigarette smoke and perhaps even perspiration after having been worn for sevweral hours the night before, and it wasn't like she didn't have any other outfits to put on to fly to Michigan in. It's just weird.

I'm at work but I do have notes at work re: conflicting statements Thomas made in his book v his deposition.

Off the top of my head:

Thomas: JBR was wearing a red shirt Fact: She wore a white shirt with a silver star

Thomas: Red shirt JBR wore was soaking Fact: Was a red outfit that Patsy planned to taking on the trip with them -- not a shirt

That Patsy was the ONLY one out of 73 people sampled that matched the handwriting of the note when in fact there were about 6 others that have been mentioned to have even more of a matching handwriting sample

That JBR wet the bed yet the sheets were not collected until some 10 days later and there were no tests conducted

Did not indicate in his book that Don Foster was discredited.

That the book Mindhunter was on JR's night table by the bed when in fact it was a book about death and mourning because of his elder daughter

Thomas made several statements in his book as fact and when questioned about them in his depo said he was not privy to the information

There are more but short on time -- sneaking in from work. Talk to you all soon and will post more from my notes

[nuisanceposter]

As to the red shirt:

According to ST's book, page 24, Patsy was the one who told ST that JonBenet went to bed wearing long white underwear and a red turtleneck top. Considering all of the other times Patsy has said one thing and then changed it later (such as saying in a depo that she saw the heart on JB's hand on the morning of the 26th, then telling interviewers the next day that she had read it in the autopsy report - despite JR saying he and Patsy did not read the autopsy report...and that's just ONE example of Patsy changing her story), I think it's very likely she said that and then changed her story later. That doesn't make ST a liar and someone who isn't credible, though.

Thomas's book, page 37:

"On the bathroom counter lay a balled-up child's red turtleneck sweater. Although Patsy said JonBenet had gone to bed wearing a red turtleneck, the body was discovered in the same white pullover she had worn the evening before. Who had changed her clothes?" No mention of soaking...


There were MORE than 73 people tested for handwriting. Who are these 6 others whose handwriting was a closer match than Patsy's?

CBI tested those sheets, and they tested positive for creatine. It's talked about in Steve's depo.

In what regard was Foster discredited, and by who? Can you honestly say the Rs have never admitted to someone they used being less than credible, either? How about their refusal to polygraph with someone who doesn't require drug testing? Or Dr Gelb's astonishing studies on plants? Or the fact that did not pass every poly they took, not even close?

[Ames]

Well...HERE she says in an interview that JB was wearing the same shirt to bed that night, as she wore to the Whites...(the white one with the star on it).


So John carries JonBenet upstairs, puts her to bed. You pull up the bed sheets. You find this top for her to wear or you just. . .

PR: We just left her top on her.

TT: . . .you leave the top on. . .

PR: Yeah.

TT: . . .uh, find a pair of. . .

PR: bottoms.

TT: . . .bottoms for her to wear. Um, did she wake up at all during this?

PR: No.

TT: Stayed pretty crashed out?

PR: Uh huh.

TT: Okay. Sounds asleep the whole time then.

PR: Um hum.

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


Geez...how many different times does she change her story???

[Louisadelmar]

[...]


Geez...how many different times does she change her story???

If I recall correctly - She initially told French JonBenet was in the red top she had planned on JonBenet wearing. Then she remembers that at the last minute JonBenet wore the white top so she corrects herself.

[Ames]

If I recall correctly - She initially told French JonBenet was in the red top she had planned on JonBenet wearing. Then she remembers that at the last minute JonBenet wore the white top so she corrects herself.

Well, she has to make her story jive with what JB's body was found in. I PERSONALLY do not think that she was asleep when she came in. I believe Burke's intial testimony that JB was awake, and helped to carry in Christmas presents from the car, and went up the spiral staircase to her room. I find it odd that anyone would even question that, or call him "confused". How do you mix up sleeping and being carried in, with walking in, and carrying presents...and then walking up the staircase to the bedroom? I wonder, if she ALSO changed JB's shirt when she changed her out of the pants that she was wearing at the party. Maybe she had on the red turtleneck....when she wet the bed, it got wet....so Patsy put the shirt that JB wore to the party, back on. IMO

[nuisanceposter]

She did tell French that, except she didn't correct herself immediately. She did that later. She also told French she went to JonBenet's room first and pushed the door open (it wasn't closed tight) and saw her bed empty, and then went downstairs to make coffe, etc and that's when she saw the note. We know that she later changed that story to her going downstairs first. Odd thing to confuse, don't you think?

French was also told by JR that he checked the doors before they went to bed and all of them were locked. Arndt and Reichenbacher were also told the same thing by JR, and he changed his story later. Hmmm, they also said they tucked JonBenet in bed, Patsy singing to her and John reading to her...and changed that story too.

I'd love to see the official police reports, but I don't think we're ever going to.

[Ames]

She did tell French that, except she didn't correct herself immediately. She did that later. She also told French she went to JonBenet's room first and pushed the door open (it wasn't closed tight) and saw her bed empty, and then went downstairs to make coffe, etc and that's when she saw the note. We know that she later changed that story to her going downstairs first. Odd thing to confuse, don't you think?

French was also told by JR that he checked the doors before they went to bed and all of them were locked. Arndt and Reichenbacher were also told the same thing by JR, and he changed his story later. Hmmm, they also said they tucked JonBenet in bed, Patsy singing to her and John reading to her...and changed that story too.

I'd love to see the official police reports, but I don't think we're ever going to.

Hmmmm....so MANY lies! I would just love to see those official police reports too!!! I bet that they would be VERY interesting...

[Athena]

As to the red shirt:

According to ST's book, page 24, Patsy was the one who told ST that JonBenet went to bed wearing long white underwear and a red turtleneck top. Considering all of the other times Patsy has said one thing and then changed it later (such as saying in a depo that she saw the heart on JB's hand on the morning of the 26th, then telling interviewers the next day that she had read it in the autopsy report - despite JR saying he and Patsy did not read the autopsy report...and that's just ONE example of Patsy changing her story), I think it's very likely she said that and then changed her story later. That doesn't make ST a liar and someone who isn't credible, though.

Thomas's book, page 37:

"On the bathroom counter lay a balled-up child's red turtleneck sweater. Although Patsy said JonBenet had gone to bed wearing a red turtleneck, the body was discovered in the same white pullover she had worn the evening before. Who had changed her clothes?" No mention of soaking...


There were MORE than 73 people tested for handwriting. Who are these 6 others whose handwriting was a closer match than Patsy's?

CBI tested those sheets, and they tested positive for creatine. It's talked about in Steve's depo.

In what regard was Foster discredited, and by who? Can you honestly say the Rs have never admitted to someone they used being less than credible, either? How about their refusal to polygraph with someone who doesn't require drug testing? Or Dr Gelb's astonishing studies on plants? Or the fact that did not pass every poly they took, not even close?

NP: ST's book was the very first one I read. I had no reason to disbelieve him until his depo was released which he in fact tried very hard to have it not made public. I don't know if you saw a rather lengthy post I made at CTV which made me go from RDI to IDI but ST was one of those reasons. I printed 462 pages of his depo and went through the book and I can assure you he lied or deliberately made misrepresentations in his book. There were NO tests for creatine -- read his depo again. He did not know who was either eliminated from their handwriting samples or included. All of this is admitted in his depo. I have seen none of Patsy's interviews say that JBR wore a red turtleneck. As a matter of fact Patsy says JBR refused to wear it and specifically wanted to wear the white shirt with the silver star. It was ST's imagination and part of his hypothesis. If I were to post all of my notes and STs lies/misrepresentations/twisters it I'd be here for days and don't have the time. I have intermittently posted lies I have found as they come up during a specific topic in discussion.

[nuisanceposter]

Well, by the time Patsy got to the point of the depos and interviews she had finally gotten her story straight...at least about that shirt incident. There were plenty of other things she contradicted herself on, though.

And you can't actually accept everything Patsy says in an interview or deposition as truth, either, as many times as she's been caught contradicting herself or not being able to recall. Not to mention the fact that she and John have everything to gain by lying.

Apparently she told French JonBenet had the red turtleneck on. I can't see Thomas deliberately lying about something that could easily be proven by checking French's report. Don't you think they'd have nailed him on that when they sued him for malice and slander? Speaking of that, why did they bother? Part of the settlement they offered him was that he did NOT have to make any alterations to his book, and it could continue to be published as it had been written. That's kinda like saying Thomas's info is correct.

I just don't see how you can keep giving the Ramseys a pass on all their lies and contradictions and misrepresentations and sit there obsessing over any from Thomas. He wasn't the one with a dead child in his basement to account for.

[SnarkyCow]

I just don't see how you can keep giving the Ramseys a pass on all their lies and contradictions and misrepresentations and sit there obsessing over any from Thomas. He wasn't the one with a dead child in his basement to account for.

Totally agree!

[Athena]

Well, by the time Patsy got to the point of the depos and interviews she had finally gotten her story straight...at least about that shirt incident. There were plenty of other things she contradicted herself on, though.

And you can't actually accept everything Patsy says in an interview or deposition as truth, either, as many times as she's been caught contradicting herself or not being able to recall. Not to mention the fact that she and John have everything to gain by lying.

Apparently she told French JonBenet had the red turtleneck on. I can't see Thomas deliberately lying about something that could easily be proven by checking French's report. Don't you think they'd have nailed him on that when they sued him for malice and slander? Speaking of that, why did they bother? Part of the settlement they offered him was that he did NOT have to make any alterations to his book, and it could continue to be published as it had been written. That's kinda like saying Thomas's info is correct.

I just don't see how you can keep giving the Ramseys a pass on all their lies and contradictions and misrepresentations and sit there obsessing over any from Thomas. He wasn't the one with a dead child in his basement to account for.


You're right NP. Steve Thomas did not have to account for a dead child however he was supposed to let the evidence lead him not make the evidence fit his hypothesis/theory. Once he did that all of his objectivity was clearly gone and just for the record I believe the same thing about Smit. They are both at either extreme and could see nothing other than what they believed. I have stated many times I lean more towards IDI because I have not seen any evidence to convince me the Ramseys killed JBR. Had I seen any I would not have hesitated to jump on the RDI bandwagon. Every single thing that allegedly points to the Ramseys has an explanation. JMO

What specifically did Patsy and/or John actually lie about? I have seen nothing major in their depos/interviews that would indicate that.

[SnarkyCow]

What specifically did Patsy and/or John actually lie about? I have seen nothing major in their depos/interviews that would indicate that.

Seems to me they lied a lot since they couldn't pass the polygraphs (that they paid for) until the third try.

[nuisanceposter]

The lies and contradictions aren't found so much in the depos/interviews. It's what they were saying prior to that (they tucked JB in and read to her, the doors were locked, went to her room then downstairs - no, went downstairs then to her room). Like I said before, by the time J&P got to the interview, depo, state, they had their stories pretty much straight - except for a few here and there, like when Patsy said she saw the heart on JB's hand on the morning of the 26th, and then corrected herself first thing the next day by saying she hadn't seen it, she read about it in the autopsy...but John Ramsey was telling interviewers that he and Patsy hadn't read the autopsy. And that's only one example.

The contradictions and inconsistencies from J&P are all over this case from day one. I can't believe you'd even ask what they've lied about. I don't even know how to begin listing it all off.

[Ames]

<snipped>
The contradictions and inconsistencies from J&P are all over this case from day one. I can't believe you'd even ask what they've lied about. I don't even know how to begin listing it all off.

Agreed! The list just goes on and on and on and on.......

[Louisadelmar]

I remember in the Lindy Chamberlain case the contradictions and differences in her story were held up as proof she killed her daughter.

[docg]

Yup, Patsy was up all night wearing her red sweater, jacket, whatever. Didn't bother to change the next morning, because . . . well, because she WANTED to be found out, why wouldn't she? She'd written a long ransom note too, a real doozy, the "War and Peace" of ransom notes according to some really witty profilers over at the profilers booth, the sort of thing only a wacked out female could write. And then she went and called 911 so she could hand it over to the police. With HER handwriting all over it. AND the body right there in the house.

So Steve Thomas sez to himself, "Gee, what does THAT tell you?" And decides to write a book.

What that tells ME is that Patsy has to be innocent. Because no one stupid enough to be found wearing the same outfit the next day AND stupid enough to call the police on herself could possibly be smart enough to ALSO get away with it.
:lol:

[Ames]

<snipped>
Because no one stupid enough to be found wearing the same outfit the next day AND stupid enough to call the police on herself could possibly be smart enough to ALSO get away with it.
:lol:

Well, she DID get away with it. (IMO)

[shill]

I'll admit it, I wear the same clothes two or three days in a row. Until I take a shower, I'm not putting clean clothes on. And unless I'm going out in public why bother. And if I was getting up early in the morning and flying in a small plane, I wouldn't loose the extra sleep just to take a shower.
Patsy had no one to impress that morning and didn't need to shower, so why put on clean clothes.

[SnarkyCow]

Snipped from Shill: Patsy had no one to impress that morning and didn't need to shower, so why put on clean clothes.

I thought she was meeting Melinda's fiance for the first time that trip and wanted to make a good impression. I think I read that somewhere, but would need backup cause I'm too tired to dig for a source.

[Louisadelmar]

Either way she wasn't going to be seeing the people who'd seen her the night before.

[shill]

I thought she was meeting Melinda's fiance for the first time that trip and wanted to make a good impression. I think I read that somewhere, but would need backup cause I'm too tired to dig for a source.

You may be right, but that outfit was good enough for a X-mas party and the fiance wouldn't know she had worn it the night before. Family is family, no need to impress.

[SnarkyCow]

To you and me, I agree - the outfit wouldn't matter much at all, but for the way Patsy was, everything just so, I can't see her putting on the same clothes as the night before. This is total speculation on my part and I'm just going with my gut - there is no proof of my opinion - it is meerly based on what I've read about Patsy's personality.

[Coloradokares]

You may be right, but that outfit was good enough for a X-mas party and the fiance wouldn't know she had worn it the night before. Family is family, no need to impress.

Maybe its just me but I can go through 2 showers or baths a day and changes of clothes. I get up do my shower and skin care and makeup. Blow dry the hair etc. Do my thing through the day. If we are going out or entertaining guests you got it reshower, fresh wardrobe changes made Fresh makeup. If I have been where smoking is allowed A quick bath and off to bed with me.

[Louisadelmar]

Sounds to me like your habits are the exception rather than the rule.

[thewhitewitch1]

To you and me, I agree - the outfit wouldn't matter much at all, but for the way Patsy was, everything just so, I can't see her putting on the same clothes as the night before. This is total speculation on my part and I'm just going with my gut - there is no proof of my opinion - it is meerly based on what I've read about Patsy's personality.


She was concerned enough over making a good impression on the fiance to do her hair and makeup but not enough to take a shower or wear fresh clothes? I would think nothing of her wearing the same clothes either if not for the comment about wanting to make a good impression on the fiance. I just think something is a little "off" with this. IMO

[docg]

Well, she DID get away with it. (IMO)

If Patsy was involved in this crime she'd truly have to be the dumbest criminal in history, bar none. And she would NOT have gotten away with it because no one that dumb could possibly have gotten away with it. Patsy was obviously NOT dumb -- but innocent. Which is why she "got away with it."

[docg]

She was concerned enough over making a good impression on the fiance to do her hair and makeup but not enough to take a shower or wear fresh clothes? I would think nothing of her wearing the same clothes either if not for the comment about wanting to make a good impression on the fiance. I just think something is a little "off" with this. IMO

Yeah, she's concerned with making a good impression on her daughter's fiance, but NOT the BPD. A potential in-law is one thing, but the police, they're just riffraff. So what the Heck, if she wore that outfit all night while up staging, why bother to change just for a bunch of cops?

Doesn't ANYBODY get it? Wearing the same outfit the next day is evidence that tends to exonerate her. Only in the mind of someone blindly fixated on Patsy as perp could that possibly get turned around into evidence against her. WHY if she were up all night staging would she even DREAM of keeping the same outfit on next morning? If she were up all night no question she'd have showered and changed. John showered and changed. Guess that means he WASN'T up all night, huh? duh?

[Coloradokares]

Sounds to me like your habits are the exception rather than the rule.

I don't know I didn't think we were any different than most. I was a preachers kid and my husband a farmers son. We both are like this. I thought it was standard. :seeya:

[thewhitewitch1]

If Patsy was involved in this crime she'd truly have to be the dumbest criminal in history, bar none. And she would NOT have gotten away with it because no one that dumb could possibly have gotten away with it. Patsy was obviously NOT dumb -- but innocent. Which is why she "got away with it."


What you fail to admit is all of these things happened. Her writing could not be ruled out. She did call 911. Maybe she didn't think about fiber evidence when she "put on the same clothes". She wasn't a criminal mastermind, remember. I don't think she went to bed at all, by the way.
Her paintbrush was used in the garrote...and on and on.
She got away with it. Everything pointed to her and she got away with it anyway. So what was your point again?
Patsy is not dumb? Her husband killed her daughter and she never questions anything he tells her to say to LE and never doubts his innocence. This is what you believe and now you are saying she wasn't dumb? Come on. Either she was or she wasn't. Make up your mind.
I don't think she was "dumb" at all but how on earth would she know how to properly stage a crime scene?

[shill]

Doesn't ANYBODY get it? Wearing the same outfit the next day is evidence that tends to exonerate her. Only in the mind of someone blindly fixated on Patsy as perp could that possibly get turned around into evidence against her. WHY if she were up all night staging would she even DREAM of keeping the same outfit on next morning? If she were up all night no question she'd have showered and changed. John showered and changed. Guess that means he WASN'T up all night, huh? duh?
Valid point.

[aussiesheila]

She did tell French that, except she didn't correct herself immediately. She did that later. She also told French she went to JonBenet's room first and pushed the door open (it wasn't closed tight) and saw her bed empty, and then went downstairs to make coffe, etc and that's when she saw the note. We know that she later changed that story to her going downstairs first. Odd thing to confuse, don't you think?

French was also told by JR that he checked the doors before they went to bed and all of them were locked. Arndt and Reichenbacher were also told the same thing by JR, and he changed his story later. Hmmm, they also said they tucked JonBenet in bed, Patsy singing to her and John reading to her...and changed that story too.

I'd love to see the official police reports, but I don't think we're ever going to.Can you please provide the link to Officer French's deposition nuisanceposter, so we can check that he actually did say this?

Or are you just relying on Steve Thomas' version of what French said?

[Athena]

Seems to me they lied a lot since they couldn't pass the polygraphs (that they paid for) until the third try.

Proof that they didn't pass a polygraph? By all accounts the first ones taken were inconclusive -- doesn't mean pass/fail.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/time_11.html

[Athena]

Sounds to me like your habits are the exception rather than the rule.

