Question & Clarifications

[SnarkyCow]

Hi! I'm new here, but have been lurking here & on another board for quite awhile. I started out completely clueless about the JBR case and was kind of sure an intruder had to be the murderer. Then I started reading about the case and fell into "fence sitter mode" - my opinions changed daily. Now that I've read lots of books about this case, listened to both sides present their arguments (repeatedly) and lurked even more on the messageboards I'm completely convinced RDI.

A lot of the theories I've read on the messageboards are so far out there that I can't wrap my brain around them. Cults, Satanists (is that even a word - LOL) and porn rings on Christmas night, etc. make my eyes glaze over. Sure anything is possible but I like to focus on what is probable Many of these theories are such a stretch - I prefer a more logical approach.

Anyway, now that I'm done babbling, I have a few things I'd like clarification on. This will probably come out as anti-IDI, but that's okay because I am anti-IDI:D Just kidding - I appreciate everyones' input.

1. Why would an intruder try to go in/out a tiny window, move a noisy metal grate, etc. when they could have easily left via a door?

2. Why would an intruder break in, with the intent to kidnap, and take JB from her bed, feed her pineapple, and take her to the basement instead of just exiting the house via a door?

3. Why would a kidnapper turn pedophile turn murder? And why would they leave a note AND leave a body?

4. Why would a woman with a million designer clothes wear the same clothes as the night before?

5. Why wouldn't JR mention the broken window to the police? DUH! Your child has supposedly been kidnapped and YOU, genius, are supposed to be looking for anything out of the ordinary - like a point of entry, for instance.

6. According to experts how many people besides Patsy could not be eliminated as author of the ransom note?

7. Why would the father of a murdered little girl want to skip the state 30 minutes (or whatever the exact amount of time was) after the body of his beloved daughter was found?

8. How many lie detector tests did the Ramseys take? How many did they pass? Why wouldn't they take an FBI polygraph?

9. Why would someone as supposedly intelligent as JR completely disregard the ransom note instructions and risk his daughter being beheaded by allowing marked black & whites to show up, and inviting 4 friends and a minister over?

10. How would an "intruder" spend all that time in the Ramsey house, in all different rooms, using a lot of implements found in the house to carry out this "pedokidnapmurder" (complete with three page ransom note) without leaving one solid trace of evidence?

11. How can JonBenet's DNA be fresh and intact and the "intruder's" DNA degraded and old if both samples of DNA were left at the same time?

Peace,

Snarky

[Coloradokares]

Hi! I'm new here, but have been lurking here & on another board for quite awhile. I started out completely clueless about the JBR case and was kind of sure an intruder had to be the murderer. Then I started reading about the case and fell into "fence sitter mode" - my opinions changed daily. Now that I've read lots of books about this case, listened to both sides present their arguments (repeatedly) and lurked even more on the messageboards I'm completely convinced RDI.

A lot of the theories I've read on the messageboards are so far out there that I can't wrap my brain around them. Cults, Satanists (is that even a word - LOL) and porn rings on Christmas night, etc. make my eyes glaze over. Sure anything is possible but I like to focus on what is probable Many of these theories are such a stretch - I prefer a more logical approach.

Anyway, now that I'm done babbling, I have a few things I'd like clarification on. This will probably come out as anti-IDI, but that's okay because I am anti-IDI:D Just kidding - I appreciate everyones' input.

1. Why would an intruder try to go in/out a tiny window, move a noisy metal grate, etc. when they could have easily left via a door?

2. Why would an intruder break in, with the intent to kidnap, and take JB from her bed, feed her pineapple, and take her to the basement instead of just exiting the house via a door?

3. Why would a kidnapper turn pedophile turn murder? And why would they leave a note AND leave a body?

4. Why would a woman with a million designer clothes wear the same clothes as the night before?

5. Why wouldn't JR mention the broken window to the police? DUH! Your child has supposedly been kidnapped and YOU, genius, are supposed to be looking for anything out of the ordinary - like a point of entry, for instance.

6. According to experts how many people besides Patsy could not be eliminated as author of the ransom note?

7. Why would the father of a murdered little girl want to skip the state 30 minutes (or whatever the exact amount of time was) after the body of his beloved daughter was found?

8. How many lie detector tests did the Ramseys take? How many did they pass? Why wouldn't they take an FBI polygraph?

9. Why would someone as supposedly intelligent as JR completely disregard the ransom note instructions and risk his daughter being beheaded by allowing marked black & whites to show up, and inviting 4 friends and a minister over?

10. How would an "intruder" spend all that time in the Ramsey house, in all different rooms, using a lot of implements found in the house to carry out this "pedokidnapmurder" (complete with three page ransom note) without leaving one solid trace of evidence?

11. How can JonBenet's DNA be fresh and intact and the "intruder's" DNA degraded and old if both samples of DNA were left at the same time?

Peace,

Snarky

And that is what we used to call in speech class the summation!! :seeya: Nothing like cutting through the clutter to the heart of the matter. JMO Those are the questions that have yet to be brought to bear.

[lsu]

Hi! I'm new here, but have been lurking here & on another board for quite awhile. I started out completely clueless about the JBR case and was kind of sure an intruder had to be the murderer. Then I started reading about the case and fell into "fence sitter mode" - my opinions changed daily. Now that I've read lots of books about this case, listened to both sides present their arguments (repeatedly) and lurked even more on the messageboards I'm completely convinced RDI.

A lot of the theories I've read on the messageboards are so far out there that I can't wrap my brain around them. Cults, Satanists (is that even a word - LOL) and porn rings on Christmas night, etc. make my eyes glaze over. Sure anything is possible but I like to focus on what is probable Many of these theories are such a stretch - I prefer a more logical approach.

Anyway, now that I'm done babbling, I have a few things I'd like clarification on. This will probably come out as anti-IDI, but that's okay because I am anti-IDI:D Just kidding - I appreciate everyones' input.

1. Why would an intruder try to go in/out a tiny window, move a noisy metal grate, etc. when they could have easily left via a door?

2. Why would an intruder break in, with the intent to kidnap, and take JB from her bed, feed her pineapple, and take her to the basement instead of just exiting the house via a door?

3. Why would a kidnapper turn pedophile turn murder? And why would they leave a note AND leave a body?

4. Why would a woman with a million designer clothes wear the same clothes as the night before?

5. Why wouldn't JR mention the broken window to the police? DUH! Your child has supposedly been kidnapped and YOU, genius, are supposed to be looking for anything out of the ordinary - like a point of entry, for instance.

6. According to experts how many people besides Patsy could not be eliminated as author of the ransom note?

7. Why would the father of a murdered little girl want to skip the state 30 minutes (or whatever the exact amount of time was) after the body of his beloved daughter was found?

8. How many lie detector tests did the Ramseys take? How many did they pass? Why wouldn't they take an FBI polygraph?

9. Why would someone as supposedly intelligent as JR completely disregard the ransom note instructions and risk his daughter being beheaded by allowing marked black & whites to show up, and inviting 4 friends and a minister over?

10. How would an "intruder" spend all that time in the Ramsey house, in all different rooms, using a lot of implements found in the house to carry out this "pedokidnapmurder" (complete with three page ransom note) without leaving one solid trace of evidence?

11. How can JonBenet's DNA be fresh and intact and the "intruder's" DNA degraded and old if both samples of DNA were left at the same time?

Peace,

Snarky

good points! It's mainly #2 & #3 that make me lean off the fence toward the R's. Like you said - WHY would an intruder stick around to commit the crime in the house? Look at Jessica Lunsford and Polly Klass' killers - they TOOK them from their home - didn't kill them there. And since when does a killer write a ransom note? Or a kidnapper write a ransom note and then kill the kid on the spot before the ransom note is even found? If so - why not go back and remove the ransom note if you've killed her? What's the point of it now? Also - I don't think any associates of John's wrote the RN...an acquaintance maybe - but who in their right mind would write a note implicating themselves by indicating they are associated w/him via businesses of some sort?! I think that was written strictly to throw the focus onto someone else -whether the R's did it or not.