I agree. Don't know about anyone else but if your personal hygiene habits are relatively good, nothing wrong with getting up and throwing on the same clothes that noone other than family has seen and washing up the "private parts" and putting on deodorant for the sake of saving time. She wasn't going "out" she was getting on a plane and like Patsy, I don't leave the house without makeup. JMO

[SnarkyCow]

Proof that they didn't pass a polygraph? By all accounts the first ones taken were inconclusive -- doesn't mean pass/fail.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/time_11.html

Good point, but you helped make my point too - inconclusive means they didn't pass.

I'm not sure of a source regarding how many they took - I just recall reading about three and (in my words) they shopped around until they got the results they wanted, and then made them public. If I am wrong (it wouldn't be the first time :rolleyes: ) let me know & if I am right and anyone has a source please post it.

Wonder why they were so scared of an FBI polygraph? Not being sarcastic, but if I were innocent I'd want to prove it ASAP so we could move forward with the investigation. One of the many things that make me go hmmmm....

[LindaA]

Sounds to me like your habits are the exception rather than the rule.
:beer:
I think the idea was that there was little time that morning and every opportunity to redress when they reached Michigan. (although I know they were meeting up with John's children before they reached MIchigan.) If she had showered prior to the White's party, it had been less than 24 hours (and I believe she did -- colored her hair). Why take another that soon? And why put on clean clothes if you hadn't showered? Don't see how all this is suspicious anyway.

[LadyFisher]

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.

If ST was such an excellent detective, he would have realized that someone who endured chemo treatments isn't so stuck on themselves that vanity reigns their life. Patsy was accustomed to wearing her make up daily, some of us women are just like that. How many of us have worn a Christmasy outfit for a few hours during an evening out and wore the same outfit to church the next day? How dirty could it have been? Come on......if PR had done the things many of you suggested in a cover-up, she would have changed her clothes. I think it proves her innocence that she didn't!

[docg]

What you fail to admit is all of these things happened. Her writing could not be ruled out. She did call 911. Maybe she didn't think about fiber evidence when she "put on the same clothes". She wasn't a criminal mastermind, remember. I don't think she went to bed at all, by the way.
Her paintbrush was used in the garrote...and on and on.
She got away with it. Everything pointed to her and she got away with it anyway. So what was your point again?
Patsy is not dumb? Her husband killed her daughter and she never questions anything he tells her to say to LE and never doubts his innocence. This is what you believe and now you are saying she wasn't dumb? Come on. Either she was or she wasn't. Make up your mind.
I don't think she was "dumb" at all but how on earth would she know how to properly stage a crime scene?

What you're really saying is that she wasn't indicted. If she were innocent then she didn't "get away with" anything. But I do get your point. What I'M saying is that the only reason she was a suspect at all, and the only reason so many are so convinced of her guilt, is because of things she did, and other aspects of the case, that made her look suspicious, but that, on further reflection, can be seen as signs of innocence, NOT guilt. She was not indicted because there was no real evidence against her. AND because she made the 911 call, which is totally inconsistent with writing the note. IMO the main reason why she was suspected was because John was ruled out and she wasn't. That became HUGE. John should never have been ruled out, THAT was the mistake that sank this case. Once we rule back in, then the absurdity of accusing Patsy becomes all too clear.

[SnarkyCow]

What you're really saying is that she wasn't indicted. If she were innocent then she didn't "get away with" anything. But I do get your point. What I'M saying is that the only reason she was a suspect at all, and the only reason so many are so convinced of her guilt, is because of things she did, and other aspects of the case, that made her look suspicious, but that, on further reflection, can be seen as signs of innocence, NOT guilt. She was not indicted because there was no real evidence against her. AND because she made the 911 call, which is totally inconsistent with writing the note. IMO the main reason why she was suspected was because John was ruled out and she wasn't. That became HUGE. John should never have been ruled out, THAT was the mistake that sank this case. Once we rule back in, then the absurdity of accusing Patsy becomes all too clear.

I do not think accusing Patsy is absurd, but I completely agree John should have never been ruled out. I am a firm believer RDI, but I can't say I've figured out exactly which one of them did it - it's all speculation at this point.

[thewhitewitch1]

What you're really saying is that she wasn't indicted. If she were innocent then she didn't "get away with" anything. But I do get your point. What I'M saying is that the only reason she was a suspect at all, and the only reason so many are so convinced of her guilt, is because of things she did, and other aspects of the case, that made her look suspicious, but that, on further reflection, can be seen as signs of innocence, NOT guilt. She was not indicted because there was no real evidence against her. AND because she made the 911 call, which is totally inconsistent with writing the note. IMO the main reason why she was suspected was because John was ruled out and she wasn't. That became HUGE. John should never have been ruled out, THAT was the mistake that sank this case. Once we rule back in, then the absurdity of accusing Patsy becomes all too clear.

Well, DocG...I have not ruled John out. They were both involved.
Re: the 911 call...Maybe the line of thinking was "if I wrote the note and make the call, nobody will think I did it because if I did it, why would I call the police?" Not saying that that's what she thought, or that I believe it but it is certainly possible.
I still think the RN was thought up and worded by both of them, though, so in that case, she was not technically calling the police on herself. If you are so sure JR actually "penned it", well, maybe you are right but you will never convince me that he acted alone in all of this.

[shill]

Wonder why they were so scared of an FBI polygraph? Not being sarcastic, but if I were innocent I'd want to prove it ASAP so we could move forward with the investigation. One of the many things that make me go hmmmm....
It is well known that parents who loose a child often feel responsible for the loss and this can be reflected the wrong way in the test.
"Did you kill your daughter"? You can say "No", but if your thinking I could have done something to stop it so it's my fault, the test will show you are trying to deceive. Their lawyers know this and kept them from being tested.

[bullmoose]

The polygraph is not a lie detector; it is not a truth detector; it is a machine that measures physiological changes in a subject while being questioned. It's results cannot be used in court because it is not reliable; if the questioner running the machine has a bias, the questionee is going to look bad, in other words flunk the test. Since in the case of Jonbenet, the BPD had no other suspects from 12/26 on, the Ramseys lawyers knew that to let them be tested would be a bad move, especially with the BPD immediately and falsely saying that the Ramseys werent cooperating. They didnt believe a fair test would be given. In the Groene case last year in Idaho the father did indeed take an FBI poygraph test as soon as requested; the examiner said he was being deceptive, and knew far more than he was letting on about the murders. Of course it turned out that the examiner was completely wrong; but that is why they are inadmissable in court; I think that the FBI and the CBI should combine handwriting analysis and the polygraph under one department, since they are both arcane pseudoscientific ideas, like nephrolagy.

[SnarkyCow]

The polygraph is not a lie detector; it is not a truth detector; it is a machine that measures physiological changes in a subject while being questioned. It's results cannot be used in court because it is not reliable; if the questioner running the machine has a bias, the questionee is going to look bad, in other words flunk the test. Since in the case of Jonbenet, the BPD had no other suspects from 12/26 on, the Ramseys lawyers knew that to let them be tested would be a bad move, especially with the BPD immediately and falsely saying that the Ramseys werent cooperating. They didnt believe a fair test would be given. In the Groene case last year in Idaho the father did indeed take an FBI poygraph test as soon as requested; the examiner said he was being deceptive, and knew far more than he was letting on about the murders. Of course it turned out that the examiner was completely wrong; but that is why they are inadmissable in court; I think that the FBI and the CBI should combine handwriting analysis and the polygraph under one department, since they are both arcane pseudoscientific ideas, like nephrolagy.

All fair points and a good post, the polygraph isn't a deal maker or breaker for me - it was just another thing that made me question the Ramsey's behavior.

[SnarkyCow]

SNIPIt is well known that parents who loose a child often feel responsible for the loss and this can be reflected the wrong way in the test..

Or it can be reflected correctly in a test - especially if the parents were feeling responsible because they are responsible....

THAT is what is so infuriating about this case - people on both sides of the fence can make plausible arguments and no one can prove or disprove anything - except the people in the Ramsey house the night of December 25th/early morning of December 26th. It's maddening!

[Ames]

I'll admit it, I wear the same clothes two or three days in a row. Until I take a shower, I'm not putting clean clothes on. And unless I'm going out in public why bother. And if I was getting up early in the morning and flying in a small plane, I wouldn't loose the extra sleep just to take a shower.
Patsy had no one to impress that morning and didn't need to shower, so why put on clean clothes.

LOL shill...aren't you a dude? Guys do things like that...its the way that they are made. :D

[shill]

Or it can be reflected correctly in a test - especially if the parents were feeling responsible because they are responsible....


So taking the lie detector test is a "Loose/Loose situation"

[SnarkyCow]

So taking the lie detector test is a "Loose/Loose situation"

I don't know, is it lose-lose or win-win? Guess it depends on who you think is guilty or innocent, hence the reason I posted this:

THAT is what is so infuriating about this case - people on both sides of the fence can make plausible arguments and no one can prove or disprove anything - except the people in the Ramsey house the night of December 25th/early morning of December 26th. It's maddening!

[Coloradokares]

If ST was such an excellent detective, he would have realized that someone who endured chemo treatments isn't so stuck on themselves that vanity reigns their life. Patsy was accustomed to wearing her make up daily, some of us women are just like that. How many of us have worn a Christmasy outfit for a few hours during an evening out and wore the same outfit to church the next day? How dirty could it have been? Come on......if PR had done the things many of you suggested in a cover-up, she would have changed her clothes. I think it proves her innocence that she didn't!

I must be certifiable then. Last night I wore ultrasuede pants and a very glittzy sweater. I was out to dinner and back home in less than 3 hours for sure. Got home the sweater regardless of its special handling requirements is drying on a sweater rack as we speak and the Pants are on low in the dryer!! If the outfit has been on me for more time than trying on and changing my mind. Its laundry or dry cleaning...... Admittedly I might be a certifiable nutcase.

[sweetcharlotte]

If ST was such an excellent detective, he would have realized that someone who endured chemo treatments isn't so stuck on themselves that vanity reigns their life. Patsy was accustomed to wearing her make up daily, some of us women are just like that. How many of us have worn a Christmasy outfit for a few hours during an evening out and wore the same outfit to church the next day? How dirty could it have been? Come on......if PR had done the things many of you suggested in a cover-up, she would have changed her clothes. I think it proves her innocence that she didn't!

When I worked most of my clothes had to be dry cleaned and certainly were not cleaned after each wearing. From the description of the clothes Patsy wore on the evening of the 25th I suspect she had those cleaned.

I agree with you - to do what some have suggested - she surely would have worked up a sweat. I think it goes toward proving her innocence, too. JMO

[Louisadelmar]

I must be certifiable then. Last night I wore ultrasuede pants and a very glittzy sweater. I was out to dinner and back home in less than 3 hours for sure. Got home the sweater regardless of its special handling requirements is drying on a sweater rack as we speak and the Pants are on low in the dryer!! If the outfit has been on me for more time than trying on and changing my mind. Its laundry or dry cleaning...... Admittedly I might be a certifiable nutcase.

I vote for nutcase... :-)

Besides all that cleaning is hard on the clothes.

[SnarkyCow]

I know that people have different habits when it comes to their "routine" - who is to say what is normal and what is not when everyone is so different? The reason I find Patsy's "wearing the same clothes" as the night before strange is because of what we have been told, or have deduced, about the type of person Patsy was.

Appearance was very important to this women:

1. She was Miss West Virginia & very into the pageant scene with JonBenet. I don't care what anyone says, call it a "scholarship program" if you must, but it is still a beauty contest when people are judged on their looks.

2. The house in Boulder being on the Christmas Tour of Homes - during which Patsy had her Miss West Virginia dress & some of JonBenet's pageant dresses displayed to the public.

3. The women seemed to always be impeccably dressed and made up.

4. She had many, many, many, many clothes to chose from (from what we gather) and had mentioned wanting to make a good impression on Melinda's new fiance.

Certainly the above list does not conclude Patsy's guilt; it does, however, raise some suspicion in my mind. Adding this to the other strange events and behaviors of the Ramseys I find it important - as it seems out-of-the-ordinary for an appearance obsessed, former beauty queen.

Another thought on the clothes:

If the crime scene were staged, as I believe it was, wouldn't it make more sense for Patsy to have on the same clothes as the night before? That way the fibers from the night's staging activities would be indistinguishable from fibers found the next day. In other words: Of course Patsy's jacket fibers were found on the body, etc. since she threw herself on her daughter's body after it was found. And since spent the entire last evening in the company of her daughter, in the same clothes, there is the explanation of secondary transfer. Seems it's all wrapped up in a nice little bow of explanations with room for plenty of reasonable doubt. Gives new meaning to the phrase "Crazy like a fox."

John not wearing the same clothes doesn't prove he wasn't up all night - in fact, if it was his shirt that was used to wipe down JB he couldn't/wouldn't dare be caught wearing it the next day - it would place him at the scene of the crime!

I don't think either Patsy or John ever considered their clothing fibers showing up in the incriminating places they did (ie: in the knot of the rope used to strangle their daughter, the paint tray from which the paint brush used to fashion the crude garrote was taken, in the crotch area of their murdered daughter, on the sticky side of the tape placed over JB's mouth).

**Please forgive me for rambling - I have so much to get out & sometimes my brain works faster than my fingers.**

[Louisadelmar]

Having many, many, many, many clothes to choose from makes getting dressed more complicated, not less. I see nothing odd about Patsy wearing an outfit that she knew worked to a get-together where it hadn't been seen by anyone other than the family.

No one has suggested she smelled bad or looked rumpled.

[SnarkyCow]

Having many, many, many, many clothes to choose from makes getting dressed more complicated, not less. I see nothing odd about Patsy wearing an outfit that she knew worked to a get-together where it hadn't been seen by anyone other than the family.

No one has suggested she smelled bad or looked rumpled.

Not sure if this post is in response to mine, but my last post has nothing to do with the complexity of choosing an outfit. My point was that it seems strange for someone who is very appearance-conscience to wear the same clothes the next day.

I've seen it posted (earlier on this thread) where Patsy wearing the same clothes actually helps prove her innocence because no one would be dumb enough to do that if they were guity. The point to the last part of my post was to show how her wearing the same clothes may have helped obscure her part in the crime and the staging. Hence my reference to her being "crazy like a fox."

Cheers,

Snarky

PS. My sister and I have very distinct habits. For example, when I am traveling I pack the night before, wake up, shower, put on fresh clothes, do my hair & makeup & put on all my jewelry. When my sister travels she showers the night before, throws stuff in her suitcase at the last minute, wears sweats or pj bottoms, twists her hair into a knot & doesn't put on makeup. If, after having these habits for years, people who know us well would think is very odd for me to not get ready and to be disorganized just as they would find it strange if my sister showed up to the airport in full makeup and jewelry.

I don't think anyone's habits are odd - because, as I said, everyone is different. What is odd is when someone changes their habits drastically. In Patsy's situation I find her wearing the same clothes strange. **I base this on what I've read and what has been said about Patsy's appearance and wanting things to appear just so. Of course this is just my opinion.

[bullmoose]

I believe that when I read Patsy's account of 12/26 in DOI, she said she went downstairs to start the coffee before she was dressed, which I assumed to mean she was in a dressing gown; then, finding the note,reading it and rushing upstairs, she simply threw her clothes from the night before on, as they were still out, where she had taken them off the night before. I do not find her account hard to imagine or believe.

[SnarkyCow]

I don't recall this. Does anybody have the quote? I thought she said she woke, threw her clothes on, did her hair & makeup and went downstairs. I could be wrong, but I don't remember any account of her saying she ran back upstairs after finding the note for any reason except to get John.

If I'm wrong please let me know - it is hard to keep everything straight!

Thanks,

Snarks

[Louisadelmar]

[...]
I don't think anyone's habits are odd - because, as I said, everyone is different. What is odd is when someone changes their habits drastically. In Patsy's situation I find her wearing the same clothes strange. **I base this on what I've read and what has been said about Patsy's appearance and wanting things to appear just so. Of course this is just my opinion.

If the murder hadn't happened - What would not have appeared "just so" to Melinda and Co?

We know she wasn't deep down persnickety about things because the back of the house was allowed to be dusty and dirty while the front rooms appeared clean. If cleanliness genuinely mattered to Patsy, LHP would either have been out on her ear or Patsy would have hired extra help.

[SnarkyCow]

If the murder hadn't happened - What would not have appeared "just so" to Melinda and Co?

We know she wasn't deep down persnickety about things because the back of the house was allowed to be dusty and dirty while the front rooms appeared clean. If cleanliness genuinely mattered to Patsy, LHP would either have been out on her ear or Patsy would have hired extra help.

I didn't say cleanliness mattered to Patsy - I said appearance mattered to Patsy. Two completely and totally different things.

Snarks

[Louisadelmar]

I didn't say cleanliness mattered to Patsy - I said appearance mattered to Patsy. Two completely and totally different things.

Snarks
That was my point.

So again - What would not have appeared "just so" to Melinda and Co?

[Coloradokares]

If the murder hadn't happened - What would not have appeared "just so" to Melinda and Co?

We know she wasn't deep down persnickety about things because the back of the house was allowed to be dusty and dirty while the front rooms appeared clean. If cleanliness genuinely mattered to Patsy, LHP would either have been out on her ear or Patsy would have hired extra help.

You make a point there. Not that LHP would have been out on her ear. She was by all accounts a good houskeeper. Patsy prized her ability to organize and clean from all accounts and proof of that was she hired LHP away from Merry Maids. But Patsy would have been less tolerant of the messes and held higher expectations from the kids in the between times of LHP doing her job. Yet its hard to imagine Patsy who was always immaculate and very well put together .... and that came from someone who knew them. Its only one point and nothing that persuades guilt or innocence either way except in public opinion . IMHO.

[SnarkyCow]

That was my point.

So again - What would not have appeared "just so" to Melinda and Co?

I don't know - I certainly don't think anything wouldn't have appeared weird to them, my only point is I find it strange someone who is soooo appearance conscience would not put on something fresh and clean. If she supposedly took time to do her hair and makeup, how much longer would it have taken to put on fresh clothes? My only point is this whole "wearing the same clothes" thing seems out of character for Patsy - based solely on what I've read and the impressions I've gotten.

As I said, this doesn't make or break someones guilt or innocence - I just think it is yet another thing that I question.

PS. I do hear what you are saying Louisadelmar - I think you make good points, just as I think I make good points. It's all speculation, no matter what side we are on. :)

[docg]

Well, DocG...I have not ruled John out. They were both involved.
Re: the 911 call...Maybe the line of thinking was "if I wrote the note and make the call, nobody will think I did it because if I did it, why would I call the police?" Not saying that that's what she thought, or that I believe it but it is certainly possible.
I still think the RN was thought up and worded by both of them, though, so in that case, she was not technically calling the police on herself. If you are so sure JR actually "penned it", well, maybe you are right but you will never convince me that he acted alone in all of this.

I understand how you feel. They decided very early on to stick together and mount a mutual defense. Each one had his/her own lawyer(s), but both were operating in tandem from the start, totally and completely reinforcing, trusting, backing up -- and making excuses for -- each other. There's no question that both have lied. And admittedly it's hard to explain why Patsy would have lied for John if she were innocent.

It's only when we come across certain absolutely insurmountable barriers presented by the evidence and the logic that a very interesting and IMO undeniable asymmetry presents itself. One such barrier is the 911 call. I just can't accept that it would have been made when it was if both were involved. Patsy is the one who called. John, who you would assume would be the logical person to make such a call, did not. That just speaks volumes to me. Sorry, I can't let it go.

[thewhitewitch1]

I believe that when I read Patsy's account of 12/26 in DOI, she said she went downstairs to start the coffee before she was dressed, which I assumed to mean she was in a dressing gown; then, finding the note,reading it and rushing upstairs, she simply threw her clothes from the night before on, as they were still out, where she had taken them off the night before. I do not find her account hard to imagine or believe.

She may have said that in DOI but all of her interviews state that she got dressed in the same clothes, did her hair and makeup and started downstairs to get coffee going. How hard is it to keep a story straight anyway especially when you've told it a million times.

[Louisadelmar]

She may have said that in DOI but all of her interviews state that she got dressed in the same clothes, did her hair and makeup and started downstairs to get coffee going. How hard is it to keep a story straight anyway especially when you've told it a million times.

DOI p 10 ppbk

"I reach for my clothes and start dressing.

Minutes later I hurry down the back stairs from our bedroom to the second floor...

[thewhitewitch1]

DOI p 10 ppbk

"I reach for my clothes and start dressing.

Minutes later I hurry down the back stairs from our bedroom to the second floor...



Ahhh...so the story was consistant. She forgot to mention putting on her makeup and doing her hair, though. :D

[Louisadelmar]

Ahhh...so the story was consistant. She forgot to mention putting on her makeup and doing her hair, though. :D

No. I just didn't bother typing it in. She mentions it in one of the previous paragraphs.

[chatwuann]

IMO it is not that strange that Patsy had on the same clothes from the night of the White's party and it doesn't spell out guilt to me. Since it was only the day after Christmas she might have decided to wear it again or maybe it was by the bed and she decided to put it on and change later. Who knows. Just because she did doesn't necessarily mean she had an ulterior motive for doing so. JMO

[elvislives]

"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.

Not that I'm exactly proud of this, but I should point out that I am an MD and my husband is a patent attorney and I am wearing the exact same outfit today that I wore yesterday. And yes, I have a huge walk in closet of designer clothes. I'm not much of a sweater or BOer (like my husband is) so wearing the same thing several times over is not a big deal and I do it all the time---the reason being, 1) its convenient since the outfit I just wore is usually draped over the chair in my dressing room and 2) washing my clothes seems to make them look old and worn so I keep this to a minimum. My husband on the other hand has to change clothes at least once per day or they tend to reek. Okay, probably more than anyone wanted to know about me and my spouse, but just thought I'd share. And thank god I'm anonymous on this board;)

[docg]

It is well known that parents who loose a child often feel responsible for the loss and this can be reflected the wrong way in the test.
"Did you kill your daughter"? You can say "No", but if your thinking I could have done something to stop it so it's my fault, the test will show you are trying to deceive. Their lawyers know this and kept them from being tested.

Not true. They were tested previously, by their lawyers. And failed.

[Louisadelmar]

Not true. They were tested previously, by their lawyers. And failed.

Source...?

[shill]

Not true. They were tested previously, by their lawyers. And failed.
...from being tested by law enforcement investigators.
The lawyers protect the Ramseys from investigators, not the lawyers. You're being a little anal about the answers.

[Ames]

Well, DocG...I have not ruled John out. They were both involved.
Re: the 911 call...Maybe the line of thinking was "if I wrote the note and make the call, nobody will think I did it because if I did it, why would I call the police?" Not saying that that's what she thought, or that I believe it but it is certainly possible.
I still think the RN was thought up and worded by both of them, though, so in that case, she was not technically calling the police on herself. If you are so sure JR actually "penned it", well, maybe you are right but you will never convince me that he acted alone in all of this.

I agree with you...I believe that Patsy wrote it with John's help (he dictated what to write)....Patsy called 911, because who in the world would suspect her of writing it, if she is the one that called? Just like docg's theory...it fit right into Patsy little plan. IMO IMO IMO IMO

[docg]

Source...?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/28/bp.00.html

COSSACK: Patsy, let me ask you a question. When I was a lawyer and before I would let my clients take a lie detector test, I used to made sure that they could pass their lie detector tests. I know you have very excellent lawyers, I know some of your lawyers. Have you privately taken a lie detector test? either of you? or both of you? and have you passed it already?

J. RAMSEY: You were asked the question, go ahead.

P. RAMSEY: I think that is kind of an inappropriate question, if you're so up on -- i think that's lawyer-client privilege and I don't wish to ruin that but...

<snip>

VAN SUSTEREN: Let me ask the question -- and don't mean to invade the attorney-client privilege, but this whole -- I mean, frankly, I'm with Roger and I don't care how innocent my clients are, I never want them to take polygraph tests because people can fail them who are innocent. So it's always a problem. But given that, have you -- you know, have you actually done -- have you been polygraphed on this particular issue -- either one of you at this point?

J. RAMSEY: We can't answer that, Greta. That's, I believe, is an attorney-client privilege. What we have said is we will take a fair and independent polygraph test.

[Ames]

If the crime scene were staged, as I believe it was, wouldn't it make more sense for Patsy to have on the same clothes as the night before? That way the fibers from the night's staging activities would be indistinguishable from fibers found the next day. In other words: Of course Patsy's jacket fibers were found on the body, etc. since she threw herself on her daughter's body after it was found. And since spent the entire last evening in the company of her daughter, in the same clothes, there is the explanation of secondary transfer. Seems it's all wrapped up in a nice little bow of explanations with room for plenty of reasonable doubt. Gives new meaning to the phrase "Crazy like a fox."



Exactly....that is why I believe that Patsy wore the same clothes. I also think thats the reason that John "found" JB's body..and brought her upstairs, wouldn't that explain any fibers or evidence (hair, etc..) that was found on her that belonged to John. IMO...Yes it would! He "found" her for the same reason that Patsy didn't change her clothes. IMO IMO IMO

[Ames]

Having many, many, many, many clothes to choose from makes getting dressed more complicated, not less. I see nothing odd about Patsy wearing an outfit that she knew worked to a get-together where it hadn't been seen by anyone other than the family.

No one has suggested she smelled bad or looked rumpled.

Maybe, sometime during the staging...she could have changed into something else...and then put the outfit that she wore to the White's back on, when it occured to her that there may be some fiber evidence...and she needed to be able to explain it away. IMO

[Ames]

IMO it is not that strange that Patsy had on the same clothes from the night of the White's party and it doesn't spell out guilt to me. Since it was only the day after Christmas she might have decided to wear it again or maybe it was by the bed and she decided to put it on and change later. Who knows. Just because she did doesn't necessarily mean she had an ulterior motive for doing so. JMO


What about the fact that the fibers from the clothes that she wore to the White's party, was found entwined in the garotte?? How the heck did those get there?? And I don't want to hear...from secondary transfer...thats a load of bull hockey. IMO

[docg]

What about the fact that the fibers from the clothes that she wore to the White's party, was found entwined in the garotte?? How the heck did those get there?? And I don't want to hear...from secondary transfer...thats a load of bull hockey. IMO

There was no need for Patsy to get fibers from her jacket onto JonBenet's body. They'd have been there already from the day before. And obviously if some of her fibers had shed onto JonBenet's hair then they'd be found in the knots of the garotte, along with the tufts of her hair that were found entwined in those knots. Patsy was her mother, she was in close contact with her, so naturally her fibers would have gotten all over her.

As far as John was concerned, there doesn't seem to be any innocent explanation for HIS fibers being found in his daughter's crotch. He picked her up, he didn't undress her. So he claims.

[Ames]

<snipped>
As far as John was concerned, there doesn't seem to be any innocent explanation for HIS fibers being found in his daughter's crotch. He picked her up, he didn't undress her. So he claims.

I agree with this about John....BUT...I still think that they were in on it together. I respect your opinion, and enjoy your posts, though!

[shill]

As far as John was concerned, there doesn't seem to be any innocent explanation for HIS fibers being found in his daughter's crotch. He picked her up, he didn't undress her. So he claims.
There is an innocent explanation that has been said over and over: "His fibers were not found in his daughter's cratch".

[Sendis]

Well, DocG...I Re: the 911 call...Maybe the line of thinking was "if I wrote the note and make the call, nobody will think I did it because if I did it, why would I call the police?" Not saying that that's what she thought, or that I believe it but it is certainly possible.

That's a good point, however the flaw that I see in it is that no sane individual trying to cover up a crime is likely to think that way, whether they're a complete novice or a pro. That's because it's instinctive to "get rid of the evidence" as soon as possible after the fact, and certainly not to be caught with it on your person.

Not only that, but this was the best piece of evidende that the police could possibly have been given that might assist them to uncover the killer's identity. Not only did Patsy supposedly write it but she had it in her possession. No sane person who was out to deceive the police would be so foolish as to do that. They would want to be a million miles away from any such evidence by the time the police took possession of it.

It would have to imply not only that she and John were among the dumbest people in the world, but that they took risks that even the dumbest person in the world is hardly likely to want to take, because it's that instinctive not to be caught with any evidence on your person, let alone such an important piece of it.

It was like saying to the cops, "Hey guys! I found this gun," when she knew her daughther was lying dead with a bullet in her head from that very same gun. You would only do that if you were innocent--or nuts.

In fact, assuming Patsy wrote it, the r/n was even more damning for her than a murder weapon, because it supposedly had signs of her all over it in the way of her handwriting and idiosyncrasies etc..

But in addition to that, it doesn't fit in with what we know about the Ramseys. They were neither dumb nor big risk-takers.

And if even that isn't enough, the whole point of staging a cover-up is to eliminate the risk of being found out. But handing the police the r/n stands completely at odds with that objective.

So it doesn't add up. It was too convenient an arrangement of the facts to have been her who wrote the r/n. Besides, there was no need to write one just to stage JonBenet's death.

Finally, if you're going to stage something to look like a kidnap, then you'd better make sure that the victim is really "kidnapped", because you punch large holes in your credibility the minute you start garbling the plot. John Ramsey in particular, was a very logical person. Assuming he helped with the staging, he would logically have made sure that it was at least half way believable. Precisely because it isn't believeable, and for that reason throws suspicion right onto them, it isn't credible that these two could have staged it together. No one staging a crime goes out of their way, as we're asked to believe the Rs did, to throw suspicion right onto themselves.

[nuisanceposter]

Desperate people go to desperate measures in a desperate situation. What else were they supposed to do? Tehy couldn't take her out of the house, that would risk them being seen dumping the body. They couldn't not write an RN, otherwise the focus is definitely going to be on them - the RN gives the police a boogeyman to chase. They couldn't just go meet their plane and escape the house so they weren't there when the police found the note and the body, and they couldn't sit around without calling and notifying someone much less police because they were expected at the airport.

Just because it doesn't make sense for the Rs to stage the crime and call police doesn't mean they couldn't possibly be guilty. It sounds to me like they were backed into a corner with their daughter dead and needed to come up with something to make it look like someone other than them were involved. They did the best they could with what they had.

[Athena]

It sounds to me like they were backed into a corner with their daughter dead and needed to come up with something to make it look like someone other than them were involved. They did the best they could with what they had.

The note had just the opposite effect. It specifically pointed right back at the R's especially by incorporating the $118,000 amount into it. I cannot believe JR or PR would have been that stupid and framed themselves.

The note has a big part in my conclusion that the R's did not commit this crime nor write the note. JMO

[Sendis]

Desperate people go to desperate measures in a desperate situation.

When you're desperately trying to cover up a crime, you don't stage anything; you do everything in your power to get rid of the evidence. You only stage when you're trying to frame someone or playing games with the cops, as some serial killers do. If it was really the Rs who killed JB and were trying to cover that up, their plan would logically have been to try, with whatever means they had in their power, to dispose of the body, and they would certainly not have given any ransom note to the police if they were sane.

Not only did Patsy supposedly do that, walking right into the lion's den, so-to-speak, but she apparently didn't change her clothing. So just exactly what was she covering up? She was laying all the evidence of her "complicity" in the crime out on display. Now that might be convenient for those who don't really like her and somehow hold her responsible for this, but they're asking her to be a total imbecile into the bargain, and she and John were certainly not that.

What else were they supposed to do?

Come clean. Say it was an accident, whatever.

Tehy couldn't take her out of the house, that would risk them being seen dumping the body

I thought you said they were desperate. Either way they were taking risks, but I maintain that it's a basic instinct to seek to rid yourself of evidence above all.

Surely they knew some quiet spot where they were not likely to be observed. As they were due to fly up to Michigan early the next day, they had a pretext to be up a good deal earlier in the morning than usual.

Once they had thus disposed of the body, the risk of being exposed thereafter was negligible. See: no body, no crime; problem solved. Every court of law would have to throw it out due to lack of evidence.

They couldn't not write an RN, otherwise the focus is definitely going to be on them - the RN gives the police a boogeyman to chase.

But take a closer look at that Boogeyman. He was a joke. He was a character right out of Dirty Harry. Would the Ramseys have come up with some scenario right out of Hollywood if they were trying to stage a credible murder scene? That would now be calling them totally naive.

The intent of the writer was evidently to disguise his own identity by making it seem too ridiculous that someone <b>like himself</b> (i.e. an intruder) could have done this, and thus that it must have been an inside job. Which is exactly why you believe it is.

The RN wasn't the best they could do. It was the worst for the reasons I've stated. But it wasn't just a bad idea in principle; the RN itself was all too obviously all wrong if they were trying to stage a "murder by intruder".

No, all they had to do was create a credible entry/exit point, dump the body and call the police to inform them that JonBenet had disappeared and let them believe it was a pedophile or whatever. To stage a kidnap to cover up a "murder" looks too obviously like a staging gone wrong. Serial killers, however, often do things just like that to confuse the police.

[Sendis]

The note had just the opposite effect. It specifically pointed right back at the R's especially by incorporating the $118,000 amount into it. I cannot believe JR or PR would have been that stupid and framed themselves.

The note has a big part in my conclusion that the R's did not commit this crime nor write the note. JMO

In addition to that, you may recall that in Dirty Harry, the character named Scorpio on which the intruder in the RN is evidently modeled asks for $100, 000 in ransom money when he begins his killing spree. He later kidnaps a 14 year old female and gives long and detailed ransom deliver instructions to Callaghan (who plays DH).

He also taunts and plays games with Callaghan and <b>frames</b> him by paying someone to beat him up then claiming that Callaghan did it. He also uses the term "the girl dies" instead of "will die". He never collects any ransom money and the girl was already dead when the RN was written, concealed of course underground. He also provides food and water for the girl and othewise caters for her needs (until her death).

The writer didn't then just borrow movie quotes, but Scorpio's entire persona, both in writing the RN and committing the crime. There are also numerous other such parallels to the other movies from which there are paraphrased quotes.

The character Zodiac on which Scorpio himself is based, wrote long handwritten letters to the police and deliberately mispelled his words to throw them. One such mispelling was bussy (for busy). He also taunted the police, claiming to enjoy adding "false klews" [sic] to the crime scene, i.e. red herrings, to baffle the "Blue Pigs" and have them "run all over town with them".

Even if Patsy was not beside herself with worry and grief by that time, how could she have had the presence of mind to come up with such an elaborate plot, that had so many similarities between at least four movie scripts all more or less of the same genre, a real serial killer and this crime, just as though she had been planning it for months? Such a persona as Scorpio alone was not some overnight invention, but must have taken at least weeks in gestation.

While the RN was apparently written to deceive, that doesn't mean it had to all be untrue. The writer claims to be "familiar with law enforcement countermeasures and tactics." That on its own, if true, would explain the paucity of his own evidence at the scene. Actually his evidence is everywhere there, but he has apparently used sleight of hand to point it to the Rs.

The evidence against them, however, looks very contrived and artificial. As though it was purposely made to look like an inside job. Where Patsy should have been covering up, she didn't, and these are all in areas in which an intruder would not have had under his direct control, such as the issue of her clothing that she didn't change when it was screaming at her that she should. Where there should have been evidence, there wasn't any, such as the lack of the Ramseys' hair or DNA, both things that would have been difficult for an intruder to plant at the scene.

The lack of an obvious entry/exit point is not explained by RDI but easily explained if the intruder wanted this to look like an inside job. Which is why the chair might have been placed in such a way as to block the train room door so that whoever discovered that would not naturally suspect an intruder who might have exited that way (whether he did or he didn't).

To me it looks like an obvious set up. These things do happen, and I'm surprised people find it srange. It's totally logical for an intrudert to try to make this look like an inside job, and an experienced one would know exactly how to do that.

[Tober]

You only stage when you're trying to frame someone or playing games with the cops, as some serial killers do.

That logic applies limitation to motivation, which shouldn't be done being that motivation is exclusive to an individual.

[shill]

That logic applies limitation to motivation, which shouldn't be done being that motivation is exclusive to an individual.

Unless the motivation is the target resembles the Mel Gibson character in "Ransom" so closely that he lives out a fantasy copycat crime with the Ramseys.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Wonderful posts, Sendis. Just wonderful.

:beer:

MissO

[Sendis]

"Originally Posted by Sendis
You only stage when you're trying to frame someone or playing games with the cops, as some serial killers do."

"That logic applies limitation to motivation, which shouldn't be done being that motivation is exclusive to an individual."

My point is that staging and covering up (a crime) are a contradiction in terms. You don't stage to cover-up anything. You stage to expose, or else you aim to mislead.

This crime does show signs of staging. So this is not a cover-up.

Assuming it was the Ramseys who did the staging, they would have been out to frame someone or some group of indivuduals so as to have that person (or group) take the rap for JB's death, and thereby take suspicion off themselves.

But first of all, who were they framing? If they didn't have someone specifically in mind, then the whole point is lost.

Secondly, they were far too present in the case to want to try and frame someone and expect ti pull that off. They were there, right at the scene of the crime, and yet they would risk getting caught not just as the killers but as duplicitous stage artists, a criminal activity in which they had no experiencew whatsoever? That beggars belief.

Can you can imagine the cool, calm and logical John Ramsey deciding to get involved in something so utterly foolish? Someone who had a book on near death experiences and mourning by his bedside on the night of the offense, which he read to help him come to terrms with the death of his other daughter, Beth? Someone who began a foundation to cater for the spiritual education of children. How unusual! This was a man who took an interest in the spiritual welfare of others among other things, when others concern themselves merely with their own petty material pursuits. I'm not saying he was a saint. Who is? But he certainly gets marks for trying.

Thirdly, if anyone tries to frame another, for that to stand a chance ot working, they must remain completely incognito. Totally out of the picture, so that their hand in the set-up could not possibly be suspected. Otherwise they blow their cover right away.