[elvislives]

Hi! I'm new here, but have been lurking here & on another board for quite awhile. I started out completely clueless about the JBR case and was kind of sure an intruder had to be the murderer. Then I started reading about the case and fell into "fence sitter mode" - my opinions changed daily. Now that I've read lots of books about this case, listened to both sides present their arguments (repeatedly) and lurked even more on the messageboards I'm completely convinced RDI.

A lot of the theories I've read on the messageboards are so far out there that I can't wrap my brain around them. Cults, Satanists (is that even a word - LOL) and porn rings on Christmas night, etc. make my eyes glaze over. Sure anything is possible but I like to focus on what is probable Many of these theories are such a stretch - I prefer a more logical approach.

Anyway, now that I'm done babbling, I have a few things I'd like clarification on. This will probably come out as anti-IDI, but that's okay because I am anti-IDI:D Just kidding - I appreciate everyones' input.

1. Why would an intruder try to go in/out a tiny window, move a noisy metal grate, etc. when they could have easily left via a door?

2. Why would an intruder break in, with the intent to kidnap, and take JB from her bed, feed her pineapple, and take her to the basement instead of just exiting the house via a door?

3. Why would a kidnapper turn pedophile turn murder? And why would they leave a note AND leave a body?

4. Why would a woman with a million designer clothes wear the same clothes as the night before?

5. Why wouldn't JR mention the broken window to the police? DUH! Your child has supposedly been kidnapped and YOU, genius, are supposed to be looking for anything out of the ordinary - like a point of entry, for instance.

6. According to experts how many people besides Patsy could not be eliminated as author of the ransom note?

7. Why would the father of a murdered little girl want to skip the state 30 minutes (or whatever the exact amount of time was) after the body of his beloved daughter was found?

8. How many lie detector tests did the Ramseys take? How many did they pass? Why wouldn't they take an FBI polygraph?

9. Why would someone as supposedly intelligent as JR completely disregard the ransom note instructions and risk his daughter being beheaded by allowing marked black & whites to show up, and inviting 4 friends and a minister over?

10. How would an "intruder" spend all that time in the Ramsey house, in all different rooms, using a lot of implements found in the house to carry out this "pedokidnapmurder" (complete with three page ransom note) without leaving one solid trace of evidence?

11. How can JonBenet's DNA be fresh and intact and the "intruder's" DNA degraded and old if both samples of DNA were left at the same time?

Peace,

Snarky

These are good questions, Snarky and the reason that I am still on the fence. Circumstancially, imo, all evidence points to the Ramseys. Especially when you consider their behaviour after the crime, i.e. not conducting immediate police interviews etc. But the physical evidence seems to point away from them....she died of ligature strangulation---how is that an accident? And if she was deliberately killed, it is hard to imagine why her parents would do it. So you are left with all the farfetched theories...Patsy killed her as a sacrifice to God...Patsy killed her because she was jealous...John killed her to cover up for his molestation of her, etc. And those theories all seem a little preposterous to me, just as preposterous as the IDI theory.
I have heard an explanation for your question #11 above. JB's dna was from fresh blood, and it mixed with dna that was from skin cells or saliva. It is not as easy to get a dna profile from skin cells or saliva since the cells may be dead so the sample may appear "degraded". Btw 'degraded' in dna speak doesn't necessarily mean old. As for the rest of your questions, they seem to point straight at the Rs.

[Louisadelmar]

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/bynum.html
[…]
BEUF: He looked absolutely devastated. To me, they were the most appropriate reactions in the world. God knows, I wouldn't know how I'd react if one of my children had been murdered, particularly in such horrible circumstances. He paced and paced and paced. He and I went out for a walk for awhile that night. It's the wreckage of two human beings.

SAWYER: Even so, we were told the Ramseys volunteered to give hair, fingerprint, blood samples. And John Ramsey offered to be formally interviewed by the police if he could do it in the house near his family. Bynum says it didn't happen only because police wanted both parents, and Dr Beuf said Patsy Ramsey wasn't able to talk.
BEUF: I had advised that it was not good to have Patsy there because she was under heavy sedation and would not have been able to function. And then the story came out that the Ramseys had refused to be interviewed by the police. That is just flat wrong.I sat there.
SAWYER: Why did they get a lawyer?
BYNUM: I went, as their friend, to help. And I felt that they should have legal advice nothing more, nothing less.
SAWYER: So you're the reason they got a lawyer?
BYNUM: I'm the one.
SAWYER: It did not occur to them first?
BYNUM: They certainly never made any mention of it to me.
SAWYER: I'm trying to imagine, if I am in the middle of this agony and my friend says to me, "You better get a lawyer " I think I'd go, "What? What?"
BYNUM: Well
SAWYER: This horrible thing has happened to my child. There's a note here. I should get a lawyer?
BYNUM: Well, first of all, that was not the words that I used. I told John there were some legal issues that I thought needed to be taken care of. And John just looked at me and said, "Do whatever you think needs to be done," and he and Burke he went into a room to talk with Burke and so I did.
[…]

[SnarkyCow]

1. I would take the ransom note seriously, I'd call the police, but I'd stress discretion - I would NOT draw attention to my activities for fear of my little angel being hurt.

2. I would sit by that phone with one eye on the clock to make damn sure I didn't miss the phone call - when the time came & went without a call I would have been inconsolable (I know it is debated whether the call would be coming in on the 26th or 27th, but I'd be waiting by the phone on both days!)

3. I would be shocked and disgusted by the suggestion that I need a lawyer.

4. I'd be camped out in that police station DEMANDING that everything be done to find the killer of my daughter.

5. I'd take as many polygraphs as necessary to clear myself in order to move forward with law enforcement and find out who murdered my baby.

6. I would remember what she ate, drank, when the last time I bathed her, etc. if only because I'd want to hold on to every memory possible and help LE in any way possible.

7. I would want everyone who ever had contact with my daughter questioned extensively, including myself & my family members - just in case anyone can remember anything & I'd want it done ASAP, while details are fresh in everyones' mind.

8. I would insist on as many investigators as possible, I'd pay any amount of money and cooperate in any way possible to find and punish the animal who hurt my baby.

These are things I am certain of. My uncle was murdered 18 years ago and my family does whatever we have to to keep the SOB who killed him behind bars - that is what you do when you are innocent and when you lose someone you love.

I don't know why this happened or how this happened (I have my theories, but they are speculation) - crimes of passion or anger (or whatever) happen in an instant even when people have no history of violence. The Ramseys' behavior was/is/has always been suspicious. Period. Something happened that night and someone knows waaaay more than they are telling. Innocent people do NOT act like Patsy & John acted. I should think innocent people would put themselves second to whatever will help solve the murder of their beloved daughter, but Patsy & John always seem to put themselves first.

I don't want to believe parents could do this to their child, but it happens. It happens everyday - we just don't hear about it because not every family it happens to is wealthy and not every murdered child is a beauty queen.

This whole thing stinks and no matter how I look at it I always end up concluding the Ramseys were involved in the death of their daughter.

IMHO

[Ames]

1. I would take the ransom note seriously, I'd call the police, but I'd stress discretion - I would NOT draw attention to my activities for fear of my little angel being hurt.

2. I would sit by that phone with one eye on the clock to make damn sure I didn't miss the phone call - when the time came & went without a call I would have been inconsolable (I know it is debated whether the call would be coming in on the 26th or 27th, but I'd be waiting by the phone on both days!)

3. I would be shocked and disgusted by the suggestion that I need a lawyer.

4. I'd be camped out in that police station DEMANDING that everything be done to find the killer of my daughter.

5. I'd take as many polygraphs as necessary to clear myself in order to move forward with law enforcement and find out who murdered my baby.

6. I would remember what she ate, drank, when the last time I bathed her, etc. if only because I'd want to hold on to every memory possible and help LE in any way possible.

7. I would want everyone who ever had contact with my daughter questioned extensively, including myself & my family members - just in case anyone can remember anything & I'd want it done ASAP, while details are fresh in everyones' mind.

8. I would insist on as many investigators as possible, I'd pay any amount of money and cooperate in any way possible to find and punish the animal who hurt my baby.