Fourth, the character they would have been trying to frame turns out to be someone out of a Hollywood movie plot. He was first a "small foreign faction", then some kind of anarchist, then some guy who evidently knew John and not foreign at all. He was in other words totally made up. If there were trying to create a credible intruder, in this they failed miserably.

Picture yourself trying to do that. You've just acidentally killed one of your children, and you decide to write some sort of an "intruder note" that you desperately want the police to believe. Would you have purposely made the note sound like a complete farce replete with wisecracks cited from old movies, and with some movie character playing center-stage?

It's just as though the whole thing had been staged by a brain-damaged chimpanzee.

But that's the impression that a real intruder would have wanted to give, not the Rs.

[Sendis]

Wonderful posts, Sendis. Just wonderful.

:beer:

MissO

Thank you, MissOtis! Glad I didn't completely baffle everyone.

[Athena]

Wonderful posts, Sendis. Just wonderful.

:beer:

MissO

Hey MsO -- Miss you!!! Hope you had a wonderful holiday.

Just reading through Sendis' posts and I concur. :beer:

BTW: Here's another very interesting theory posted along the same lines as Sendis' synopsis:

"Through the Looking Glass"

http://braveheart.users4.50megs.com/ramsey/lookinglass.htm

[LindaA]

Athena, interesting site. MissOtis, I'm also glad to see you posting again as well. Sendis, :beer:

[thewhitewitch1]

QUOTE: Sendis

It's just as though the whole thing had been staged by a brain-damaged chimpanzee.

But that's the impression that a real intruder would have wanted to give, not the Rs.
END QUOTE

Why would a real intruder need to stage anything? If the intent was kidnapping, they would have taken the body. If something went wrong (and it appears it did), they'd have taken the note. It appears as though it was not a real kidnapping at all and anyone out to "frame" JR could have done so in many other obvious ways beside writing a "staged" ransom note that may or may not have appeared as though he wrote it. You'd want something that definately points AT the person you want to frame. I don't see how the ransom note did that at all.
Why would a "real intruder" want to give the impression that the whole thing was staged by a brain-damaged chimpanzee? Are you saying that JR is like a brain-damaged chimpanzee? No, I didn't think so.
Why wouldn't the Ramseys not want to give that impression? What's your reasoning behind that statement?
For you to say that they couldn't have written the note because of it's content is ridiculous. You couldn't have known what they were thinking or what they may have been trying to convey in that note. It's quite possible to believe that they never thought anyone would catch on to the movie phrases, or that they were just trying to make it sound like a real kidnapper would sound. Just so long as the LE believed they had a kidnapping on their hands, what did it matter? For all we know, it's possible that JR and PR may have intended to remove her body and bury it at some point. Maybe they didn't count on the police hanging around their house all day and decided they'd better let her be "discovered" or maybe they took the chance that someone else would "discover" her. We don't know what they may have been thinking. As I've said before, they were not mastermind criminals or serial killers. How does the average joe know what to do to stage a convincing crime scene? I think an accident occured and the rest was improvised to point the finger away from themselves.
It worked. Neither was arrested or did jail time.

[shill]

For all we know, it's possible that JR and PR may have intended to remove her body and bury it at some point. Maybe they didn't count on the police hanging around their house all day and decided they'd better let her be "discovered" or maybe they took the chance that someone else would "discover" her. We don't know what they may have been thinking.
No one is that stupid to think the cops are not going to hang out until she's found. Your smarter then that TWW1

How does the average joe know what to do to stage a convincing crime scene? I think an accident occured and the rest was improvised to point the finger away from themselves.
It worked. Neither was arrested or did jail time.The average Joe keeps it simple. The more you complicate it, the more lies you have to tell, and the more chances you have of being tripped up.
A poster on another site has gone into great detail on the physics of cracking a skull. He has taken into effect applied force, velocity, weight, surface area and skull thickness and has concluded it could not be an accidental blow.
I will try and bring a link if I can find it again.

[thewhitewitch1]

No one is that stupid to think the cops are not going to hang out until she's found. Your smarter then that TWW1

The average Joe keeps it simple. The more you complicate it, the more lies you have to tell, and the more chances you have of being tripped up.
A poster on another site has gone into great detail on the physics of cracking a skull. He has taken into effect applied force, velocity, weight, surface area and skull thickness and has concluded it could not be an accidental blow.
I will try and bring a link if I can find it again.

Shill...they did try to keep it simple. They went to the Whites for dinner, they dropped off a few gifts on the way home, JB fell asleep in the car, they carried her to bed, changed her pants and that's the last they saw of her alive. How much more simple could it get?
How are they going to get caught in a lie by the staging they did? It's simple...you deny any knowledge of anything, period, which is exactly what they did. They "slept" through the entire thing.
When the LE started questioning them is when the lies started coming out. I don't think anyone could be prepared for the kind of questioning LE does. The focus is on the little details and when those details started coming out is when the stories kept changing. That is a sure sign of guilt. If you are telling the truth, the story doesn't change.
Forget the hysterics as an excuse for "not remembering". They seemed to remember plenty when it was convenient for them. It's just when something didn't add up that they "didn't remember".
Even their own book (DOI) contradicts what they told LE in their interviews.
If you re-read the interviews, especially the one (1998?) when Patsy is being shown pictures of the house, you will see how she changes the subject during certain things, such as the balled up red turtleneck in JBs bathroom.
A huge example of one of their lies is that Burke slept through the entire thing. Though we have never heard the enhanced 911 tape, I believe it does exist. We all know now that Burke was awake and I do not see how Patsy or John could not have known that. Do you really think that any kid his age would just lie there in bed while his parents are screaming and yelling? I know I would want to go see what was going on....that is, unless I feared my parents. So...was there really screaming and yelling going on? Or was Burke awakened that morning and "briefed" on what to say to the police?
I also think the time-line was weird. Who gets up at 5:30 a.m. and wakes their kids minutes before they have to leave to catch a plane? It seems as though Patsy should have woken the kids up as she was going downstairs so that they would have time to get dressed and have some breakfast. An hour to get a family of 4 ready to leave on a trip just doesn't seem right. She had already used up almost half of that time "doing her hair and make-up" and diddling around with that red shirt or whatever it was.
Nothing about their story rings true to me. IMO

[shill]

Shill...they did try to keep it simple. They went to the Whites for dinner, they dropped off a few gifts on the way home, JB fell asleep in the car, they carried her to bed, changed her pants and that's the last they saw of her alive. How much more simple could it get?
How are they going to get caught in a lie by the staging they did? It's simple...you deny any knowledge of anything, period, which is exactly what they did. They "slept" through the entire thing.
When the LE started questioning them is when the lies started coming out. I don't think anyone could be prepared for the kind of questioning LE does. The focus is on the little details and when those details started coming out is when the stories kept changing. That is a sure sign of guilt. If you are telling the truth, the story doesn't change.
Forget the hysterics as an excuse for "not remembering". They seemed to remember plenty when it was convenient for them. It's just when something didn't add up that they "didn't remember".
Even their own book (DOI) contradicts what they told LE in their interviews.
If you re-read the interviews, especially the one (1998?) when Patsy is being shown pictures of the house, you will see how she changes the subject during certain things, such as the balled up red turtleneck in JBs bathroom.
A huge example of one of their lies is that Burke slept through the entire thing. Though we have never heard the enhanced 911 tape, I believe it does exist. We all know now that Burke was awake and I do not see how Patsy or John could not have known that. Do you really think that any kid his age would just lie there in bed while his parents are screaming and yelling? I know I would want to go see what was going on....that is, unless I feared my parents. So...was there really screaming and yelling going on? Or was Burke awakened that morning and "briefed" on what to say to the police?
I also think the time-line was weird. Who gets up at 5:30 a.m. and wakes their kids minutes before they have to leave to catch a plane? It seems as though Patsy should have woken the kids up as she was going downstairs so that they would have time to get dressed and have some breakfast. An hour to get a family of 4 ready to leave on a trip just doesn't seem right. She had already used up almost half of that time "doing her hair and make-up" and diddling around with that red shirt or whatever it was.
Nothing about their story rings true to me. IMO

With all due respect, your recreation and interpretation of things doesn't ring true to me. It is obvious we don't see this story the same way on many, many aspects of it. But we know that.

Keeping it simple is not; Feeding pineapple, finding tape and disposing of tape, finding cord, making garrote with paintbrush, making ligature and cuffing, violating with paintbrush, writing ransom note, allegedly changing her panties, dragging her to the wine cellar, without getting sleep.
What would they have done if her skull cut open and she gushed blood all over? What a mess that would be to cover up.

[Sendis]

Hey MsO -- Miss you!!! Hope you had a wonderful holiday.

Just reading through Sendis' posts and I concur. :beer:

BTW: Here's another very interesting theory posted along the same lines as Sendis' synopsis:

"Through the Looking Glass"

http://braveheart.users4.50megs.com/ramsey/lookinglass.htm

Athena. Thank you for that! You're right, it's a very similar theory. I'm certainly saying exactly what the author's saying right here: "The manner in which the crime scene was staged, by spicing [sic] together various parts from several movies, was calculated to confuse investigators by directing suspicion toward several persons, in particular, the parents, while emphasizing an "Anarchist" message."

We also fully agree that it would have taken months to plan this. I think Lou Smit, too, saw that PR could not have had the presence of mind to put to put together this elaborate plot in a matter of just hours after her daughr's death.

You might recall the police finding a Webster dictionary open to the letter 'i', and the page creased exactly at the word 'Incest'. The purport of that would probably have been to highlight the idea that this was an inside job.

But there's also a parallel between that and 'Seven', in the way that in Seven each murder is made to be a statement on each one of the so-called seven deadly sins, which in this case would be lust. The RN itself alludes to another deadly sins: greed, and JB herself was in a sense made an object of yet another deadly sin: vanity. The pineapple and the fact that it was Christmas (wasn't that an ominous day to choose?) might symbolize gluttony. Beauty pageants might symbolize sloth.

Since I became interested in this case, I've always thought that the way the Rs ran their lives was an advertisement for someone to try to do something like this.

Sloth, wrath and envy are the other three deadly sins. I don't see how that fits with the Ramseys, although the killer would make them angry of course. Wrath, sloth and envy, however, were sins of the killer himself. I've always thought that the killer's twin motives were that he had a grievance and was envious of JR's status. Whether or not he was also a pedophile is debatable. Sloth is a disinclination to work. "The devil makes work for idle hands," as the saying goes. Engaging in criminal activities to extort money is what someone disinclined to work might resort to.

[Sendis]

Another interesting point, is that the Bible was open on JR's desk to Psalm 35. Let's assume that it was the killer who put it there, just as it was almost certainly the killer who opened the dictionary and creased the page at the word "incest" to, along with the staging of JB's body, point the finger firmly at JR without actually saying "JR did it," because of course no one would believe JR would incriminate himself like that.

That whole passage in SPalms is about someone feeling wronged at the hands of the powerful. Full of wrath, he beseeches God to persecute those he feels wronged by for the "hurt" they have "caused" him.

35:4 Let them be confounded and put to shame that seek after my soul: let them be turned back and brought to confusion that devise my hurt

As I mentionbed in my reply to Athena above, I've always thought that this was someone motivated by a grievance. There's a sign of grievance again right there. This was someone who possibly felt robbed and cheated in some way by the rich and powerful (either the Rs or people like them). Hence the refernce in the RN to fat cats and a ransom figure equating to the amount of John's "fat cat" bonus. In that context it's a symbol of the killer's anger and derision.

35:5 Let them be as chaff before the wind: and let the angel of the LORD [law enforcers?] chase them.

35:6 Let their way be dark and slippery: and let the angel of the LORD persecute them. [the Rs have been the victims of something in the way of a witchhunt especally in the form of media persecution, but also because they were placed under an umbrella of suspicion right from the get-go]

35:8 Let destruction come upon him at unawares; and let his net that he hath hid catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall. [At first they are unaware of the destruction about to meeted out to them because of course JB was taken while they slept]

35:9 And my soul shall be joyful in the LORD: it shall rejoice in his salvation.

This was apparently someone who wished to destroy the Rs. He would also rejoice at their destruction.

35:10 All my bones shall say, LORD, who is like unto thee, which deliverest the poor from him that is too strong for him, yea, the poor and the needy from him that spoileth him? [Was this someone of low means/income who felt invalidated by the wealth of the Rs? Or was that just the way he saw himself?]

35:11 False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.

35:12 They rewarded me evil for good to the spoiling of my soul.

35:14 I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother: I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother.

35:15 But in mine adversity they rejoiced, and gathered themselves together: yea, the abjects gathered themselves together against me, and I knew it not; they did tear me, and ceased not: [Was this someone who knew the Rs but who the Rs themselves didn't know?]

35:16 With hypocritical mockers in feasts [a reference to the parties that the Rs liked to hold?], they gnashed upon me with their teeth.

35:19 Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.

35:20 For they speak not peace: but they devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land. [Was this a reference to the US Government's involvement in armed conflict in wars in other countries and so on? JR's company, Access Graphics, was the subsidiary of a military contractor]

35:21 Yea, they opened their mouth wide against me, and said, Aha, aha, our eye hath seen it.

Was this someone who felt wrongly accused by one of the Rs of a crime, and wanted to exact revenge by framing them so that the same would be done unto them with JB's death?

35:26 Let them be ashamed and brought to confusion together that rejoice at mine hurt: let them be clothed with shame and dishonour that magnify themselves against me.

In the RN, the writer says that the "small foreign faction" has nothing against John's business but the "government that it serves." Ignoring the obvious fact that this was probably not the work of a "foreign faction" but one or two Americans acting alone, could that nevertheless have been true? If so, is that the grievance or one of the grievances and why?

Could it have had something to with the fact that JR's company, Access Graphics, was a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin? LM is the Government's largest military supplier and was at the time making large donations to the the Democrats through at least one of its subsidiaries. It also supplied missiles to Israel, and was fined $13 million at one point for supplying technology to China which was nothing much more than a slap on the wrist, since the contracts were said to have been worth billions. All in all, LM is very much the Government's "blue eyed boy."

Nothing cast in iron. Just ideas to play around with.

[Sendis]

The Bible was actually opened to Psalms 35 and 36. Psalm 36, is really a vicious attack on the character of the "wronged one's" perceived oppressors.

This verse proved to be prophetic:

"36:12 There are the workers of iniquity fallen: they are cast down, and shall not be able to rise."

It's exactly what happend to the Rs, in a way.

[andU]

The Bible was actually opened to Psalms 35 and 36. Psalm 36, is really a vicious attack on the character of the "wronged one's" perceived oppressors.

This verse proved to be prophetic:

"36:12 There are the workers of iniquity fallen: they are cast down, and shall not be able to rise."

It's exactly what happend to the Rs, in a way.

Sendis, I agree with the grievance theory and have for awhile, and I believe Shill also put a similar throry out there and it was booted down by RDI's... but, as an IDI, I agree with it.... I agree with much of your line of thinking.

[GrrlPwer]

Patsy claimed she already had that outfit on when she came down and found the RN. I don't believe for a second that she'd get up and put on the same dirty worn clothes, intending to wear them on a flight to Michigan where they're meeting up with the other kids.

Of course, she gave two different stories about finding the RN...her first story was that she checked JB's room, and saw her gone and then went downstairs and found the note...then later she changed it to she went downstairs and found the note and then checked JB's room.
I totally agree. I don't believe for a second that Patsy fell asleep in her clothes OR woke up and put the same dirty clothes on.

I've always had a funny feeling about Patsy. Dont know why.

[Louisadelmar]

What "dirty" clothes? She wore them for a few hours while she stood around and talked with friends..

[LindaA]

What "dirty" clothes? She wore them for a few hours while she stood around and talked with friends..

Louisadelmar, I don't know why we bother responding to comments like this. If someone dislikes PR, they see evil in everything she does. I never have understood how her clothes could be so dirty from attending a dinner either. Besides, we usually have just a few outfits to wear at Christmas -- even PR -- and tend to wear them over again maybe more than we would normally.

Had she worn them all night while murdering her daughter, then they would have been too dirty to wear the next day as well. But then, if she had been wearing different clothes, the RDIs would think she was hiding something.

[Zoey]

What "dirty" clothes? She wore them for a few hours while she stood around and talked with friends..


I have to agree with this. What "dirty clothes" are we talking about? I have worn Christmas outfits to a party, or to church, and then put them back on the next day, as they are Christmas outfits. As an adult, the chances of you "dirtying them" are slim, and so to put them back on the next day would be okay.

Also, I don't leave my house without my make-up. As soon as I get up, I brush my teeth and put on my make-up. I never have understood why everyone makes such a big deal about Patsy having her make-up on.

[LindaA]

I guess, Zoey, if you don't wear makeup every day, you wouldn't understand. If I had just finished bludgeoning and garrotting my only daughter, I don't think I would be capable of applying makeup, and I"m sure PR wouldn't have been either.

[GrrlPwer]

I have to agree with this. What "dirty clothes" are we talking about? I have worn Christmas outfits to a party, or to church, and then put them back on the next day, as they are Christmas outfits. As an adult, the chances of you "dirtying them" are slim, and so to put them back on the next day would be okay.

Also, I don't leave my house without my make-up. As soon as I get up, I brush my teeth and put on my make-up. I never have understood why everyone makes such a big deal about Patsy having her make-up on.So let me see if i get this straight. You actually think PR would be able to stop looking for her missing daughter and go put makeup on? Would you be able to do that? And if you are going on a family trip do you wear the outfit you had on at a christmas party the night before? No way! First off i figure one of two things happen the night before. Either A) PR took off her clothes she wore to the party and hung them up OR B) she put them in the dirty clothes hamper. Isn't that what most Adults do? So IF she did one of those two things are you saying she dug through the clothes hamper to get out her dirty outfit or she went to her closet and said hmmmmmm nothing good to wear on the plane i think i'll wear what i wore last night?

Now as far as her make up well heck she might have put that on before even leaving her bedroom. I know some women like that *rolls her eyes* never understood those kinda women but anyways back to PR. Lets say she did put it on before even finding the RN.......why in the world didn't the woman find some clean clothes?

I personally feel like did didn't sleep all night. Something horrible happen in that house and i think PR went to her grave knowing all the details. I'm not saying she's the murderer i'm just saying I personally feel in MOO and JMO that she knows everything that happen to her daughter.

[GrrlPwer]

Louisadelmar, I don't know why we bother responding to comments like this. If someone dislikes PR, they see evil in everything she does. I never have understood how her clothes could be so dirty from attending a dinner either. Besides, we usually have just a few outfits to wear at Christmas -- even PR -- and tend to wear them over again maybe more than we would normally.

Had she worn them all night while murdering her daughter, then they would have been too dirty to wear the next day as well. But then, if she had been wearing different clothes, the RDIs would think she was hiding something.

In no way am i saying the clothes were dirty from killing JBR. ALl i'm saying is that she wore those clothes the day before why is she wearing them to get on the plane the next day? Ok maybe i'm just a clean freak, but either i would hang the clothes up or put them in the laundry hamper. I just don't get the whole wearing them two days in a row even if she only had a few christmasy outfits.:shrug:

[LindaA]

Nope, I don't think she stopped looking for JBR to put on her makeup. I believe according to her account she put it on before leaving her room that morning.