These are things I am certain of. My uncle was murdered 18 years ago and my family does whatever we have to to keep the SOB who killed him behind bars - that is what you do when you are innocent and when you lose someone you love.

I don't know why this happened or how this happened (I have my theories, but they are speculation) - crimes of passion or anger (or whatever) happen in an instant even when people have no history of violence. The Ramseys' behavior was/is/has always been suspicious. Period. Something happened that night and someone knows waaaay more than they are telling. Innocent people do NOT act like Patsy & John acted. I should think innocent people would put themselves second to whatever will help solve the murder of their beloved daughter, but Patsy & John always seem to put themselves first.

I don't want to believe parents could do this to their child, but it happens. It happens everyday - we just don't hear about it because not every family it happens to is wealthy and not every murdered child is a beauty queen.

This whole thing stinks and no matter how I look at it I always end up concluding the Ramseys were involved in the death of their daughter.

IMHO

I agree. Look at Patsy and John's interviews...and see how many....UM's...UH's...and I don't knows you can find. Just make a game of it...you will be astounded.

[thewhitewitch1]

It seems to me that Patsy was just as hysterical before JBs body was found as she was after. Almost as if she already knew. IMO
Who calls in their family pediatrician after their child has been murdered?
I am not interested in what Beuf had to say about how real their "grief" was. The guy was a friend of the family and therefore, biased. As was Bynum.
I am not doubting that the R's were upset...just for a different reason. IMO

[shill]

It seems to me that Patsy was just as hysterical before JBs body was found as she was after. IMO

I don't know what would be worse; not knowing whether something bad is going to happen to your daughter, or knowing something bad happened to your daughter.

[shill]

I agree. Look at Patsy and John's interviews...and see how many....UM's...UH's...and I don't knows you can find. Just make a game of it...you will be astounded.
Drink a beer every time, and then post.

[Ames]

I don't know what would be worse; not knowing whether something bad is going to happen to your daughter, or knowing something bad happened to your daughter.

Well, they totally disregarded the bogus ransom letter's threats...of beheading JB if they so much talked to a dog. Didn't seem like she was too concerned about something bad happening to her daughter. If she thought that letter was real...she wouldn't have called the whole community over. Its almost as if, she was having a PARTY or something. So, if she didn't know "whether something bad was going to happen to her daughter"....she should have not disregarded all of those threats....just to be on the safe side. This would work only, of course.......if there had ACTUALLY been an intruder...and the ransom note was real. (IMO)

[Ames]

Drink a beer every time, and then post.

LOL...yes, that would make for an even better game.

[Jayelles]

These are good questions, Snarky and the reason that I am still on the fence. Circumstancially, imo, all evidence points to the Ramseys. Especially when you consider their behaviour after the crime, i.e. not conducting immediate police interviews etc. But the physical evidence seems to point away from them....she died of ligature strangulation---how is that an accident? And if she was deliberately killed, it is hard to imagine why her parents would do it. So you are left with all the farfetched theories...Patsy killed her as a sacrifice to God...Patsy killed her because she was jealous...John killed her to cover up for his molestation of her, etc. And those theories all seem a little preposterous to me, just as preposterous as the IDI theory.
I have heard an explanation for your question #11 above. JB's dna was from fresh blood, and it mixed with dna that was from skin cells or saliva. It is not as easy to get a dna profile from skin cells or saliva since the cells may be dead so the sample may appear "degraded". Btw 'degraded' in dna speak doesn't necessarily mean old. As for the rest of your questions, they seem to point straight at the Rs.


I miss Elvis.

I was looking for a thread about the handwriting and/or polygraphs and couldn't find any dedicated ones. This post turned up in my search and is therefore kind of a random selection in that respect.

I have had a few interesting little information gathering experiences regarding lie detection and handwriting analysis. I won't have time to cover them all in this post, but here's one for starters:-

How easy would it be for Patsy to disguise her handwriting as opposed to how easy would it be for someone to write the note in such a way that it would resemble Patsy's handwriting to the extent that she couldn't be cleared as the writer?

jameson once started a thread about this urging her members to copy the ransom note, but to deliberately and consistently substitute certain letters for a different letter. So for example - swap f with w. I don't specifically remember the rules of her experiment - but it was along those lines. Her point was that a forger would have to really concentrate hard and that the note would take a long time to create.

Not so. We've all seen in films the scene were someone stuffs a hankerchief in their mouth to disguise their voice for a phone call. It's a trick actors use - only they use rubber and/or fake teeth. The same principle could be used to disguise handwriting. If you get a bandage and strap up your dominant hand taking care to tie down a couple of the fingers and then hold the pen ina completely different manner, your handwriting would be significantly altered. Even wearing a large glove or wrapping a tea-towel around your fist would have a good effect. The overall effect would be significantly altered handwriting with some similarities to your natural handwriting.

[Athena]

But how do you explain the others that had questionable handwriting but the DNA allegedly cleared them? There were some whose handwriting was just as close if not closer than Patsy's but we don't have access to the actual reports: i.e, Bill McReynolds, Henderson, Merrick, Wolf just to mention a couple off the top of my head. JMO

[SuperDave]

I miss Elvis.

I was looking for a thread about the handwriting and/or polygraphs and couldn't find any dedicated ones. This post turned up in my search and is therefore kind of a random selection in that respect.

I have had a few interesting little information gathering experiences regarding lie detection and handwriting analysis. I won't have time to cover them all in this post, but here's one for starters:-

How easy would it be for Patsy to disguise her handwriting as opposed to how easy would it be for someone to write the note in such a way that it would resemble Patsy's handwriting to the extent that she couldn't be cleared as the writer?

jameson once started a thread about this urging her members to copy the ransom note, but to deliberately and consistently substitute certain letters for a different letter. So for example - swap f with w. I don't specifically remember the rules of her experiment - but it was along those lines. Her point was that a forger would have to really concentrate hard and that the note would take a long time to create.

Not so. We've all seen in films the scene were someone stuffs a hankerchief in their mouth to disguise their voice for a phone call. It's a trick actors use - only they use rubber and/or fake teeth. The same principle could be used to disguise handwriting. If you get a bandage and strap up your dominant hand taking care to tie down a couple of the fingers and then hold the pen ina completely different manner, your handwriting would be significantly altered. Even wearing a large glove or wrapping a tea-towel around your fist would have a good effect. The overall effect would be significantly altered handwriting with some similarities to your natural handwriting.

It's simpler than that, Jayelles. Take a look at this:

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/court.html

It's called writing with the other hand.

"We talked to people from her school days, teachers, etc, and we found a witness, a high school teacher who taught Patsy in the 1970's, who said very simply and matter-of-factly she is ambidextrous. She was as a child. She is now. We went to Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, the housekeeper, and when we asked her this she said, oh yeah, she said, Patsy told me she was ambidextrous. I've seen her brush her hair with her left hand. I've seen her paint with her left hand. I once saw her work on a science project with Burke, JonBenet's brother, where she wrote numbers and letters with her left hand. She is absolutely ambidextrous. This is very exciting evidence. As I'm sure Mr. Widmer, the handwriting expert, will tell you, if you look at the letter, the ransom note, the two and a half page ransom note, you can see indications that this was written by a person who was using their non-dominant hand. The shaky handwriting.."

[SuperDave]

But how do you explain the others that had questionable handwriting but the DNA allegedly cleared them? There were some whose handwriting was just as close if not closer than Patsy's but we don't have access to the actual reports: i.e, Bill McReynolds, Henderson, Merrick, Wolf just to mention a couple off the top of my head. JMO

We don't have the reports because the Ramseys never released them, Athena. And I mention that because you claim that there were people who were "just as close if not closer than Patsy's." So what did I do? I went over to Miss Marple's wiki. I found that the people you mention were named by you with disclaimers. Let's not forget that we are talking about a book published almost nine years ago, and probably written before that, when all the experts had to go on was incomplete information.

Let's take them on, shall we?

There's no mention of whether Bud Henderson's writing matched in any way. From pages 182 to 183 paperback, they mention him giving samples, but not what the results were.

Santa Bill McReynolds. Can't find the page just now.