I believe she also said she retrieved her clothes from the chair where she had put them when she took them off the night before. She was going from one home to another via private plane, so I don't see what is so strange about her thinking she would shower after she got there.

We do know that she showered just before going to the White's party (and colored her hair), so it had been less than 24 hours since then. How many showers does a person need to take in 24 hours?

[Zoey]

So let me see if i get this straight. You actually think PR would be able to stop looking for her missing daughter and go put makeup on? Would you be able to do that? And if you are going on a family trip do you wear the outfit you had on at a christmas party the night before? No way! First off i figure one of two things happen the night before. Either A) PR took off her clothes she wore to the party and hung them up OR B) she put them in the dirty clothes hamper. Isn't that what most Adults do? So IF she did one of those two things are you saying she dug through the clothes hamper to get out her dirty outfit or she went to her closet and said hmmmmmm nothing good to wear on the plane i think i'll wear what i wore last night?

Now as far as her make up well heck she might have put that on before even leaving her bedroom. I know some women like that *rolls her eyes* never understood those kinda women but anyways back to PR. Lets say she did put it on before even finding the RN.......why in the world didn't the woman find some clean clothes?

I personally feel like did didn't sleep all night. Something horrible happen in that house and i think PR went to her grave knowing all the details. I'm not saying she's the murderer i'm just saying I personally feel in MOO and JMO that she knows everything that happen to her daughter.

No, I don't believe she stopped looking for her daughter to put her make-up on, nor did I imply that. She put her make-up on before coming down the stairs first thing in the morning.

And no, I don't believe she went through her clothes hamper looking for clothes. As I would have done, I would have laid these clothes on a chair or the dresser to wear the next day, and as I have said, I don't know why they are being called "dirty clothes". They would have been worn, but not necessarily dirty. I have done it many a time, and find nothing odd about it.

[Louisadelmar]

In no way am i saying the clothes were dirty from killing JBR. ALl i'm saying is that she wore those clothes the day before why is she wearing them to get on the plane the next day? Ok maybe i'm just a clean freak, but either i would hang the clothes up or put them in the laundry hamper. I just don't get the whole wearing them two days in a row even if she only had a few christmasy outfits.:shrug:

Perhaps because they were convenient, they worked as an outfit so she didn't have to think about them, they were comfortable, they were still clean, they were suitable for travelling, and she was wearing them with a completely different set of people who hadn't seen her wear them at the White's.

[Zoey]

IMO, I see it this way, kind of what LindaA posted on another thread, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Patsy wore the same clothes the next day that she wore at the White's; therfore, she must have killed her little girl. Patsy doesn't wear the same clothes she wore to the White's, so she would have been accused of changing her clothes because she killed her little girl.

Patsy comes down the stairs with full make-up on. Hmmm, she must have killed her little girl.

Patsy comes down the stairs with no make-up in. Hmmm, she was so distraught having just killed her little girl, she didn't have time to put her make-up on.

[sweetcharlotte]

I agree with you, but I promise...the concern over Patsy's clothes will come up again. If the circumstances weren't so sad, the issue over Patsy's personal habits would be funny.

JMO

[GrrlPwer]

After reading all this i'm starting to see why my dry cleaning bills are so high. Because i only wear my good clothes a few times before sending them to the cleaner. And i sure don't wear clothes back to back. Honestly i don't think PR did either.

[shill]

If you know you're not going to take a shower the next morning because you're getting up early for a trip in a small airplane, you might wear the same clothes from the previous night. Why would you put on clothes cleaner then you? I would wear the clothes I was wearing after my last shower.

I always put on clean clothes after I shower, not before.

[Tober]

What's suspicious (a red flag, rightfully so) is that it wasn't just any old day Patsy wore the same clothes as the previous night, but the very day on which her daughter's dead, staged body was found in her basement. What's even more suspect is that Patsy claims she put on those clothes prior to finding the ransom note, and not in a panic after finding the note. And so, any good investigator would come to the logical conclusion that it appears Patsy had been up all night.

[Coloradokares]

After reading all this i'm starting to see why my dry cleaning bills are so high. Because i only wear my good clothes a few times before sending them to the cleaner. And i sure don't wear clothes back to back. Honestly i don't think PR did either.

I said exactly the same thing. If it is on my person more than long enough to decide if that is what I am going to be wearing, it is laundry. I might hesitate through it if its dry clean only. But once worn regardless if 2 hours or less its drycleaning and or laundry. Also we discussed my neurotic tendencies to bath more than once a day given special circumstance most of the IDI's and I agreed that truly I am a rare specimen and certifiable. I am glad to find another one so rare as me. I believe we declared it totally untweetable!!!

[Louisadelmar]

What's suspicious (a red flag, rightfully so) is that it wasn't just any old day Patsy wore the same clothes as the previous night, but the very day on which her daughter's dead, staged body was found in her basement. What's even more suspect is that Patsy claims she put on those clothes prior to finding the ransom note, and not in a panic after finding the note. And so, any good investigator would come to the logical conclusion that it appears Patsy had been up all night.

You mean every time I wear the same clothes two days in a row I've been up all night?

[shill]

What's suspicious (a red flag, rightfully so) is that it wasn't just any old day Patsy wore the same clothes as the previous night, but the very day on which her daughter's dead, staged body was found in her basement. What's even more suspect is that Patsy claims she put on those clothes prior to finding the ransom note, and not in a panic after finding the note. And so, any good investigator would come to the logical conclusion that it appears Patsy had been up all night.

Any bias investigator with tunnel vision would come to the logical conclusion that it appears Patsy had been up all night.

With no sleep for probably 36 hours and all that entertaining, killing, staging, writing, acting, and giving testimony, and no one ever once noted that she appeared to have not slept all night.
If she was a crack head, then everything that happened in that time span could be believable.

[Tober]

You mean every time I wear the same clothes two days in a row I've been up all night?

No. The logic applies to the totality of the particular situation that Patsy was in.

[Louisadelmar]

No. The logic applies to the totality of the particular situation that Patsy was in.

Only if you have predetermined she is guilty.

It is exactly like Douglas questioning when she wore the cross to the interview. Had she suddenly 'got religion' and was playing a part or was religion a genuiine part of her life? Later, on going through family photos he saw that she regularly wore the cross and religion had always been a part of her life.

Unfortunately Patsy is the only one who can verify she sometimes wears the same outfit two days in a row and you have already decided she's guilty and a liar.

[Zoey]

What's suspicious (a red flag, rightfully so) is that it wasn't just any old day Patsy wore the same clothes as the previous night, but the very day on which her daughter's dead, staged body was found in her basement. What's even more suspect is that Patsy claims she put on those clothes prior to finding the ransom note, and not in a panic after finding the note. And so, any good investigator would come to the logical conclusion that it appears Patsy had been up all night.

How do you, or any of us for that matter, know for a fact that Patsy was not in the habit of wearing Christmas clothes two days in a row? We have absolutely nothing to go by. Is there statements from friends or anyone stating for fact that Patsy never wore Christmas clothes two days in a row? No, I don't think in anything I have ever read on this case of anyone saying Patsy did not wear clothes two days in a row. So then, what's the big deal? She did not appear to have not slept all night. All she did was appear with make-up on and the same clothes from the night before. This, does not, IMO, send any red flags up or any other colored flags up. It means, and she stated this herself, she did not like doing laundry, and did not like to have to take things to be dry cleaned. Again, this does not, in any sense, make her a killer.

[Athena]

How do you, or any of us for that matter, know for a fact that Patsy was not in the habit of wearing Christmas clothes two days in a row? We have absolutely nothing to go by. Is there statements from friends or anyone stating for fact that Patsy never wore Christmas clothes two days in a row? No, I don't think in anything I have ever read on this case of anyone saying Patsy did not wear clothes two days in a row. So then, what's the big deal? She did not appear to have not slept all night. All she did was appear with make-up on and the same clothes from the night before. This, does not, IMO, send any red flags up or any other colored flags up. It means, and she stated this herself, she did not like doing laundry, and did not like to have to take things to be dry cleaned. Again, this does not, in any sense, make her a killer.

i'll never understand what the big deal is about Patsy putting on those clothes once again to get on a plane. If anything she should have been sweaty, dirty and unkempt after committing such a heinous crime in a dirty basement and I've never heard anyone describe that she in anyway appeared sloppy or dirty. I am referred to as a best dresser in the office and always neat but I have worn the same clothes the next day if I am off and feel exactly as Patsy did re: laundry and dry-cleaning. :shrug:

[LindaA]

As they were leaving early on the morning of the 26th, Patsy woulnd't have had the opportunity to take the outfit to a dry-cleaner. And if she had, she wouldn't have had acces to that outfit for the remainder of the holiday season.

I also agree that had she murdered JB and staged the scene in the basement her clothes would have been soiled and sweaty. The fact that they were not and she was wearing them, and appeared well-groomed when she hadn't taken a shower seems to me to indicate her innocence. But then I don't see guilt in every little thing PR did.

[Coloradokares]

Only if you have predetermined she is guilty.

It is exactly like Douglas questioning when she wore the cross to the interview. Had she suddenly 'got religion' and was playing a part or was religion a genuiine part of her life? Later, on going through family photos he saw that she regularly wore the cross and religion had always been a part of her life.

Unfortunately Patsy is the only one who can verify she sometimes wears the same outfit two days in a row and you have already decided she's guilty and a liar.

I think due to her battle with cancer her belief became even deeper and more personal a walk in faith. How can anyone tell what is genuine of not. Recently a very famous pastor here in Colorado was exposed in sordid issues. Christians are not perfect. Only forgiven. I am looking for a link regarding Patsy's friends opinions on if she wore the same clothes more than once or would that be unusual. If I find one I'll share.

[sweetcharlotte]

I think due to her battle with cancer her belief became even deeper and more personal a walk in faith. How can anyone tell what is genuine of not. Recently a very famous pastor here in Colorado was exposed in sordid issues. Christians are not perfect. Only forgiven. I am looking for a link regarding Patsy's friends opinions on if she wore the same clothes more than once or would that be unusual. If I find one I'll share.

You know, CK, I just as soon take Patsy's word about her habits as I had any of the "friends" you might round up. Why don't you ask Steve Thomas about her appearing on TV in the same clothes she had worn the previous day. Ole Steve nearly blew a gasket because she did it to "get to him." I can't imagine that Patsy cared what he thought - that's just another example of him and his tunnel vision. JMO

[LindaA]

What PR did on a normal day has little bearing on what she would have done this particular day, which, if all had gone according to plan, would have been very much out of the ordinary -- travelling to their other home via private plane.

[Tober]

Patsy wearing the same clothes from the previous night and not showering before going downstairs and allegedly finding the ransom note, tells me that she knew they wouldn't be going on their trip as planned. How would she have known that before finding the note if she wasn't involved in the crime?

[Athena]

Patsy wearing the same clothes from the previous night and not showering before going downstairs and allegedly finding the ransom note, tells me that she knew they wouldn't be going on their trip as planned. How would she have known that before finding the note if she wasn't involved in the crime?

Honestly, I find it difficult understanding what you are trying to say here?

She got up, John was in the shower, hers was broken. She washed up, put on the clothes that she wore the day before, put on makeup and proceeded downstairs to make coffee and was confronted with a note on the stairs. :shrug:

[shill]

Patsy wearing the same clothes from the previous night and not showering before going downstairs and allegedly finding the ransom note, tells me that she knew they wouldn't be going on their trip as planned. How would she have known that before finding the note if she wasn't involved in the crime?


Usually if you stink really bad, you know to take a shower.
Why would taking the plane trip or canceling a plane trip determine if she does or does not take a shower?

[thewhitewitch1]

Honestly, I find it difficult understanding what you are trying to say here?

She got up, John was in the shower, hers was broken. She washed up, put on the clothes that she wore the day before, put on makeup and proceeded downstairs to make coffee and was confronted with a note on the stairs. :shrug:


I find it interesting to note that the only place Patsy ever stated that her shower was broken was in their book.
How many bathrooms did their house have? She could have showered in any one of them. Not that I think not showering is concrete evidence of her guilt but it is somewhat questionable why she never told the LE that her shower was broken. It's like in their book she needed to offer some kind of explaination for why she didn't shower that morning. IMO

[KingCoyote]

In regards to PR's shower being broken or not I refer you to JR 1998 Interview Page 297 for his discussion of the repairs in her shower which, if I remember correctly, were completed by Mervin Pugh in late November of 1996. That is not to say that it did not break again by December 26th but JR's discussion may give you more food for thought.

KingCoyote :read:

[thewhitewitch1]

In regards to PR's shower being broken or not I refer you to JR 1998 Interview Page 297 for his discussion of the repairs in her shower which, if I remember correctly, were completed by Mervin Pugh in late November of 1996. That is not to say that it did not break again by December 26th but JR's discussion may give you more food for thought.

KingCoyote :read:


Interesting.

[Athena]

I find it interesting to note that the only place Patsy ever stated that her shower was broken was in their book.
How many bathrooms did their house have? She could have showered in any one of them. Not that I think not showering is concrete evidence of her guilt but it is somewhat questionable why she never told the LE that her shower was broken. It's like in their book she needed to offer some kind of explaination for why she didn't shower that morning. IMO

I really don't believe whether the shower was broken or not really makes a difference. She didn't take a shower -- no big deal.

[LindaA]

Patsy wearing the same clothes from the previous night and not showering before going downstairs and allegedly finding the ransom note, tells me that she knew they wouldn't be going on their trip as planned. How would she have known that before finding the note if she wasn't involved in the crime?

Because she was planning on flying to Michigan, which is not something she did every day, I presume. I was not referring to what actually happened that day, obviously but to what had been planned.

[bullmoose]

Tober: the fact that Patsy didn't shower and put on clothes from the night before does not tell me anything beyond the fact that she didn't shower and put on clothes from the night before and then went downstairs to make coffee, but found the note on the steps. What is it that tells you this information proves Patsy knew of and was involved in the crime? Inquiring minds want to know.:tongue:

[Zoey]

Poor Patsy, and I mean this seriously. She didn't change her clothes, therefore she was a killer. If she had changed her clothes, she would have been a killer. She didn't take a shower, so she must have been the killer. If she had of taken a shower, she would have been accused of being a killer, as she would have had to wash all the evidence off of her. No matter what that woman did, it was wrong in the eyes of the PDI team.

Maybe, just maybe, she had planned on taking a shower and changing her clothes, but got up later than she thought she would and realized she still had things to do to get ready for the trip, so she decided she would just take a shower and change clothes after the plane ride. Maybe because she had just died her hair Christmas morning, she didn't want to get her hair wet, as I know some home dye jobs wash out if you don't let them "set" for a couple of days. Why is that so hard to believe?? IMO, it makes perfect sense.

[Athena]

Poor Patsy, and I mean this seriously. She didn't change her clothes, therefore she was a killer. If she had changed her clothes, she would have been a killer. She didn't take a shower, so she must have been the killer. If she had of taken a shower, she would have been accused of being a killer, as she would have had to wash all the evidence off of her. No matter what that woman did, it was wrong in the eyes of the PDI team.

Maybe, just maybe, she had planned on taking a shower and changing her clothes, but got up later than she thought she would and realized she still had things to do to get ready for the trip, so she decided she would just take a shower and change clothes after the plane ride. Maybe because she had just died her hair Christmas morning, she didn't want to get her hair wet, as I know some home dye jobs wash out if you don't let them "set" for a couple of days. Why is that so hard to believe?? IMO, it makes perfect sense.

I agree - the ole "damned if you do" or "damned if you don't".

[Tober]

Poor Patsy, and I mean this seriously. She didn't change her clothes, therefore she was a killer.

That's not true at all. What makes Patsy a suspect is the totality of known evidence, of which her wearing the same clothes from the previous night is just one small part. Based on the forensic evidence, such as the fiber and handwriting evidence, Patsy cannot be ruled out as being responsible for JonBenet's death.

[bullmoose]

Tober: While I agree that Patsy cannot be ruled out as a suspect, I believe that most of the people in Boulder that night cannot be decisively ruled out. What is this fiber and handwriting evidence that you speak of, specifically. Is it more than just what was leaked by the BPD? It would be interesting to see how all the others who were tested fared? Do you have that information, or do you have just what the cops wanted the public to see? There is a bit of a difference,I'd bet. IMO

[Tober]

Tober: While I agree that Patsy cannot be ruled out as a suspect, I believe that most of the people in Boulder that night cannot be decisively ruled out.

The "suspect pool" in this case is quite small. There exists (based on the physical evidence) a very limited number of persons who could have perpetrated this crime. Lots of "people in Boulder" can be eliminated as suspects because they can't be placed at the crime scene at the appropriate time. Lots more can be eliminated on the basis of not matching the psychopathology exhibited by the killer. Lots more can be eliminated as suspects because they can be eliminated as having written the ransom note. And lots more can be eliminated because the physical evidence (such as the ransom note pad, the pen used to write it, the fiber evidence, etc.) can't be linked to them.

[bullmoose]

Tober, is it my imagination or has your tone taken on the sound of the Twister? What 'physical evidence' are you speaking of specifically that limits the number of possible suspects? Are you privy to the BPD files or DA's files or are you just relying on your powers of deduction? And how many people were eliminated on the basis of not matching the psychopathology of the killer? How many people were tested in Boulder to see if a match could be found? Of course, I'd also like to know who established the psychpathology of Jonbenet's killer; is there a link that I can go to check this out? And where is the study showing the list of names of the people that have been specifically eliminated from having written the ransom note; I would very much like to read the comparative analysies on these people to see what standards of handwriting comparison were used, and on how many, and who they are. And who are these people that you are speaking of that have been eliminated as suspects because the 'evidence' can't be linked to them. Again, I would like to see the names of those cleared; and specifically how they were cleared.Unless you have access to the files of the investigation, both BPD and the DA, I very much doubt that you can back up a single claim you've made; I doubt you could even if you have all the files. But, I'm willing to listen to such proof as you can produce for your claims; so have at it.

[sweetcharlotte]

Tober, is it my imagination or has your tone taken on the sound of the Twister?
<snip>



Yep........

[sweetcharlotte]

Tober, is it my imagination or has your tone taken on the sound of the Twister?
<snip>



Good question.......

[sweetcharlotte]

:eek: My two previous posts were made BC (before coffee) and I could haven't sworn I deleted the first one.

[KingCoyote]

Let me agree with Bullmoose: There is still a large number of people who could be the perpetrator.

Let me agree with Tober: The totality of the evidence applied to any one person increases that person's chance of being the perpetrator.

Just a few thoughts and opinions.

KC

[bullmoose]

To KingCoyote: I don't disagree with your post; let me add my own qualifier: The totality of real or valid evidence applied to any one person increases that person's chance of being the perpetrator; but on the other hand if the totality of leaked, tabloid information being passed off as evidence is applied to one or just a couple of people, then it increases greatly the chance that the person or persons will be blamed and vilified as the perpetrator/s even if the BPD- leaked information turns out to be Twisted and false. Even so, in this case, it doesn't increase that person/s likelihood of being the perpetrator over other possible or plausible candidates. Just my thoughts.

[KingCoyote]

Bullmoose:

I couldn't agree with you more. In fact I think I started a real brouhaha on another thread getting into the issues of primary sources, hearsay, credible evidence...etc. etc. I am going to rely primarily on court documents, interviews, depostions, orders, and things like autopsy documents etc. etc. and go to other documents only when I have to. I also believe in citing my source and noting when I am relying on memory or can't currently find my source. I think all of us have to answer to ourselves more than we have to answer to others when we choose to believe whatever it is we believe. Something in the fashion of "To thine own self be true"....OK....thats all the literature I am getting into...LOL

KingCoyote :read:

[Tober]

The "suspect pool" should be determined based on the behavior of the offender exhibited in the crime and the circumstantial and physical evidence present in relation to the crime. It isn't necessary to widen the suspect pool beyond what the evidence dictates. A proper investigation starts with the most logical suspects, in this case John and Patsy, and only when the most logical suspects can be eliminated on the basis of the physical evidence, should the suspect pool widen. In this case, John can be eliminated as having written the ransom note, Patsy cannot be. And neither can be eliminated as having taken part in the staging of the crime on the basis of the fiber evidence. As you can see, the dilema faced by the intruder theorist is that they must explain how an intruder perpetrated this crime in light of the fact that Patsy can't be eliminated as having written the note, and John and Patsy (on the basis of fiber evidence) can't be eliminated as having had contact with JonBenet's body during the staging of the crime.

[bullmoose]

As I have been reading your posts, tober, I have been struck by the tone of your statements and pronouncements, and a term keeps popping into my mind. The term is sophistry, the use of clever but fallacious reasoning to make an unprovable or false point. All that you offer is sophistry, when asked for the basis of your pedantic statements, you reply with more of the same, instead of the requested links. Your tone suggests that you have no evidence other than your self-contained knowledge of what you think happened. I am not impressed with your tone or your pronouncements that try to portray as factual items that are probably only in your imagination.Again, I have to say that much of what you post reminds me of things I"ve read in the Twister's book; I don't find any of your sophistry impressive or convincing in the least.:no:

[Tober]

A summary of the evidence against John and Patsy Ramsey can be read here: http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

[bullmoose]

The Twister's book in its entirety failed to convince me of the Ramsey's guilt; and this treatise, written as far as I can see by a columnist that believes the Ramseys guilty doesn't even get me as far as Steve Thomas' book, he at least was there. When you quote parts of this column and its conclusions, reached by the writer by whatever method he uses to convince himself, you still utterly fail to convince me of anything with regards this case. As I said in an earlier post, link me to the tests that you say are so conclusive, then I can examine them for myself and come to my own conclusions. I "m not interested in accepting an RDI columnist's conclusions as fact; remember that there never was even an indictment in the case; and as yet I've not heard of any move by the new govener to appoint a special prosecuter. I sort of think that the GJ saw a lot more of the evidence than we have, yet--no indictment, why, maybe because the actual evidence was far less compelling than Ryan Ross would have us believe.:rolleyes:

[andU]

Only if you have predetermined she is guilty.

It is exactly like Douglas questioning when she wore the cross to the interview. Had she suddenly 'got religion' and was playing a part or was religion a genuiine part of her life? Later, on going through family photos he saw that she regularly wore the cross and religion had always been a part of her life.

Unfortunately Patsy is the only one who can verify she sometimes wears the same outfit two days in a row and you have already decided she's guilty and a liar.

I don't believe Patsy nor John to be guilty. That being said, again, I admit that if I am 'hanging out' at home, I will wear the same clothes two days in a row. However, if I'm going out, I will change, I don't know why, but it is important that I not wear the same clothes out in public two days in a row. But, in a situation where I was not going to be seen by the same people that had previously seen me in the clothes, I may.

[LindaA]

andU, I'm pretty much with you on this one. I don't have access to a private jet, but I'm thinking that if I did I might do as PR did under the circumstances. Having showered less than 24 hours prior, and time being an issue, I might jut have skipped the shower, and put on the same clothes as -- other than my family -- I wouldn't be seeing anyone else I had seen the evening before.

Had PR committed the crime dressed in those clothes, I believe there would have been some signs of it on her, i.e. perspiration, fibers and hairs from JB on her garments. I've never heard mention of either. Of course, we might also say that fibers from JB could be on PR quite innocently if, as she said, PR put her to bed the night before. Still, I think PR's clothes would be soaked with perspiration. JMO.

[nuisanceposter]

bullmoose, you know very well the fiber testing done by CBI is not available to the public, and as such, there is no way to prove or disprove on this MB the existence of the fiber evidence reputed to connect the Ramseys to the body and crime scene. I really think you're going a little too far with what you're accusing Tober of in light of that. You may not believe the fiber evidence exists, but you can't sit there and put other people down because they do.

No indictment in the GJ? Can you prove whether they actually voted or not? The buzz I've been hearing as of late, from two different sources including that article in the Pueblo Chieftain by Chuck Green, is that the GJ did not vote after all.

Tober made a valid point about the Rs being suspects, and it's one that LE across the country adhere to. When a child is killed, you begin by examining the people closest to the child, and widen the suspect pool from there. The sad truth is, the Ramseys, both John and Patsy, were NEVER cleared as suspects in their daughter's murder and are still prime suspects to this day...with good reason. Why, if that fiber evidence doesn't exist, haven't the Rs been cleared yet?

[KingCoyote]

LindaA:

Your last post gave me some food for thought about PR clothes being soaked in perspiration. I am thinking "off the cuff" right now so I haven't thought out all possibilities. Assume just for the moment that PR was even involved in this death. We know that she did come in contact with JBR in the LR when she had her red turtleneck and black pants on. I am also assuming that she did not have her red/black/grey "pea jacket" on at that time since she was inside and she has stated in an interview that the pea jacket was an article of clothing worn outside not inside. (sorry, no citation readily available.) Does that mean we should assume that she had her red turtleneck and black pants on at the time of the killing?

Is it not possible that the whole event, since we don't know the timeline of events and again assuming PR was involved, that it happened after PR had put on her sleepwear? Could she have not grabbed her pea jacket off a door handle or chair and donned it while in her pajamas when she was in the kitchen, perhaps as the events of the killing took place? (There was a jacket with fur on it on a kitchen chair in a crime scene photo. See Page 358 of PR 98 Interview) The pea jacket fibers on the garotte/paint tray/duct tape seem to be the critical pieces of physical evidence that PDI supporters tend to rely on.

Taking this just a little further with the issue of a shower couldn't she have taken a shower, after sweating in her pajamas, in JAR's bathroom and not be easily heard by JR or BR?. PR has stated, again no specific citation, that she could not hear JBR flush the toilet from PR's bedroom. That would seem to indicate that JR might not be able to hear anyone take a shower in JAR's bath right next to JBR's bath. PR was known to have used JAR's bedroom while she was taking chemotherapy because the bath was close and chemo caused her some nausea. I also noted in her 98 Interview that she discussed drawers being open in JAR's bathroom that was "unusual" as she said she only used that drawer for her chemotherapy supplies which included syringes. (P 284 PR 98 Interview). Someone was in there at some time...I just don't know when. There was also another one of those mysterious red/black items in JAR's room. See Page 435 of PR's 98 Interview.

Could she have done all of this in her pajamas and red/black/grey pea jacket, gone back to bed in her dirty pajamas, and then changed into relatively clean clothes from the previous day after getting up at 5:30 or so, not needing another shower?

I realize that my posts and logic tends to wind and wind sometimes, but we don't know the complete timeline and sequence of events and I am just speculating as to anything that might seem logical or commonplace. I am just trying to follow the "possible," and I use that term with wide latitude, evidence from what the Interviews and Floor plans provide me.

Just a few thoughts and opinions.

KingCoyote :confused: :shrug:

[Zoey]

bullmoose, you know very well the fiber testing done by CBI is not available to the public, and as such, there is no way to prove or disprove on this MB the existence of the fiber evidence reputed to connect the Ramseys to the body and crime scene. I really think you're going a little too far with what you're accusing Tober of in light of that. You may not believe the fiber evidence exists, but you can't sit there and put other people down because they do.

No indictment in the GJ? Can you prove whether they actually voted or not? The buzz I've been hearing as of late, from two different sources including that article in the Pueblo Chieftain by Chuck Green, is that the GJ did not vote after all.

Tober made a valid point about the Rs being suspects, and it's one that LE across the country adhere to. When a child is killed, you begin by examining the people closest to the child, and widen the suspect pool from there. The sad truth is, the Ramseys, both John and Patsy, were NEVER cleared as suspects in their daughter's murder and are still prime suspects to this day...with good reason. Why, if that fiber evidence doesn't exist, haven't the Rs been cleared yet?

We can argue about the fibers until the cows come home, but in my honest opinion, if John Ramseys fibers from his shirt had indeed been found in the crotch area of his daughter, he would have been arrested no matter what and charged with the murder of his daughter. He was not, therefore one has to assume that there were no fibers from his shirt found in the crotch area.

Of course, this is just my opinion having read back and forth arguments on the darn fibers.

[LindaA]

NP, I guess the obvious reply to your question is, "Why, if the fiber evidence does exist, haven't the Ramseys been charged?" I think there must be more to this than we know, and I think Bullmoose is trying to make the point that we can't be so sure of the Ramsey's guilt if we are basing our conclusions on evidence we don't have access to. I agree with him. I wish I could be as sure of what I think happened as most of the RDIs. There has to be evidence known to LE that leads them to the IDI theory, or at least in so inconclusive that they have been unable to act. Until we know what that is we all need to be prepared to eat our words.

[Louisadelmar]

LindaA:

Your last post gave me some food for thought about PR clothes being soaked in perspiration. I am thinking "off the cuff" right now so I haven't thought out all possibilities. Assume just for the moment that PR was even involved in this death. We know that she did come in contact with JBR in the LR when she had her red turtleneck and black pants on. I am also assuming that she did not have her red/black/grey "pea jacket" on at that time since she was inside and she has stated in an interview that the pea jacket was an article of clothing worn outside not inside. (sorry, no citation readily available.) Does that mean we should assume that she had her red turtleneck and black pants on at the time of the killing?

[...]

KingCoyote :confused: :shrug:

Fot what it's worth:
Patsy Interview 2000

16 Q. You were shown, I believe,
17 photographs that were taken -- and this is
18 during your '98 interview -- photographs that
19 were taken at the White's house Christmas
20 night at dinner. In that you are wearing a
21 red coat, kind of a wool, wool jacket. Do
22 you recall seeing that?
23 A. It is kind of a black and red
24 and gray fleece.
25 Q. Cut more like a blazer than --
0154
1 A. Like a peacoat.
2 MR. WOOD: Well, the picture is
3 the picture, isn't it?
4 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Right, like a
5 peacoat. I just want to make sure we are
6 talking about the same thing. Do you
7 remember that jacket?
8 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
[…]
11 Q. Was that coat something that was
12 taken -- you didn't wear that coat out of
13 the house when the police took you out of
14 the house the afternoon of the 26th. Do you
15 recall?
16 A. No, I don't think I did.
[…]
6 Q. Was it a jacket that you wore
7 around the house? I know this is an indoor
8 picture. Did you do that commonly?
9 A. Sometimes, if it was particularly
10 chilly.
11 Q. Do you recall whether or not you
12 wore that on either the 23rd of December
13 1996, the 24th, or the 20-- well, we know
14 you wore it on the 25th. The 23rd or the
15 24th?
16 A. I don't remember.
17 Q. Was it something that you would
18 frequently wear inside the house?
19 A. Sometimes I would, but what is
20 frequently? You know, I don't --
21 Q. Frequently would be three or four
22 times -- I mean, was it, if you are chilly,
23 was this the item that you always threw on?
24 That is what I am getting at.
25 A. Not necessarily, no.
0165

[KingCoyote]

Thank You Louisa. As usual you have excellent reference to the sources.

Your reference seems to indicate that she could be wearing it at some times and not wearing it at other times while indoors. This still fits with my off the cuff idea because she could have been wearing it in the middle of the night while wearing only pajamas as that could be a "chilly" time (9 degrees outside) where she might not be wearing it inside at 1:00 PM the next day when it is about 50 degrees outside and clearly indicates that she didn't have it on when she left that day. I think every tiny bit of "evidence" should be analyzed. Thanks again.

KingCoyote

[nuisanceposter]

Let me state that even though I be an RDI, I have no idea what happened that night or in what sequence. I do know the Ramseys have never been cleared while a number of other people have, and I know that the Ramseys have told any number of inconsistent statements through the years and that Patsy cannot be excluded as author of the RN, as well as not seeing enough forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in the house that night to support the theory of an intruder. The crime scene does not match what is known to be a crime scene caused by an intruder, but per CASKU et al does in fact match what is known to be a crime scene staged to look like an intruder. An intruder would have no cause to stage a crime scene to look like an intruder was the killer...but parents covering up their own involvement would.

I also do not disbelieve Levin when he brought up the fiber evidence because ending the line of questioning rather than give out information to the prime suspects is not equal to lying to coerce a confession. I see nothing about that interview that was so completely geared to favor the Rs being consistent with an interview in which the interviewer resorted to trickery to obtain a confession. Levin went down to the CBI lab in person, where he was met by others, including LE and the DA. I think he knows for sure whether CBI found Ramsey fibers or not, and seeing as how he asked about them (with no innocent explanation forthcoming), I think they do exist and were found.

I don't think JR would have been arrested on the spot even if the fibers matched up. The Ramseys have been given preferential treatment from day one. Nothing about this case has been run by the books, and you have to consider that in all aspects.

[KingCoyote]

Let me state that even though I be an RDI, I have no idea what happened that night or in what sequence. I do know the Ramseys have never been cleared while a number of other people have, and I know that the Ramseys have told any number of inconsistent statements through the years and that Patsy cannot be excluded as author of the RN, as well as not seeing enough forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in the house that night to support the theory of an intruder. The crime scene does not match what is known to be a crime scene caused by an intruder, but per CASKU et al does in fact match what is known to be a crime scene staged to look like an intruder. An intruder would have no cause to stage a crime scene to look like an intruder was the killer...but parents covering up their own involvement would.

I also do not disbelieve Levin when he brought up the fiber evidence because ending the line of questioning rather than give out information to the prime suspects is not equal to lying to coerce a confession. I see nothing about that interview that was so completely geared to favor the Rs being consistent with an interview in which the interviewer resorted to trickery to obtain a confession. Levin went down to the CBI lab in person, where he was met by others, including LE and the DA. I think he knows for sure whether CBI found Ramsey fibers or not, and seeing as how he asked about them (with no innocent explanation forthcoming), I think they do exist and were found.

I don't think JR would have been arrested on the spot even if the fibers matched up. The Ramseys have been given preferential treatment from day one. Nothing about this case has been run by the books, and you have to consider that in all aspects.

I am starting to line up with NP as to "not disbelieving Levin" but moreso with the statement that JR would not have been arrested "on the spot." Even if the black fibers were true matches to JR's shirt there are still the fibers from PR's jacket. You can't have a trial of both or either without one set of fibers being reasonable doubt for the other party.

Please understand that me "lining up" with an admitted RDI does not necessarily mean I am becoming RDI. I am just starting to accept the fiber evidence as probably credible and feeling more comfortable using it in an analysis. There are so many times I am not comfortable with a lot of things in this case, RDI or IDI oriented.

Just a few thoughts and opinions.

KingCoyote

[Louisadelmar]

My problem with the black fibers is that kind of information woulld have been shouted from the rooftops. Even Thomas doesn't mention it in his book although the clothes were received and (presumably)tested sometime in early 1998, well before ST resigned.

[andU]

I am starting to line up with NP as to "not disbelieving Levin" but moreso with the statement that JR would not have been arrested "on the spot." Even if the black fibers were true matches to JR's shirt there are still the fibers from PR's jacket. You can't have a trial of both or either without one set of fibers being reasonable doubt for the other party.

Please understand that me "lining up" with an admitted RDI does not necessarily mean I am becoming RDI. I am just starting to accept the fiber evidence as probably credible and feeling more comfortable using it in an analysis. There are so many times I am not comfortable with a lot of things in this case, RDI or IDI oriented.

Just a few thoughts and opinions.

KingCoyote

Join the club, KC. Researching and following leads in this case only brings us to more assumptions, something probably none of us want. Since we don't have access to all of the facts known to LE, we have to go with what we do know, and what we feel in our guts and our hearts.... which is why there is a division. If we were to list things about this case that makes us uncomfortable, we'd have a stack of 'stuff'.

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

I, too, wondered about that. I tend to think that by this stage of the investigation that there had been so many leaks, and accusations of leaks and alleged "leakers" that Law Enforcement, as a whole, was finally keeping some things as close to the vest as possible and using whatever they had only when needed and possibly for "shock value" as well. Who knows what lurks in the minds of some people?[grin with arching eyebrows]

But I can sure see why waving this evidence everywhere might have happened, if for no other reason, for the BPD to say....LOOK, LOOK, we do have evidence the Rs were involved.....

Just a few thoughts and opinions,

KingCoyote

[KingCoyote]

Join the club, KC. Researching and following leads in this case only brings us to more assumptions, something probably none of us want. Since we don't have access to all of the facts known to LE, we have to go with what we do know, and what we feel in our guts and our hearts.... which is why there is a division. If we were to list things about this case that makes us uncomfortable, we'd have a stack of 'stuff'.

Andu:

Say AMEN, brother....Can we get a witness?

KC

[nuisanceposter]

Personally, I think Steve Thomas knows a lot more about the details of this case than he wrote in his book. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out there was information he did not disclose.

As I understand it, there is information about objects around JonBenet's body that has never been made public.

I second the AMEN *witnesses*

[LindaA]

I'm sure NP is right about ST. He could not possibly have put everything in the book, and he no doubt knows a great deal. That doesn't mean his book isn't slanted; I'd have to re-read it to decide for myself if I think so. Human nature being what it is, I suspect it as well as DOI is slanted to enhance the point of view of the writer(s).

Add me to the list of "amen-ers"!

[Louisadelmar]

Amen,...I'm a believer!

[bullmoose]

NP: Its not that Tober is a RDI or believes what he believes about the case is God's Truth; the problem I have with his pedantic statements is that he presents his opinions, to which he is entitled, as being actually factual, such as the Imaginary Fibers that JR was asked about. If and when it is ever established whether it was a LE ruse, a trick question; or a legitamite one about real fibers, we'll maybe then know, but at this point it is only a matter of opinion whether they exist. If he presented it as his opinion, it wouldn't be a problem to me, what I post is just my opinion, but he presents it as fact, which it is not. As to the Grand Jury, my point is that they returned no indictment; I have no idea whether they took a vote or not, or were or were not allowed to vote on the evidence presented. My point is simply that they returned no indictment, which IMO indicates underwhelming evidence as to who actually committed the crime.