Jeff Merrick. The PMPT reference is to another person, Gary Merriman. And what PMPT said is that the police thought he might have written the note. But on the next page, it says he gave another sample, and his writing is never mentioned again, so I think it was a dead-end.

Glenn Meyer. PMPT says that his first sample showed some similarities, so they asked for more. Again, nothing is ever mentioned.

Chris Wolf. This one intrigued me, until I found out who put the bee on him. The Ramseys' own professional hitman. "For example, forensic document examiner Lloyd Cunningham cannot eliminate plaintiff Chris Wolf as the author of the Ransom Note" He couldn't eliminate his own client, either.

That's my whole point. From what I can tell, the only people who say that these specific people were "just as close if not closer than Patsy's" were the Ramseys own experts. And that brings me to something I remembered as I pored over the transcript of the LKL face-off with ST. John mentions the "just as close if not closer than Patsy's" like you did, Athena, but he refuses to release his own experts' analysis, because "Steve's not a police officer anymore." The Ramseys have never released anything that says so-and-so was "just as close if not closer than Patsy's." They won't even release the analysis they claim eliminates them. Darnay Hoffman was on Bill O'Reilly's show back in 2006, and he said the same thing:

"The Ramseys have never released any of their handwriting reports, which they could have done and cleared up at any time. They released a polygraph, but none of their own reports."

Which is all they'd have to do to shut him up. His own words. That the Rs never released this supposed gold mine doesn't strike you as mildly off-center? I was an IDI when I first saw that face-off. I can tell you, it surprised the hell out of me. These two don't seem to have any problem with presenting their own findings. Why the sudden reluctance?

So I don't buy the story that "There were some whose handwriting was just as close if not closer than Patsy's." Hope you understand.

[Jayelles]

It's simpler than that, Jayelles. Take a look at this:

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/court.html

It's called writing with the other hand.

"We talked to people from her school days, teachers, etc, and we found a witness, a high school teacher who taught Patsy in the 1970's, who said very simply and matter-of-factly she is ambidextrous. She was as a child. She is now. We went to Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, the housekeeper, and when we asked her this she said, oh yeah, she said, Patsy told me she was ambidextrous. I've seen her brush her hair with her left hand. I've seen her paint with her left hand. I once saw her work on a science project with Burke, JonBenet's brother, where she wrote numbers and letters with her left hand. She is absolutely ambidextrous. This is very exciting evidence. As I'm sure Mr. Widmer, the handwriting expert, will tell you, if you look at the letter, the ransom note, the two and a half page ransom note, you can see indications that this was written by a person who was using their non-dominant hand. The shaky handwriting.."

Yes, this one of the other things I was going to post about. My sister and I are both ambidextrous. I use my right and left hands interchangeably for almost everything I do (it's very useful) and some things I can do better with my left hand than my right. However, I consider myself to be right handed because I write with my right hand. we both do (possibly because when we were young, schools forced everyone to write with their right hands). Having said that, we both CAN write with our left hands if we have to. I'm not sure if I'd choose to disguise my handwriting that way though because it would take so long - even for an ambidextrous person.

[Jayelles]

But how do you explain the others that had questionable handwriting but the DNA allegedly cleared them? There were some whose handwriting was just as close if not closer than Patsy's but we don't have access to the actual reports: i.e, Bill McReynolds, Henderson, Merrick, Wolf just to mention a couple off the top of my head. JMO

I don't attempt to explain anything I don't have any evidence about. If that evidence was avaialble, I'd be happy to discuss it. What would be important to me is standardisation. I'd like to see the same piece of text written by each of these people and analysed by the same method by the same expert or experts. It's meaningless otherwise.

[SuperDave]

Yes, this one of the other things I was going to post about. My sister and I are both ambidextrous. I use my right and left hands interchangeably for almost everything I do (it's very useful) and some things I can do better with my left hand than my right. However, I consider myself to be right handed because I write with my right hand. we both do (possibly because when we were young, schools forced everyone to write with their right hands). Having said that, we both CAN write with our left hands if we have to. I'm not sure if I'd choose to disguise my handwriting that way though because it would take so long - even for an ambidextrous person.

Time? Well, don't forget Jayelles: time didn't seem to be a factor to the writer.

[rashomon]

But how do you explain the others that had questionable handwriting but the DNA allegedly cleared them? There were some whose handwriting was just as close if not closer than Patsy's but we don't have access to the actual reports: i.e, Bill McReynolds, Henderson, Merrick, Wolf just to mention a couple off the top of my head. JMO
The DNA may have no connection with the homicide at all.
Also, neither of the people mentioned above had any reason to leave a ransom note behind with the dead body of the victim. A ransom note which would only give clues as to their handwriting.
The only people who had a motive to leave that kidnapping note behind with the victim were the Ramseys, for it was they who were stuck in their home with a dead body they did not dare to get rid of. They needed that bogus kidnapping note to point to alleged 'outsiders' having commited the crime - the 'Small Foreign Faction'.

jmo

[rashomon]

Time? Well, don't forget Jayelles: time didn't seem to be a factor to the writer.
I too think the writer had plenty of time to write the note, and the fact that several pages of the notepad were missing might indicate that even more practice notes were written and possibly torn up and flushed down the toilet.

jmo

[Athena]

The DNA may have no connection with the homicide at all.
Also, neither of the people mentioned above had any reason to leave a ransom note behind with the dead body of the victim. A ransom note which would only give clues as to their handwriting.
The only people who had a motive to leave that kidnapping note behind with the victim were the Ramseys, for it was they who were stuck in their home with a dead body they did not dare to get rid of. They needed that bogus kidnapping note to point to alleged 'outsiders' having commited the crime - the 'Small Foreign Faction'.

jmo

Still doesn't answer the question that they were cleared although their handwriting matched closer than Patsy's. The point is Patsy's handwriting was NOT the only handwriting that could not be excluded and hers was further off than the above-mentioned. If the DNA is artifact as many claim, then the DNA should not have cleared ANYONE especially those whose handwriting was questionable.

[Athena]

I too think the writer had plenty of time to write the note, and the fact that several pages of the notepad were missing might indicate that even more practice notes were written and possibly torn up and flushed down the toilet.

jmo

Or were taken out of the house prior to the night of the murder and written before and copied over at the house. Paper should have stopped up the toilet bowl or at least been in a position for LE to find it. They NEVER found the missing pages.

[rashomon]

Or were taken out of the house prior to the night of the murder and written before and copied over at the house. Paper should have stopped up the toilet bowl or at least been in a position for LE to find it. They NEVER found the missing pages.
It depends on how small you tear up the paper and on how often you flush the toilet.
Also, the CASKU experts theory was that the ransom note was written after the crime and indicated panic. The note reads exactly that way imo.

jmo

[thewhitewitch1]

It depends on how small you tear up the paper and on how often you flush the toilet.
Also, the CASKU experts theory was that the ransom note was written after the crime and indicated panic. The note reads exactly that way imo.

jmo

Paper can also be burned and the ashes flushed. IMO

[Rupert]

Well, your questions make sense and granted that's part of why it's still a mystery. However, just imagine there is a sinister, sadistic perp out there who feels wronged by John and envious of all the success of both his business and family, especially in dealing with that tart young girl. Imagine a clever an cunning perp who has time at Christmas because of his own failed marriage.

1. Why would an intruder try to go in/out a tiny window, move a noisy metal grate, etc. when they could have easily left via a door?
- maybe he didn't want to sound off an alarm or maybe just didn't want to risk going upstairs again
- maybe he did go out the door and replaced the grate
- replaced grate to cover intruder tracks (consistent with the rest)
- cover intruder tracks to divert and implicate the Ramseys (eg Ricochet)

2. Why would an intruder break in, with the intent to kidnap, and take JB from her bed, feed her pineapple, and take her to the basement instead of just exiting the house via a door?
- feed pineapple to implicate the Ramseys?
- we dont know if it's pineapple for sure in her stomach
- can you you imagine stun gunning her in bed, then taking her down for some pineapple and watch the fear in her arouse as she comes to in the kitchen

3. Why would a kidnapper turn pedophile turn murder? And why would they leave a note AND leave a body?
- intention was to covet and kill, implicate John Ramsey, yet leave I am smarter than you sociopathic hints of who I am

4. Why would a woman with a million designer clothes wear the same clothes as the night before?
- because she has done before

5. Why wouldn't JR mention the broken window to the police? DUH! Your child has supposedly been kidnapped and YOU, genius, are supposed to be looking for anything out of the ordinary - like a point of entry, for instance.
- lot's going on in John Ramsey's mind that morning (money, wondering what the intruder is doing with his daughter)

6. According to experts how many people besides Patsy could not be eliminated as author of the ransom note?
- a whole bunch who have not been tested

7. Why would the father of a murdered little girl want to skip the state 30 minutes (or whatever the exact amount of time was) after the body of his beloved daughter was found?
- 30 minutes? Comment given by trusting officer to whom?