[Louisadelmar]

Louisa:

I, too, wondered about that. I tend to think that by this stage of the investigation that there had been so many leaks, and accusations of leaks and alleged "leakers" that Law Enforcement, as a whole, was finally keeping some things as close to the vest as possible and using whatever they had only when needed and possibly for "shock value" as well. Who knows what lurks in the minds of some people?[grin with arching eyebrows]

But I can sure see why waving this evidence everywhere might have happened, if for no other reason, for the BPD to say....LOOK, LOOK, we do have evidence the Rs were involved.....

Just a few thoughts and opinions,

KingCoyote

I was strolling through ST this afternoon, looking for something else and found this which I thought was interesting. It appears to be after Koby left and after the CBI testing on the Ramsey clothes had been done.

ST, ppbk, 318-22.
For the first time I put my personal theory into words. I did not think John Ramsey was involved in the death itself, because we had found nothng to indicate that. I now viewed him as a man standing by his wife, insulating her with lawyers.
[...] His theory of Patsy doing the murder and coverup.

John Ramsey, in my hypothetical scenario, probably first became suspicious while reading the ransom note that morning, which is why he was unusually quiet.

I could understand if a detective decided the black fiber info was so important he didn't want to include it in his book for public consumption. But I don't see how he could come up with a theory that completely ignores the presence of those fibers. Yet his theory has John totally divorced from both the crime and the post-crime staging.

It makes no sense.

[Tober]

if John Ramseys fibers from his shirt had indeed been found in the crotch area of his daughter, he would have been arrested no matter what and charged with the murder of his daughter.

I disagree. That only links John to a part of the staging of the crime, and not to JonBenet's death. Her death is linked to Patsy through Patsy's jacket fibers being found "tied into" the neck ligature. Also, on the basis of John's and Patsy's own statements, those particular fibers should not have been found in the locations they were. Since those particular fibers were found in those particular locations in direct association with the crime, there exists only one conclusion: Locard's Exchange Principle places John and Patsy in contact with JonBenet's body during the staging of the crime. It also places Patsy in contact with the "paint tray" which is connected to the staging of the crime.

[Louisadelmar]

But Locard is kind of stood on his head in this case because your suspects lived in the house.

http://www.profiling.org/journal/vol1_no1/jbp_ed_january2000_1-1.html

Secondary Transfer: Transfer evidence, as we have established, is produced by contact between persons and objects [2, 8]. Secondary transfer refers to an exchange of evidence between objects or persons that occurs subsequent to an original exchange, unassociated with the circumstances that produced the original exchange2.
[…]
Conclusions
The failure to consider Evidence Dynamics as a part of any crime reconstruction process has the potential to provide for misinterpretations of physical evidence, and inaccurate or incomplete crime reconstructions. Any subsequent use of the reconstruction for investigations, trial or behavioral analysis would have a diminished foundation and relevance, compounding the harm in legal, investigative and academic venues. It is the responsibility of the forensic scientist to perform reconstructions of the circumstances and behaviors involved in a crimes with care, and to be aware of the possibility of Evidence Dynamics, in order that opinions regarding reconstruction of the crime reflect the most informed and accurate rendering of the evidence.

[Tober]

Secondary transfer does not account for Patsy's fibers being "tied into" the neck ligature. This indicates that those fibers were deposited there in that manner while the "fake garrote" was being constructed and placed around JonBenet's neck. Secondary transfer doesn't account for John's shirt fibers being found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area, being that the panties were unwashed and from a brand new package and being that JonBenet was wiped down. John's and Patsy's own story of events after arriving home the evening of Dec. 25 do not account for how secondary transfer would have deposited those particular fibers in those particular locations in direct association with the staging of the crime. In fact, the opposite is true, as the fiber evidence suggests interactive transfer, and not secondary transfer.

[Louisadelmar]

Secondary transfer does not account for Patsy's fibers being "tied into" the neck ligature. This indicates that those fibers were deposited there in that manner while the "fake garrote" was being constructed and placed around JonBenet's neck. .
I didn't say it was all secondary transfer. As I have posted earlier I think Patsy's fibers got into JonBenet's hair when she put her to bed. From there they were tied into the ligature along with JonBenet's hair.

Secondary transfer doesn't account for John's shirt fibers being found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area, being that the panties were unwashed and from a brand new package and being that JonBenet was wiped down. John's and Patsy's own story of events after arriving home the evening of Dec. 25 do not account for how secondary transfer would have deposited those particular fibers in those particular locations in direct association with the staging of the crime. In fact, the opposite is true, as the fiber evidence suggests interactive transfer, and not secondary transfer.

ST: I did not think John Ramsey was involved in the death itself, because we had found nothng to indicate that.

Patsy's fibers could have been transferred from JonBenet's hair or clothing to an intruder's hands and from there to the paint tray.

Where do you think the Beaver hair came from? No others were found in the house.

[KingCoyote]

Not that I am trying to start a battle between the sexes but there is something that has been nagging me for a while. It is truly a collateral issue, IMO, but it also falls in the category of food for thought.

In addition to all of the talk about PR being in the same clothes that she wore the night before, I have heard repeated comments about the fact that her makeup was on and her hair "fixed" (so to speak). I do not offer any comments whatsoever about PR being in the same clothing but as to the makeup and hair issue, why haven't I heard similar type comments about a man, John. Wasn't he freshly showered and shaved?

How is it there are "evil" connotations when a woman puts on her makeup and does her hair first thing before going downstairs and a man can shower and shave before coming downstairs and there are seemingly no connotations to his actions?

Did the makeup and hair issue become a "bootstrapping" or "piling on" issue once some began to look at PR as a suspect?

Did I miss something or is there some kind of psychology at work here that I just don't understand?

Just a few thoughts and opinions.

KingCoyote :shrug: :confused:

[Tober]

ST: I did not think John Ramsey was involved in the death itself, because we had found nothng to indicate that.

I agree with Steve. I have seen no evidence linking John to JonBenet's death, only to a part of the staging of the crime. Of course, the possibility exists that Patsy, by coincidence or purposely (hoping to implicate John in the crime), wiped JonBenet's crotch area with John's shirt.

[Louisadelmar]

I agree with Steve. I have seen no evidence linking John to JonBenet's death, only to a part of the staging of the crime. Of course, the possibility exists that Patsy, by coincidence or purposely (hoping to implicate John in the crime), wiped JonBenet's crotch area with John's shirt.

And why would she wipe JonBenet's crotch to implicate him and then spend the next 10 years defending him?

ST, ppbk, 318-22.
"For the first time I put my personal theory into words. I did not think John Ramsey was involved in the death itself, because we had found nothng to indicate that. I now viewed him as a man standing by his wife, insulating her with lawyers.

[...] His theory of Patsy doing the murder and coverup.

John Ramsey, in my hypothetical scenario, probably first became suspicious while reading the ransom note that morning, which is why he was unusually quiet."

[Kor]

I learned the FBI or LE profilers said John's profile does not fit to this crime, as he does not have any background or histories of any kinds relating to this crime. It would be out of blue for profilers if John was responsible.

[bullmoose]

Tober: It does not surprise me in the least that you agree with Steve Thomas. Your style of writing and presentation of what you insist happened reminds me eerily of a Larry King interview I once saw with the Twister himself. He too displayed sophistry such as you seem to have an endless supply of. At least when CK was asked to explain the presence of beaver hair; she could at least come up with either the Enquirer or Globe as a source; alas only the famous 'unnamed source' was able to listed a having an explanation. I don't suppose you have an better one?:rolleyes:

[Tober]

I learned the FBI or LE profilers said John's profile does not fit to this crime, as he does not have any background or histories of any kinds relating to this crime.

Past behavior is not a prerequisite to commit any crime, including homicide. You're correct though, John doesn't fit the profile of the type of person who would have caused JonBenet's head injury and who would have staged the crime scene. That begs the question, why were fibers from his shirt found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area? As I've noted, the possibility exists that Patsy purposely wiped JonBenet's crotch area with John's shirt in an attempt to implicate him in the crime. She may also have purposely written the ransom note the way she did (with an emphasis toward John and about John), may have purposely put the large size panties on JonBenet's body, may have purposely dog-eared the dictionary to "incest," and may have purposely performed the fake "bondage-type" staging; all in hopes of implicating John in the crime.

[bullmoose]

:lol: Who can argue with such an intellect?:lol:

[packer48]

In regards to this Xmas outfit Patsy wore. Was it a fancy outfit or just a plain sweater and black pants?

If it was "fancy" why would she even want to put it back on to make coffee in and to travel in.

Wouldn't a pair of jeans and a nice shirt or blouse be more appropriate for travel?

In regards to her being all crumpled and sweaty from being up all night staging, my guess is John did all the work.

All of your theorys RDI and IDI are plausable where Patsy's clothes are concerned.

I personally lean toward the RDI.

There is just not enough proof for me to believe an IDI.

JMHO

packer

[sweetcharlotte]

I have read that Patsy's pants were black velvet, sweater was red, and her jacket was a mixture of red, black, gray, and white. From this description something that could be worn any time - IMO.

[LindaA]

Not everyone wears jeans. I don't know about PR, but it is entirely possible that she didn't. But what difference does it make anyway?

[packer48]

Not everyone wears jeans. I don't know about PR, but it is entirely possible that she didn't. But what difference does it make anyway?

Ok, maybe not jeans but VELVET.....ewwwwwwww. I think she would be more comfortable in.......plain slacks?

Unless.....of course velvet was her normal choice of attire.

Another thing, did she put on hose underneath those velvet slacks?

Just thinking out loud!

packer

[bullmoose]

From what I've read about Patsy, when they first moved to Boulder, where jeans are casual wear; she had trouble acclimating to the casual dress. She got to where she would wear slacks, but not jeans like the majority of local people there. IMO

[sweetcharlotte]

Ok, maybe not jeans but VELVET.....ewwwwwwww. I think she would be more comfortable in.......plain slacks?

Unless.....of course velvet was her normal choice of attire.

Another thing, did she put on hose underneath those velvet slacks?

Just thinking out loud!

packer

ROFL......here's a quick study on velvet pants:

http://search.bloomingdales.com/exec/?PseudoCat=b.com%53earch&u2=t2&n=1&c=16&t2=%50ants%2Band%2B%43apris&q=velvet&u1=q&cm_mmc=PMD-_-Google-_-Spring_2006-_-Velvet_Pants

[Zoey]

Ok, maybe not jeans but VELVET.....ewwwwwwww. I think she would be more comfortable in.......plain slacks?

Unless.....of course velvet was her normal choice of attire.

Another thing, did she put on hose underneath those velvet slacks?

Just thinking out loud!

packer


I'll take this one. Why would it matter if she wore hose underneath those velvet slacks? Could you elaborate on your thought process here, please?

Call me old fashioned, but when I go out of town, whether it be via car or plane, I like to dress up. Same with going out to a nice place to eat. My mom always did, and so it just came natural to her girls.

[packer48]

ROFL......here's a quick study on velvet pants:

http://search.bloomingdales.com/exec/?PseudoCat=b.com%53earch&u2=t2&n=1&c=16&t2=%50ants%2Band%2B%43apris&q=velvet&u1=q&cm_mmc=PMD-_-Google-_-Spring_2006-_-Velvet_Pants

Hey,

Thanks for the lesson ;)


To me velvet is a nightmare.......everything sticks to it and remember they had a dog.
Can you imagine all the dog hair that would cling to those pants?

And black to boot. I don't think I would want to wear them again until they were cleaned. But thats just me!

packer

[sweetcharlotte]

I think the dog was visiting the neighbor because of their scheduled trip to MI, and another thing - the velvet of today is not the same velvet Scarlet used to make her dress. :D

[packer48]

I'll take this one. Why would it matter if she wore hose underneath those velvet slacks? Could you elaborate on your thought process here, please?

Call me old fashioned, but when I go out of town, whether it be via car or plane, I like to dress up. Same with going out to a nice place to eat. My mom always did, and so it just came natural to her girls.

It doesn't matter if she wore hose or not under the slacks.

When I put on a nice pair of slacks I always wear panty hose.....we don't want those panty lines showing, know what I mean?

I was just thinking of the extra time it takes to put on panty hose, thats all.

packer

[Zoey]

It doesn't matter if she wore hose or not under the slacks.

When I put on a nice pair of slacks I always wear panty hose.....we don't want those panty lines showing, know what I mean?

I was just thinking of the extra time it takes to put on panty hose, thats all.

packer


I understand what you are saying. Thanks for the explanation.

[packer48]

I think the dog was visiting the neighbor because of their scheduled trip to MI, and another thing - the velvet of today is not the same velvet Scarlet used to make her dress. :D

LOL, I can't verify that as I don't do velvet.

But...back to the dog, so what the dog wasn't there that day, his hair is still all over the place IF the dog was allowed in the house. That is something I haven't seen or read yet.

packer

[sweetcharlotte]

It doesn't matter if she wore hose or not under the slacks.

When I put on a nice pair of slacks I always wear panty hose.....we don't want those panty lines showing, know what I mean?

I was just thinking of the extra time it takes to put on panty hose, thats all.

packer

If you wear panty hose every day it's just a part of the routine - JMO

O/T, but you're a smart girl. After all panty lines are the #1 fashion no-no, followed by holiday sweaters, and curly hair.

[packer48]

If you wear pany hose every day it's just a part of the routine - JMO

O/T, but you're a smart girl. After all panty lines are the #1 fashion no-no, followed by holiday sweaters, and curly hair.

No truer words spoken!

packer

[thewhitewitch1]

LOL, I can't verify that as I don't do velvet.

But...back to the dog, so what the dog wasn't there that day, his hair is still all over the place IF the dog was allowed in the house. That is something I haven't seen or read yet.

packer

The dog was rarely at the Ramsey house. It lived with the Barnhills more than it lived with them. JB would just go over there to play with it.
Also, the dog was a Bichon Frise and I believe they don't shed.

[shill]

Certainly isn't an attack dog you would fear.

[rashomon]

The dog was rarely at the Ramsey house. It lived with the Barnhills more than it lived with them. JB would just go over there to play with it.
Also, the dog was a Bichon Frise and I believe they don't shed.
It's way past bedtime here in Europe and our 18-year-old daughter (who is a dog expert) is sound asleep already, but I'll ask her about it tomorrow.
I'll also ask my daughter what she thinks about the Ramseys more or less "giving away" their dog to the neighbors ...

[sweetcharlotte]

It's way past bedtime here in Europe and our 18-year-old daughter (who is a dog expert) is sound asleep already, but I'll ask her about it tomorrow.
I'll also ask my daughter what she thinks about the Ramseys more or less "giving away" their dog to the neighbors ...

Here a link that indicates the breed does not shed.

http://www.bichon.org/faq.htm

And not to be rude, but why would the Ramseys or anyone else for that matter care what your daughter (the dog expert) thinks about them letting their neighbor keep their dog when they were away.

FYI - The Ramseys also had a cat in MI that was looked after by a neighbor when they were away from there. I don't have a problem with that either.

[thewhitewitch1]

Here a link that indicates the breed does not shed.

http://www.bichon.org/faq.htm

And not to be rude, but why would the Ramseys or anyone else for that matter care what your daughter (the dog expert) thinks about them letting their neighbor keep their dog when they were away.

FYI - The Ramseys also had a cat in MI that was looked after by a neighbor when they were away from there. I don't have a problem with that either.


Not that it matters, but the Barnhills didn't just keep the dog while the Ramseys were away. The dog was over there most of the time. It may as well have been their dog.
I have a problem with people shoving their pets off on someone else but that has nothing to do with this case.

[elvislives]

Past behavior is not a prerequisite to commit any crime, including homicide. You're correct though, John doesn't fit the profile of the type of person who would have caused JonBenet's head injury and who would have staged the crime scene. That begs the question, why were fibers from his shirt found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area? As I've noted, the possibility exists that Patsy purposely wiped JonBenet's crotch area with John's shirt in an attempt to implicate him in the crime. She may also have purposely written the ransom note the way she did (with an emphasis toward John and about John), may have purposely put the large size panties on JonBenet's body, may have purposely dog-eared the dictionary to "incest," and may have purposely performed the fake "bondage-type" staging; all in hopes of implicating John in the crime.

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?

[Zoey]

Not that it matters, but the Barnhills didn't just keep the dog while the Ramseys were away. The dog was over there most of the time. It may as well have been their dog.
I have a problem with people shoving their pets off on someone else but that has nothing to do with this case.

Goodness, no matter what the Ramsey's did, someone finds fault in it. Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The Barnhills were an older couple and adored that dog. JR and PR thought it would be a nice gesture to allow them as much access as they wanted to the dog. The dog started spending more and more time over there, and no one thought anything bad about it. They did not shove their pet on anyone. IMO, they were just being kind to an older couple.

[Tober]

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?
The reason I said the possibility exists that Patsy may have wiped JonBenet's crotch area with John's shirt, is because there seems to be a lack of evidence (fiber or other) connecting him to any other portion of the staging.

[Zoey]

The reason I said the possibility exists that Patsy may have wiped JonBenet's crotch area with John's shirt, is because there seems to be a lack of evidence (fiber or other) connecting him to any other portion of the staging.

Could that be because he had nothing to do with the murder of his daughter?

[shill]

The reason I said the possibility exists that Patsy may have wiped JonBenet's crotch area with John's shirt, is because there seems to be a lack of evidence (fiber or other) connecting him to any other portion of the staging.

To bad there are no fibers from John's shirt in JB's crotch area. But go ahead and try and make non-existent evidence fit your theories just like you do with any evidence.

[bullmoose]

I'm sure of it now; between them Tober and Rashoman have enough Imaginary Fibers from John's Israeli shirt to weave a magical flying carpet of non-existant evidence to float any theory, no matter how lacking in factual basis it may be. I am not arguing with the idea that Jonbenet was wiped down after her murder; I just don't know; but to say she was wiped down with his shirt is worthy of the flying carpet body of evidence. 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. ;)

[LindaA]

Not that it matters, but the Barnhills didn't just keep the dog while the Ramseys were away. The dog was over there most of the time. It may as well have been their dog.
I have a problem with people shoving their pets off on someone else but that has nothing to do with this case.

If the Ramseys did it, RDIs have a problem with it. It's as simple as that.

[thewhitewitch1]

Goodness, no matter what the Ramsey's did, someone finds fault in it. Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The Barnhills were an older couple and adored that dog. JR and PR thought it would be a nice gesture to allow them as much access as they wanted to the dog. The dog started spending more and more time over there, and no one thought anything bad about it. They did not shove their pet on anyone. IMO, they were just being kind to an older couple.