8. How many lie detector tests did the Ramseys take? How many did they pass? Why wouldn't they take an FBI polygraph?
- they were emotionally distraught and warned, from the get go they were under severe suspicion (no footprints in the snow)

9. Why would someone as supposedly intelligent as JR completely disregard the ransom note instructions and risk his daughter being beheaded by allowing marked black & whites to show up, and inviting 4 friends and a minister over?
- Patsy probably called, being so distraught. John just went along with it, probably rocked off his kilter, not knowing what to do.

10. How would an "intruder" spend all that time in the Ramsey house, in all different rooms, using a lot of implements found in the house to carry out this "pedokidnapmurder" (complete with three page ransom note) without leaving one solid trace of evidence?
- well planned intention of stalk, covet, kill and implicate John
- wore appropriate clothes and took care not to leave evidence

11. How can JonBenet's DNA be fresh and intact and the "intruder's" DNA degraded and old if both samples of DNA were left at the same time?
- is this accurate? maybe the mucous?

Yes it is alot to imagine. If intruder, then indeed stalker and one who covets. They had no chance. They came across a nutcase and because of their success and trust got targeted. Is it really easier to imagine Patsy throwing her across the room, oops, I guess I've got to cut off that blood supply and garrot her before her head starts to bleed?


There are other questions:
How can a court of law find it is more likely that an intruder did it?
Where did the rope come from? Why didn't LHP recognize it?

I do respect the RDI stance. I personally would still be tracking down the killer, but of course I am not in their shoes. The mystery goes on for me.

[nuisanceposter]

Rupert, I don't think the Rs were that clueless or both of them that unable to think under pressure (had this been real, their actions would have had JonBenet's head cut off), spider web - no one went through that window, it most definitely was determined to be pineapple, and what's so scary about the kitchen? She ate there every day - "oh no, don't offer me fruit at the breakfast table!" Imagine her fear had she been taken directly to the basement without feeding her pineapple and waiting an hour or so for it to digest...and just how did they keep her quiet and occupied all that time? Restraints? No sign of that, no proof, other than one side of a cord tied loosely on one wrist. Tape? Applied after she was unconscious or dead, proven by lack of struggle on tape and bloody mucus under tape.

No proof of a stun gun. Smit couldn't even match what model it would have been - Air Taser was the closest he could come, and it's not their product. They'd have no reason to lie and act like it wasn't, and then there's experts like Stratbucker saying those aren't stun gun wounds anyway. Smit also claims that JonBenet struggled with her killer, and he is wrong about that. There is no sign of a struggle and no defensive wounds - Smit is the only person who claims there are. IMO, the only thing he got right was that the food matter in JB's intestines was, in fact, determined to be none other than pineapple.

No one cared enough about the Ramseys to have set all this up to frame them, and if they did, they would have been someone who knew them and would have been figured out by now. If the Rs had enemies, they'd have known who they were, and they didn't...and no one involved in this investigation has yet been able to find someone who hated them enough to do this.

When did Patsy wear the same outfit two days in a row prior to the murder, when the events she would be wearing the outfit to included a party where photos would be taken and a family gathering where not would more photos be taken but she'd be wanting to make a favorable impression on Melinda's boyfriend? Hard to do that in the clothes you wore to a party five hours the night before and left lying in the bathtub overnight - not even hung up. This woman was the wife a millionaire and a former beauty pageant winner - her own friends thought it would be unlikely that she'd wear the same exact clothes two days in a row like that.

Yeah, most of the US hasn't been tested for handwriting in the Ramsey case, but you need to focus on who you could possibly feasibly connect to having some chance to have been in the Ramsey house that night. That narrows it down. Just who are these people that haven't been tested? Why hasn't Smit and the DA's office gotten on that by now?

Sgt Mason of BPD and Agent Walker of the FBI were present in the house when JR tried to arrange a flight out of town 30 minutes after the body was found, and IIRC, it was Mason who said JR needed to cancel that. I would consider him to be credible, as this account is noted in both ST and PMPT. Yet another instance where ST and PMPT agree and DOI differs.

As for the 911 call, come on. Kidnapping is basically a business transaction, and I bet you anything a CEO would see that right off. JR is the CEO of a successful business. He didn't get there by sitting there reading but disregarding instructions in important business papers while allowing his frantic, panicking secretary to make business calls that might end up having his company shut down...so why should he act completely out of character this time and stand there while Patsy calls 911 and several friends over, knowing it will cause his daughter to be beheaded? He wasn't that clueless or unable to think under pressure, and I also bet you that as a former beauty pageant winner and journalism major, Patsy wasn't, either.

What about Patsy's fibers being found in places specific to the murder, places where she said she hadn't been in that outfit - such as on the tape, in the paint tray, on the blanket, and tied into the ligature?

And what about the completely unnecessary evidence left behind in the form of the RN that Patsy cannot be eliminated as author of?

Why should LHP recognize rope under the bed of a seldom-used room? She was a housekeeper - she took care of the main parts of the house that were in frequent use, like the kitchen, bathrooms, bedrooms, family room. Other than when Patsy stayed in there while fighting cancer or after someone like JAR visited and used the room, I don't see why LHP would be in there, other than dusting and vacuuming as routine upkeep. And Patsy said the bed was low - I don't see LHP on her hands and knees rooting around under the bed and finding a bag of rope when she has to wash every dirty dish the Rs used while she wasn't there and pick up every article of dirty clothing they dropped where they were standing - plus having to follow Burke around and clean up the shavings from him whittling in the house without enough sense to use something to catch the shavings. She was only there three days a week, six hours a day...she didn't have time to be searching under a bed in a room not in regular use with that kind of busy work waiting every time she got there.

[thewhitewitch1]

Bravo, NP. Great post!

[DAFFODIL]

Yep that about sums it up NP-excellent post.

[Athena]

Rupert, I don't think the Rs were that clueless or both of them that unable to think under pressure (had this been real, their actions would have had JonBenet's head cut off), spider web - no one went through that window, it most definitely was determined to be pineapple, and what's so scary about the kitchen? She ate there every day - "oh no, don't offer me fruit at the breakfast table!" Imagine her fear had she been taken directly to the basement without feeding her pineapple and waiting an hour or so for it to digest...and just how did they keep her quiet and occupied all that time? Restraints? No sign of that, no proof, other than one side of a cord tied loosely on one wrist. Tape? Applied after she was unconscious or dead, proven by lack of struggle on tape and bloody mucus under tape.

Please explain the abrasions over and under the ligature if she did not struggle. What were all those abrasions from?

No proof of a stun gun. Smit couldn't even match what model it would have been - Air Taser was the closest he could come, and it's not their product. They'd have no reason to lie and act like it wasn't, and then there's experts like Stratbucker saying those aren't stun gun wounds anyway. Smit also claims that JonBenet struggled with her killer, and he is wrong about that. There is no sign of a struggle and no defensive wounds - Smit is the only person who claims there are. IMO, the only thing he got right was that the food matter in JB's intestines was, in fact, determined to be none other than pineapple.

Please explain the marks and the fact that they are spaced evenly. There is not one credible alternative explanation.

Please explain that there was proof that it was pineapple contents in her stomach. The ME specifically says MAY BE fragments of pineapple. There were no tests done to ID the contents in her stomach nor can I find ANY autopsy report of anyone where food content is tested for identication. Stomach contents are tested for drugs, etc.

No one cared enough about the Ramseys to have set all this up to frame them, and if they did, they would have been someone who knew them and would have been figured out by now. If the Rs had enemies, they'd have known who they were, and they didn't...and no one involved in this investigation has yet been able to find someone who hated them enough to do this.

You have no idea if someone hated the Ramseys that much or not; nor do I. According to Linda McClean one of Patsy's good friends; they did have their own suspects.

When did Patsy wear the same outfit two days in a row prior to the murder, when the events she would be wearing the outfit to included a party where photos would be taken and a family gathering where not would more photos be taken but she'd be wanting to make a favorable impression on Melinda's boyfriend? Hard to do that in the clothes you wore to a party five hours the night before and left lying in the bathtub overnight - not even hung up. This woman was the wife a millionaire and a former beauty pageant winner - her own friends thought it would be unlikely that she'd wear the same exact clothes two days in a row like that.

What real friends said that of Patsy. It was no big deal wearing the same clothes with people she was not with previously. I am also NOT known for wearing my clothes two days in a row but that's because the same people have just not seen me in the same outfit as I would not wear it again if I had worn in previously with the same group of people.

Yeah, most of the US hasn't been tested for handwriting in the Ramsey case, but you need to focus on who you could possibly feasibly connect to having some chance to have been in the Ramsey house that night. That narrows it down. Just who are these people that haven't been tested? Why hasn't Smit and the DA's office gotten on that by now?

What about the people that HAVE been tested and have been said to have handwriting closer than Patsy's was. Merrick, Meyers, Wolf, and McReynolds just to name some off the top of my head. The handwriting analyses done in this case was subjective; not objective. No court of law would have allowed a handwriting expert to testify without having done a blind analysis. It is not considered a true science and many states still don't allow it.

Sgt Mason of BPD and Agent Walker of the FBI were present in the house when JR tried to arrange a flight out of town 30 minutes after the body was found, and IIRC, it was Mason who said JR needed to cancel that. I would consider him to be credible, as this account is noted in both ST and PMPT. Yet another instance where ST and PMPT agree and DOI differs.

I do not recall Walker being present when JR was on the phone but I do know that Mason did overhear him and Mason also said that when JR was told he had to stay here he did not resist. Mason also said he would not make judgement on what JR did because he had never lost a child.

As for the 911 call, come on. Kidnapping is basically a business transaction, and I bet you anything a CEO would see that right off. JR is the CEO of a successful business. He didn't get there by sitting there reading but disregarding instructions in important business papers while allowing his frantic, panicking secretary to make business calls that might end up having his company shut down...so why should he act completely out of character this time and stand there while Patsy calls 911 and several friends over, knowing it will cause his daughter to be beheaded? He wasn't that clueless or unable to think under pressure, and I also bet you that as a former beauty pageant winner and journalism major, Patsy wasn't, either.

Absolutely nothing wrong with Patsy calling 911. The friends issue was overboard -- but many people don't know what they would do until it happened to them. Having said that, I doubt I would have called friends over either.

What about Patsy's fibers being found in places specific to the murder, places where she said she hadn't been in that outfit - such as on the tape, in the paint tray, on the blanket, and tied into the ligature?

No proof that any fibers were found on the paint tray or the garrotte. Investigators are ALLOWED to make suspects think they have evidence that they don't have. Unfortunately for them, there were no confessions or admissions. Interview/Interrorgation 101 - standard practice.

Even Kane said there was NOTHING DEFINITIVE that linked the Ramseys to this crime.

And what about the completely unnecessary evidence left behind in the form of the RN that Patsy cannot be eliminated as author of?

Not sure what you are referring to.

[Athena]

Had to cut this from above as post was too long:

Why should LHP recognize rope under the bed of a seldom-used room? She was a housekeeper - she took care of the main parts of the house that were in frequent use, like the kitchen, bathrooms, bedrooms, family room. Other than when Patsy stayed in there while fighting cancer or after someone like JAR visited and used the room, I don't see why LHP would be in there, other than dusting and vacuuming as routine upkeep. And Patsy said the bed was low - I don't see LHP on her hands and knees rooting around under the bed and finding a bag of rope when she has to wash every dirty dish the Rs used while she wasn't there and pick up every article of dirty clothing they dropped where they were standing - plus having to follow Burke around and clean up the shavings from him whittling in the house without enough sense to use something to catch the shavings. She was only there three days a week, six hours a day...she didn't have time to be searching under a bed in a room not in regular use with that kind of busy work waiting every time she got there.

I agree with this.

However, why would LHP who only worked until 3PM CLAIM that she heard Patsy get upset with JBR after JBR wet the bed at night when she wasn't even there? Before she felt she was suspected herself she worked for Schiller for over a year and adamantly said Patsy did not get upset over JBRs bedwetting; that it was just no big deal. IMO LHP was angry and retaliated.

[rashomon]

[Athena]:
Please explain that there was proof that it was pineapple contents in her stomach. The ME specifically says MAY BE fragments of pineapple. There were no tests done to ID the contents in her stomach nor can I find ANY autopsy report of anyone where food content is tested for identication. Stomach contents are tested for drugs, etc.

You know that even Lou Smit verbatim told John Ramsey that it WAS in fact pineapple. What more do you need?
"IDI" Smit would only have been too happy to tell John it was not pineapple, dont you think so? Therefore it is logical to assume that subsequent lab tests confirmed what Dr. Meyer assumed: it was indeed pineapple.

jmo

[nuisanceposter]

Please explain the abrasions over and under the ligature if she did not struggle. What were all those abrasions from?

IIRC, Elvis described those marks as petechial hemmorhaging - trauma from being strangled.

Where is the blood and skin that should be under her fingernails from wounding herself like that? If she was able to reach her neck, she should have her own skin/blood under her fingernails, perhaps even bits of skin that could be matched to specific wounds. That simply is not the case. I know you're going to say that Smit said there was, but it is NOT in the autopsy, and NO ONE other than Smit says that.

This should be in the autopsy, if it is true. There would be no reason to hold that information back, especially with all of the other info that could have been held back that wasn't. Smit is the only one who makes this claim - I think Smit is wrong. I don't see Smit's claims supported elsewhere.

Can you find anyone else in this investigation that is not associated with the DA's office, has not been hired by the Ramseys, or is not repeating reports coming from Team Ramsey that also says that JonBenet's own skin and/or blood was found under her fingernails, and that the skin/blood got there from her struggling?

I don't think you can. I have asked this before, and still am waiting for an answer.

Please explain the marks and the fact that they are spaced evenly. There is not one credible alternative explanation.

I don't think I could offer an explanation that you would accept.....but I do not think that means that an alternative credible explanation does not exist. Ring theory and crown theory are alternatives.

Please explain that there was proof that it was pineapple contents in her stomach. The ME specifically says MAY BE fragments of pineapple. There were no tests done to ID the contents in her stomach <snip>

You may not want to accept the source, but ST's book states that the pineapple was tested, and I think PMPT does, too. They corroborate each other a lot. ST states it was consistent down to the rind with what was in the bowl, and Lou Smit seems to have seen proof enough that the food matter was pineapple - no question, he says. So why are you questioning it so hard?

You have no idea if someone hated the Ramseys that much or not; nor do I. According to Linda McClean one of Patsy's good friends; they did have their own suspects.

Who would it have been, Athena? It was clearly someone who lived in Boulder, knew the layout of the Ramsey house, knew these inside jokes to make in the RN, knew the Ramsey's schedule, knew JonBenet. If it was someone who worked with them, or knew them socially, don't you think they would have figured it out by now, with all of the people who have been investigating this case? It wasn't just the BPD you think is so inept, for crying out loud, Smit was on it, DA's office, anyone the Ramseys hired - they can't find anyone out of everyone the Rs knew or were connected to, plus god knows how many known criminals were checked.....but OH LOOK, John and Patsy Ramsey still HAVE NOT been cleared.