They had trouble potty training the dog and Patsy didn't like dogs very much.
The original dog (bought from a Pet Shop) was sickly so Patsy traded it in for a better model without telling JB. I am in the Pet Care business so of course I have a problem with people treating animals like replaceable "toys" and believe once you aquire a pet, it's your responsibility for the lifetime of that pet.
Someone said they also had a cat in Michigan that someone else took care of when they weren't there. Yep, that irks me too.
However, I did say that the kind of pet owners they were had nothing to do with the case, didn't I?

[thewhitewitch1]

If the Ramseys did it, RDIs have a problem with it. It's as simple as that.

You used my quote. Did you read it?

[KingCoyote]

The statement I read on another forum some time ago that particularly tickled me about the implications that the Ramseys are guilty was about smoking. PR started smoking cigarettes again after JBR was killed and it came out that JR liked cigars and snuck a few in at the airport when he tended to his plane. Well, that wrapped it up for that internet poster; if they were smokers they must be guilty.

KingCoyote

[LindaA]

You used my quote. Did you read it?

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.

[LindaA]

The statement I read on another forum some time ago that particularly tickled me about the implications that the Ramseys are guilty was about smoking. PR started smoking cigarettes again after JBR was killed and it came out that JR liked cigars and snuck a few in at the airport when he tended to his plane. Well, that wrapped it up for that internet poster; if they were smokers they must be guilty.

KingCoyote

Exactly my point. No matter what the issue is, whatever the Rs do, it is indicative of their guilt to an RDI.

[nuisanceposter]

.

<snip>

Someone said they also had a cat in Michigan that someone else took care of when they weren't there. Yep, that irks me too.

That cat wasn't their house cat and beloved pet, either. It was a stray that they cared for briefly because it suited them. This was the real Sister Socks, not JB's stuffed cat. She showed up and had kittens, and they fed her, then left her to fend for herself with neighbors when they went on their merry way. Patsy says in DOI, pb, page 42 "JonBenet loved her kitty - and the real Sister Socks, who still roams the narrow streets of Charlevoix."

Sheesh, no one who takes this case seriously actually believes the Ramseys killed JonBenet because they may have enjoyed smoking. I don't blame Patsy one bit for going back to smoking after the murder. She had an awful lot of pressure and stress, and she was human just like the rest of us. I was glad to hear she overcame the habit and quit again, but I can hardly blame her taking it back up with all she was dealing with.

[KingCoyote]

My thoughts on the fibers of JR's shirt being the piece of evidence that puts him in prison: His shirt fibers in the crotch/panty area of JBR, assuming they exist, are reasonable doubt that PR did it and PR's jacket fibers, assuming they exist in the garotte, paint tray and duct tape, are reasonable doubt that JR did it. I think one can argue that the reciprocal concept of reasonable doubt gives weight to the actual existence of those fibers. You can't put two people on trial and expect the jury to choose whodunnit.

Just my humble opinion.

KingCoyote

[elvislives]

My thoughts on the fibers of JR's shirt being the piece of evidence that puts him in prison: His shirt fibers in the crotch/panty area of JBR, assuming they exist, are reasonable doubt that PR did it and PR's jacket fibers, assuming they exist in the garotte, paint tray and duct tape, are reasonable doubt that JR did it. I think one can argue that the reciprocal concept of reasonable doubt gives weight to the actual existence of those fibers. You can't put two people on trial and expect the jury to choose whodunnit.

Just my humble opinion.

KingCoyote


Why not try them as co-conspirators?

[nuisanceposter]

Why not try them as co-conspirators?

Who's going to do it? Not the Boulder DA, and they're the ones in charge. Alex Hunter was old friends with the Ramsey defense lawyers, known to be very lenient, and was never ever going to prosecute without more proof than what he saw, and Mary Lacy, his protege, hasn't even bothered to learn all the details of the case. She hasn't done anything about Jason Midyette's murder, either - a ten week old infant who died with some 27 broken bones, some of in the stage of healing, who spent all of his time with his wealthy, well-connected parents. What did Trip DeMuth have to say? Something about how he wasn't sure all those broken bones were from abuse? Please...they must have been using that baby as a football.

[andU]

Why not try them as co-conspirators?

Not enough evidence

[andU]

I, like Patsy, wish they had pressed charges and taken the Ramsey's to court. There wasn't enough evidence to find them guilty and that would free up time and money to find the real perp/perv

[nuisanceposter]

There's more evidence against the Ramseys than there was against Scott Peterson. The GJ may have never voted. I've heard from two different sources now that they didn't. If they didn't even vote, then there's no proof that there wasn't enough evidence to indict.

[sweetcharlotte]

Why not try them as co-conspirators?

No indictment from the GJ.

[nuisanceposter]

No indictment from the GJ.
Like I just got done saying...we don't know for sure if they even voted. Two different sources have come out in the same amount of months claiming that the GJ did not vote - one is a quote posted by koldkase at FFJ from Dr Lee, and the other is that editorial from Chuck Green that was published in the Pueblo Chieftain. I think that needs to be looked into a lot harder.

[andU]

Well, if they (whoever is 'in charge') would have charged them, they would have their name cleared by now... and they wouldn't be smeared by the forums about the way they dressed, ate, their friends, etc....
I don't know where, so please don't ask for a link, but I believe Patsy stated in one of the interviews that she wished they had been charged and given their day in court.
I certainly don't mean to take anything away from anyone's rights as to what they believe in and I'm thankful that we live in a country where we have the right to state our opinion. I hope and pray that the real person, no matter who it is gets their just reward one day.
Again, I will state that in the beginning I believed with all of my heart that Patsy did it. But, after conducting some research, and looking at the evidence that we do have available to us, I have changed my heart and my mind.

[andU]

Like I just got done saying...we don't know for sure if they even voted. Two different sources have come out in the same amount of months claiming that the GJ did not vote - one is a quote posted by koldkase at FFJ from Dr Lee, and the other is that editorial from Chuck Green that was published in the Pueblo Chieftain. I think that needs to be looked into a lot harder.

I thought we had discussed this and found no certainty on it. It was never said without a doubt one way or another, we were left to make our own decision as to whether or not the vote was cast. I believe that the GJ was dismissed without a vote, but I cannot site a source, it seems it may have been a newspaper article with quotes from whoever is 'in charge'...

[Tober]

There wasn't enough evidence to find them guilty and that would free up time and money to find the real perp/perv

There exists such a significant amount of evidence against the Ramseys (circumstantial, physical, forensic, behavioral), that a prosecutor in a typical homicide case would be delighted to have that amount of evidence to work with.

[andU]

There exists such a significant amount of evidence against the Ramseys (circumstantial, physical, forensic, behavioral), that a prosecutor in a typical homicide case would be delighted to have that amount of evidence to work with.

Then, I say, they should have been prosecuted. If enough people who elect their officials made enough noise, wouldn't you think something would be done? These people don't just walk into a public office and take over, someone has to vote for them.
I know that a more local cas, Carrie Culberson's, whose bf is in prison and her body has never been found. He was found guilty on circumstancial evidence, the search for Carrie's body continues. I suppose it would depend on whether the DA would be willing to risk presenting circumstancial evidence. Although I am an IDI, I think they would have had a 50% chance of indictment. It appears that nothing is being done and the guessing, the rumors continue. If I were JR, I would encourage them to go for it.

[Tober]

Then, I say, they should have been prosecuted. If enough people who elect their officials made enough noise, wouldn't you think something would be done?

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.

[andU]

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.

Our DA's are appointed. We elect judges, but he appoints DA and Prosecutor.

[shill]

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.

Your convinced they should move forward based on the evidence available to you, the public.
There is a lot more evidence that is private. Most the evidence available to the public is bias because it was released for the sole purpose of putting pressure on the Ramseys. Evidence that supported IDI wasn't leaked because there was no motive to leak it.

[andU]

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.

[bullmoose]

Tober: There exists a body of evidence that only a prosecutor from the Arabian Nights would be delighted to float into court on your flying carpet of suspicion and unsupported innuendo. To what kind of typical homicide case do you infer? Cases that you have been involved in? Come on, loosen up, tell us your wellspring of insightful information. Inquiring minds want to know.:biggrin:

[bullmoose]

To nuisanceposter: The GJ voted not to indict or The GJ didn't vote to indict or The GJ were not allowed to vote, so they couldn't indict; don't you see the pattern; it all comes out the same? The GJ met for over a year and failed to return an indictment, thats what it boils down to. IMO, if the GJ was prevented from voting to indict, then they were a bunch of weak-kneed sissies pushed around by the evil pro-Ramsey DA's office. But I don't believe that at all, if they were prevented from voting, one or more of them could have and IMO would have leaked that information to the press. But it didn't occur so I 'll continue to believe that there was not found to be sufficient evidence to indict, much less convict, anyone. JMHO:biggrin:

[andU]

To nuisanceposter: The GJ voted not to indict or The GJ didn't vote to indict or The GJ were not allowed to vote, so they couldn't indict; don't you see the pattern; it all comes out the same? The GJ met for over a year and failed to return an indictment, thats what it boils down to. IMO, if the GJ was prevented from voting to indict, then they were a bunch of weak-kneed sissies pushed around by the evil pro-Ramsey DA's office. But I don't believe that at all, if they were prevented from voting, one or more of them could have and IMO would have leaked that information to the press. But it didn't occur so I 'll continue to believe that there was not found to be sufficient evidence to indict, much less convict, anyone. JMHO:biggrin:

That's exactly what I believe, and why I stated, "Bring what you've got to the table (or the jurors)". It would have been done long ago if there was sufficient evidence. "Beyond the shadow of a doubt"... without that, innocence prevails.

[sweetcharlotte]

A court is in charge of grand jury proceedings, and IMO would be the one to make the decision on how the proceedings would conclude. Not the DA.

http://www.grandjuryfoundation.org/faq.html

[rashomon]

And not to be rude, but why would the Ramseys or anyone else for that matter care what your daughter (the dog expert) thinks about them letting their neighbor keep their dog when they were away.

FYI - The Ramseys also had a cat in MI that was looked after by a neighbor when they were away from there. I don't have a problem with that either.
You're not so much rude as simply ignorant about the case facts here. Like it has been pointed out to you, the issue was not about the dog being looked after while the Ramseys were away, but about the dog more or less living with the Barnhills most of the time. And anyone who has ever owned a dog knows how much emotionally attached these sweet animals become to 'their' family. And to more or less shove off one's dog to the neigbors points to a lack of empathy on the Ramseys part. This family obviously had not even been able to create a close bond to their dog. Speaks volumes imo.

[sweetcharlotte]

You're not so much rude as simply ignorant about the case facts here. Like it has been pointed out to you, the issue was not about the dog being looked after while the Ramseys were away, but about the dog more or less living with the Barnhills most of the time. And anyone who has ever owned a dog knows how much emotionally attached these sweet animals become to 'their' family. And to more or less shove off one's dog to the neigbors points to a lack of empathy on the Ramseys part. This family obviously had not even been able to create a close bond to their dog. Speaks volumes imo.

IMO - it's just another attempt to point a negative finger at the Ramseys.

And yes, I know about dogs. I have two and most days during the week I have four. Two are dropped off so they don't have to stay in a kennel all day. They are also dropped off when their family goes out of town.

[elvislives]

Who's going to do it? Not the Boulder DA, and they're the ones in charge. Alex Hunter was old friends with the Ramsey defense lawyers, known to be very lenient, and was never ever going to prosecute without more proof than what he saw, and Mary Lacy, his protege, hasn't even bothered to learn all the details of the case. She hasn't done anything about Jason Midyette's murder, either - a ten week old infant who died with some 27 broken bones, some of in the stage of healing, who spent all of his time with his wealthy, well-connected parents. What did Trip DeMuth have to say? Something about how he wasn't sure all those broken bones were from abuse? Please...they must have been using that baby as a football.

If what you say about Alex Hunter is true, he should be tried for obstruction of justice. I dont know about the other case you sited but again, if this much corruption exists in the DAs office, you would think the residents of Boulder would be protesting in the streets and calling for a special election to get a DA in there with some integrity. jmo

[elvislives]

The statement I read on another forum some time ago that particularly tickled me about the implications that the Ramseys are guilty was about smoking. PR started smoking cigarettes again after JBR was killed and it came out that JR liked cigars and snuck a few in at the airport when he tended to his plane. Well, that wrapped it up for that internet poster; if they were smokers they must be guilty.

KingCoyote

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.
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.

[shill]

You're not so much rude as simply ignorant about the case facts here. Like it has been pointed out to you, the issue was not about the dog being looked after while the Ramseys were away, but about the dog more or less living with the Barnhills most of the time. And anyone who has ever owned a dog knows how much emotionally attached these sweet animals become to 'their' family. And to more or less shove off one's dog to the neigbors points to a lack of empathy on the Ramseys part. This family obviously had not even been able to create a close bond to their dog. Speaks volumes imo.

A lot of dog people I know can never leave their dogs alone for very long. They always have to take a break or can't stay because their dog needs out or they'll do their business in the house. It's like leaving a kid home alone that you have to check in on.
It doesn't sound like the Ramseys lived a lifestyle that would allow them to look after the needs of a dog. Maybe if they had a nanny to look after the kids, she could also look after the dog, but they didn't. So you find someone to take care of the dog, which in their case, it would be most of the time.

I'm personally not a dog person and don't care to bond with or take care of a dog. This does not make me a criminal. I like cats, and many people hate cats, including dog lovers.

You might as well say that the Ramseys smoke so they are guilty if you're going to say a lack of empathy for dogs makes them guilty.

[LindaA]

:beer: 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.
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.

:beer: Hurray! Couldn't possibly agree more!

[bullmoose]

Elvislives:As far as I know, the job of DA in Boulder is elective, and Alex Hunter never got voted out of office for any supposed malfeasance connected with the Jonbenet case; moreover the case has been scrutinized closely from the beginning by the Colorado Bar Association and the DA's from the surrounding cities. I do not know much about the Jason Midyette murder, but that has been on the watch of Hunter's elected successor. If these people and the DA's office is so corrupt, how do they win election?. A sniveling, disaffected minority can claim anything, but just like with the Grand Jury, they cannot direct the actions of the majority of everybody else in Boulder. That is why the BPD chose to use the media in the beginning to try the case in the public eye, because they could not bend the DA's office to do what they wanted them to do; to arrest and try the Ramseys on the BPD's theories and 'evidence'. Nifong, in the Duke case, is in very hot water for his behavior in the past nine months. As far as I know, Hunter is not, for his actions over a number of years. Nifong is in trouble because he rushed to judgement, Hunter is not because he refused the BPD's demands that he rush to judgement.OOPS--I'm being serious, sorry.:biggrin:

[elvislives]

Who's going to do it? Not the Boulder DA, and they're the ones in charge. Alex Hunter was old friends with the Ramsey defense lawyers, known to be very lenient, and was never ever going to prosecute without more proof than what he saw, and Mary Lacy, his protege, hasn't even bothered to learn all the details of the case. She hasn't done anything about Jason Midyette's murder, either - a ten week old infant who died with some 27 broken bones, some of in the stage of healing, who spent all of his time with his wealthy, well-connected parents. What did Trip DeMuth have to say? Something about how he wasn't sure all those broken bones were from abuse? Please...they must have been using that baby as a football.

Just an antecdote to file under the 'things arent always what they appear' category. We had a case here in LA several years ago of a couple who kept bringing thier toddler into the ER with broken bones. The X-rays of this kid were unbelievable...numerous broken bones at various stages of healing. I couldn't help but glare and feel horrible distain for the parents. After a long CPS investigation and eventually a trial, the parents lost custody of their child and he was placed in foster care. But he kept breaking bones and winding up in the ER. Long story short, it turned out that this kid had a rare (almost unheard of) genetic disorder which caused his bones to be extremely brittle. A colleague of mine testified against the parents and his testimony is probably what got this child removed from his home...to this day he feels very guilty even tho he was acting in good faith and doing what he thought was in the best interest of the child.
I have no idea if thats what happened in the case you mentioned--more than likely the baby was a victim of abuse and the parents belong in jail.
But that experience with all these people genuinely trying to do what was right---and inadvertantly taking a child away from loving caring parents for 6 years...has taught me to take nothing at face value. Just thought I'd share

[LindaA]

Elvislives, I've heard of similar things happening. Wasn't there a case in which an infant was thought to have had anti-freeze added to his formula in an attempt to poison him, when it turned out to be some rare condition that caused his own body to form ethylene-glycol from his food?

[KingCoyote]

Elvislives, I've heard of similar things happening. Wasn't there a case in which an infant was thought to have had anti-freeze added to his formula in an attempt to poison him, when it turned out to be some rare condition that caused his own body to form ethylene-glycol from his food?

Linda A: You are correct about this case. If my memory is working tonight I believe that case was close to the metropolitan area of St. Louis and both children of this couple had the rare condition. The wife was the one convicted, if I remember correctly and when her second child developed the symptoms while she was in jail, it became apparent that she, nor her husband for some reason, could have poisoned the children.

I also remember reading a case where a man's blood type from his semen did not match his overall blood type. That drove detectives nuts. These all come from true crime books written that I have read over the years.

KingCoyote

[LindaA]

Thanks, KC. I knew watching those Lifetime movies would pay off some day.

[KingCoyote]

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.
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.

I am voting with Elvislives and LindaA on this one...:patriot:

KingCoyote

[rashomon]

Just an antecdote to file under the 'things arent always what they appear' category. We had a case here in LA several years ago of a couple who kept bringing thier toddler into the ER with broken bones. The X-rays of this kid were unbelievable...numerous broken bones at various stages of healing. I couldn't help but glare and feel horrible distain for the parents. After a long CPS investigation and eventually a trial, the parents lost custody of their child and he was placed in foster care. But he kept breaking bones and winding up in the ER. Long story short, it turned out that this kid had a rare (almost unheard of) genetic disorder which caused his bones to be extremely brittle. A colleague of mine testified against the parents and his testimony is probably what got this child removed from his home...to this day he feels very guilty even tho he was acting in good faith and doing what he thought was in the best interest of the child.
I have no idea if thats what happened in the case you mentioned--more than likely the baby was a victim of abuse and the parents belong in jail.
But that experience with all these people genuinely trying to do what was right---and inadvertantly taking a child away from loving caring parents for 6 years...has taught me to take nothing at face value. Just thought I'd share
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?

[rashomon]

IMO - it's just another attempt to point a negative finger at the Ramseys.

And yes, I know about dogs. I have two and most days during the week I have four. Two are dropped off so they don't have to stay in a kennel all day. They are also dropped off when their family goes out of town.
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.

[KingCoyote]

Rashomon:

I don't know if you have read it or not but I did post a long list of indications and contraindications of possible rage evidence at the thread Parents Who Kill. It included some dynamics of the relationship between PR and JBR. Right now I am asking in a Post on that thread if anyone knows exactly why JBR did not start Kindergarten until 6 instead of the usual 5 years old. Was there an age and date cutoff or what? I would be interested in knowing that as I am looking at some cause effect relationships of parents who murder their children based on age and school year. Let me know if you know of anything.

KingCoyote