What real friends said that of Patsy. It was no big deal wearing the same clothes with people she was not with previously. <snip>

Oh, but you're not Patsy, Athena, and just like I wouldn't know how she'd handle death threats in an RN against her daughter, you have no idea how she might actually feel about wearing clothes for five hours one night and leaving them lying in the tub overnight, then putting them back on the next morning with no shower but make up, because she was concerned about making a good impression on Stewart Long. This one only takes a little bit of common sense - I can't believe people try to argue it like they do. And I bet you'll say the friends that might have said that Patsy wouldn't wear an outfit for two days straight weren't 'real' friends.

What about the people that HAVE been tested and have been said to have handwriting closer than Patsy's was. <snip>

What about them? Is there any other evidence connecting these people to the crime? If so, what is it?

WHO said the handwriting of these people is closer to the RN than Patsy's, and in what context, after what testing?

Handwriting takes a backseat to being able to actually place suspects in the vicinity of the Ramsey house during the time span of the night in question with opportunity to break in and carry out the murder and staging and writing of RN - so if you can't place Suspect A in the right time and place with the right abilities, then maybe whether the non-true science of handwriting analysis indicates s/he wrote the note or not isn't the best thing to use to cast suspicion on him/her or keep suspicion cast on him/her.

What did Lou Smit do about these people you have named here? Did he go and obtain handwriting samples from all of them, and have them analyzed? Has the DA's office followed up on that and done the necessary testing?

I do not recall Walker being present when JR was on the phone but I do know that Mason did overhear him and Mason also said that when JR was told he had to stay here he did not resist. Mason also said he would not make judgement on what JR did because he had never lost a child.

So according to you, Mason is credible, which answers Rupert's question in agreement with what I said. Thanks.

Absolutely nothing wrong with Patsy calling 911. The friends issue was overboard -- but many people don't know what they would do until it happened to them. Having said that, I doubt I would have called friends over either.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with Patsy calling 911, but I did express doubt that a CEO like JR would allow his frantic and panicking wife to call 911 and then friends over in blatant disregard of the RN because he's used to having a secretary make calls for him, as some people have tried to suggest. I don't think JR was either that clueless or that distraught, nor do I think Patsy was - had this been a real kidnapping, what they did would have gotten their daughter killed, and it said so right in the RN. The fact that both of them ignored the threats indicates to me that they KNEW the RN was bogus and that there was no danger in calling friends after 911.


No proof that any fibers were found on the paint tray or the garrotte. Investigators are ALLOWED to make suspects think they have evidence that they don't have. Unfortunately for them, there were no confessions or admissions. Interview/Interrorgation 101 - standard practice.

No proof? What sources are you using?

There was also no reason to believe that interview was designed to coerce a confession. Come on, they made every allowance they could for the Rs, and Levin's reputation for being honest and always doing the right thing is described in PMPT. This was not a hard interview, it was a cake walk where Patsy was coddled every step of the way. Trying to say the fiber evidence is a lie is just grasping for any excuse because the fiber evidence is that damning, IMO.

Even Kane said there was NOTHING DEFINITIVE that linked the Ramseys to this crime.

Source, please, I'd like to see this statement in the context in which it was said. Thanks.


Not sure what you are referring to.

I'm referring to the RN, and wondering why any intruder would leave unnecessary evidence in the form of a handwritten ransom note. It doesn't read as a "gotcha!" to me - it's so conversational and lacking in anger and aggression that it's almost genteel and cordial.

IMO. Thanks, White and Daffodil.

[SuperDave]

Still doesn't answer the question that they were cleared although their handwriting matched closer than Patsy's. The point is Patsy's handwriting was NOT the only handwriting that could not be excluded and hers was further off than the above-mentioned.

Athena, how did you go from "also couldn't be eliminated" to "closer than Patsy's"? For one thing, it's not true, not by a damn sight. FOXNEWS's Carol McKinley said that Ubowski, the only expert to testify before the GJ, said that of 100 people he tested, Patsy was the only one he thought matched up, and that only the poor quality of the material kept him from a 100% match.

Also, from PMPT, page 667 pb: "Of everyone interviewed, Patsy was the only one who was not eliminated as the author of the ransom note."

That sounds pretty clear to me.


If the DNA is artifact as many claim, then the DNA should not have cleared ANYONE especially those whose handwriting was questionable.

I totally agree, Athena. That's why this is important:

http://www.acandyrose.com/09212001thomas-depo.htm

"21 A. There was a huge controversy about

22 the DNA.

23 Q. So it was not in and of itself

24 viewed as a forensic piece of evidence that

25 eliminated anyone, was it?





97



1 A. Correct.

Don't forget, it's the IDI side who puts all the emphasis on the DNA.

[SuperDave]

Please explain the marks and the fact that they are spaced evenly. There is not one credible alternative explanation.

You're in luck, Athena. I happen to own one of these things. The fact that they ARE evenly spaced is suspect to me. The one I use never leaves clean marks like that. I've had myself zapped several times to prove it. (I need to get out of this business!)

[COLOR="Blue"][B]You have no idea if someone hated the Ramseys that much or not; nor do I. According to Linda McClean one of Patsy's good friends; they did have their own suspects.

After saying how no one they knew could do it? Which is it, Athena?

What real friends said that of Patsy. It was no big deal wearing the same clothes with people she was not with previously. I am also NOT known for wearing my clothes two days in a row but that's because the same people have just not seen me in the same outfit as I would not wear it again if I had worn in previously with the same group of people.

But how many years have you devoted to being Miss Perfect Princess?

What about the people that HAVE been tested and have been said to have handwriting closer than Patsy's was. Merrick, Meyers, Wolf, and McReynolds just to name some off the top of my head.

I refer you to my previous postings: from PMPT, page 667 pb: "Of everyone interviewed, Patsy was the only one who was not eliminated as the author of the ransom note."

That sounds pretty clear to me.

The handwriting analyses done in this case was subjective; not objective. No court of law would have allowed a handwriting expert to testify without having done a blind analysis. It is not considered a true science and many states still don't allow it.


Then why did you bring it up?

Absolutely nothing wrong with Patsy calling 911. The friends issue was overboard -- but many people don't know what they would do until it happened to them. Having said that, I doubt I would have called friends over either.

Thank you for that concession.

No proof that any fibers were found on the paint tray or the garrotte. Investigators are ALLOWED to make suspects think they have evidence that they don't have. Unfortunately for them, there were no confessions or admissions. Interview/Interrorgation 101 - standard practice.

POLICE are allowed, not other lawyers:

Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct state: Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."

Not only that, but Patsy admitted they were hers. In October of 2002, she finally went on the record, when she would NOT do so with the actual investigators.

PATSY: "I had my whole body on her body. My sweater fibers or whatever are going to transfer to her clothing."

AHA! I got her! because:

1) according to her OWN book, that scenario could not have happened. John wrote that he had already covered JonBenet's body.

2) The fibers were not on JB's clothing.

3) She says sweater. Whoops...

Two full years, and that story is all she could come up with. Boy, those lawyers really earned their money.

4) Even Lou Smit says that the fibers are incriminating:

ERIN: "Isn't the fact that there were fibers consistent with Patsy Ramsey's clothing incriminating?"

SMIT: "Sure."

But like usual, he ignores it.


Even Kane said there was NOTHING DEFINITIVE that linked the Ramseys to this crime.


Where did he say that? And mind you, he was the evidence man, and he thinks she did it, even if it can't be proven BARD. He said back in 2002 that the staging was one of the reasons he thinks she did it: "it was a very theatrical production and Patsy is a very theatrical person."

[SuperDave]

IIRC, Elvis described those marks as petechial hemmorhaging - trauma from being strangled.

Where is the blood and skin that should be under her fingernails from wounding herself like that? If she was able to reach her neck, she should have her own skin/blood under her fingernails, perhaps even bits of skin that could be matched to specific wounds. That simply is not the case. I know you're going to say that Smit said there was, but it is NOT in the autopsy, and NO ONE other than Smit says that.

This should be in the autopsy, if it is true. There would be no reason to hold that information back, especially with all of the other info that could have been held back that wasn't. Smit is the only one who makes this claim - I think Smit is wrong. I don't see Smit's claims supported elsewhere.

Can you find anyone else in this investigation that is not associated with the DA's office, has not been hired by the Ramseys, or is not repeating reports coming from Team Ramsey that also says that JonBenet's own skin and/or blood was found under her fingernails, and that the skin/blood got there from her struggling?

I don't think you can. I have asked this before, and still am waiting for an answer.

You'd think he'd talk to people like Werner Spitz, wouldn't you?



I don't think I could offer an explanation that you would accept.....but I do not think that means that an alternative credible explanation does not exist. Ring theory and crown theory are alternatives.

I think we're wasting time, NP.

WHO said the handwriting of these people is closer to the RN than Patsy's, and in what context, after what testing?

PMPT, NP. But later on it says they were all eliminated.

Handwriting takes a backseat to being able to actually place suspects in the vicinity of the Ramsey house during the time span of the night in question with opportunity to break in and carry out the murder and staging and writing of RN - so if you can't place Suspect A in the right time and place with the right abilities, then maybe whether the non-true science of handwriting analysis indicates s/he wrote the note or not isn't the best thing to use to cast suspicion on him/her or keep suspicion cast on him/her.

Not only that, NP, but let's apply Occam's Razor: the note was written inside the house by someone who didn't fear getting caught, who knew their way around, who knew where the writing supplies were, on Patsy's paper with Patsy's pen, using close knowledge of family finances and inside jokes, using many of the same grammatical flourishes (Mr., Southern common sense, and hence, gentelmen, etc.) that Patsy seems to like so much, which she even used in a Christmas letter the next year, after she was found to be the only person examined who changed her writing style and is known to write with either hand. Not much change out of sixpence there.


There was also no reason to believe that interview was designed to coerce a confession. Come on, they made every allowance they could for the Rs, and Levin's reputation for being honest and always doing the right thing is described in PMPT.

Every allowance isn't the term for it, NP. I'd have flayed them!

This was not a hard interview, it was a cake walk where Patsy was coddled every step of the way. Trying to say the fiber evidence is a lie is just grasping for any excuse because the fiber evidence is that damning, IMO.

You don't trick us.

I'm referring to the RN, and wondering why any intruder would leave unnecessary evidence in the form of a handwritten ransom note. It doesn't read as a "gotcha!" to me - it's so conversational and lacking in anger and aggression that it's almost genteel and cordial.

That's what Ressler said.

[thewhitewitch1]

IIRC, Elvis described those marks as petechial hemmorhaging - trauma from being strangled.

Where is the blood and skin that should be under her fingernails from wounding herself like that? If she was able to reach her neck, she should have her own skin/blood under her fingernails, perhaps even bits of skin that could be matched to specific wounds. That simply is not the case. I know you're going to say that Smit said there was, but it is NOT in the autopsy, and NO ONE other than Smit says that.

This should be in the autopsy, if it is true. There would be no reason to hold that information back, especially with all of the other info that could have been held back that wasn't. Smit is the only one who makes this claim - I think Smit is wrong. I don't see Smit's claims supported elsewhere.

Can you find anyone else in this investigation that is not associated with the DA's office, has not been hired by the Ramseys, or is not repeating reports coming from Team Ramsey that also says that JonBenet's own skin and/or blood was found under her fingernails, and that the skin/blood got there from her struggling?

I don't think you can. I have asked this before, and still am waiting for an answer.



I don't think I could offer an explanation that you would accept.....but I do not think that means that an alternative credible explanation does not exist. Ring theory and crown theory are alternatives.



You may not want to accept the source, but ST's book states that the pineapple was tested, and I think PMPT does, too. They corroborate each other a lot. ST states it was consistent down to the rind with what was in the bowl, and Lou Smit seems to have seen proof enough that the food matter was pineapple - no question, he says. So why are you questioning it so hard?



Who would it have been, Athena? It was clearly someone who lived in Boulder, knew the layout of the Ramsey house, knew these inside jokes to make in the RN, knew the Ramsey's schedule, knew JonBenet. If it was someone who worked with them, or knew them socially, don't you think they would have figured it out by now, with all of the people who have been investigating this case? It wasn't just the BPD you think is so inept, for crying out loud, Smit was on it, DA's office, anyone the Ramseys hired - they can't find anyone out of everyone the Rs knew or were connected to, plus god knows how many known criminals were checked.....but OH LOOK, John and Patsy Ramsey still HAVE NOT been cleared.



Oh, but you're not Patsy, Athena, and just like I wouldn't know how she'd handle death threats in an RN against her daughter, you have no idea how she might actually feel about wearing clothes for five hours one night and leaving them lying in the tub overnight, then putting them back on the next morning with no shower but make up, because she was concerned about making a good impression on Stewart Long. This one only takes a little bit of common sense - I can't believe people try to argue it like they do. And I bet you'll say the friends that might have said that Patsy wouldn't wear an outfit for two days straight weren't 'real' friends.



What about them? Is there any other evidence connecting these people to the crime? If so, what is it?

WHO said the handwriting of these people is closer to the RN than Patsy's, and in what context, after what testing?

Handwriting takes a backseat to being able to actually place suspects in the vicinity of the Ramsey house during the time span of the night in question with opportunity to break in and carry out the murder and staging and writing of RN - so if you can't place Suspect A in the right time and place with the right abilities, then maybe whether the non-true science of handwriting analysis indicates s/he wrote the note or not isn't the best thing to use to cast suspicion on him/her or keep suspicion cast on him/her.

What did Lou Smit do about these people you have named here? Did he go and obtain handwriting samples from all of them, and have them analyzed? Has the DA's office followed up on that and done the necessary testing?



So according to you, Mason is credible, which answers Rupert's question in agreement with what I said. Thanks.



I didn't say there was anything wrong with Patsy calling 911, but I did express doubt that a CEO like JR would allow his frantic and panicking wife to call 911 and then friends over in blatant disregard of the RN because he's used to having a secretary make calls for him, as some people have tried to suggest. I don't think JR was either that clueless or that distraught, nor do I think Patsy was - had this been a real kidnapping, what they did would have gotten their daughter killed, and it said so right in the RN. The fact that both of them ignored the threats indicates to me that they KNEW the RN was bogus and that there was no danger in calling friends after 911.




No proof? What sources are you using?

There was also no reason to believe that interview was designed to coerce a confession. Come on, they made every allowance they could for the Rs, and Levin's reputation for being honest and always doing the right thing is described in PMPT. This was not a hard interview, it was a cake walk where Patsy was coddled every step of the way. Trying to say the fiber evidence is a lie is just grasping for any excuse because the fiber evidence is that damning, IMO.



Source, please, I'd like to see this statement in the context in which it was said. Thanks.




I'm referring to the RN, and wondering why any intruder would leave unnecessary evidence in the form of a handwritten ransom note. It doesn't read as a "gotcha!" to me - it's so conversational and lacking in anger and aggression that it's almost genteel and cordial.

IMO. Thanks, White and Daffodil.

Yet another great post and all excellent points. Couldn't give you rep points so had to say it here. :D

[DAFFODIL]

Once again NP absolutely brilliant post :beer:

[rashomon]

Athena, how did you go from "also couldn't be eliminated" to "closer than Patsy's"? For one thing, it's not true, not by a damn sight. FOXNEWS's Carol McKinley said that Ubowski, the only expert to testify before the GJ, said that of 100 people he tested, Patsy was the only one he thought matched up, and that only the poor quality of the material kept him from a 100% match.
Exactly Dave. The claim that Patsy came close to being eliminated is one of the many IDI myths.

jmo

[rashomon]

[TWW]:
Yet another great post and all excellent points. Couldn't give you rep points so had to say it here.

Once again NP absolutely brilliant post :beer:
ITA, TWW and Daffodil!
NP , I couldn't give you rep points either, but your # 33 post was outstandingly brilliant - simply awesome! :beer:

jmo

[rashomon]

You're in luck, Athena. I happen to own one of these things. The fact that they ARE evenly spaced is suspect to me. The one I use never leaves clean marks like that. I've had myself zapped several times to prove it. (I need to get out of this business!)



After saying how no one they knew could do it? Which is it, Athena?



But how many years have you devoted to being Miss Perfect Princess?



I refer you to my previous postings: from PMPT, page 667 pb: "Of everyone interviewed, Patsy was the only one who was not eliminated as the author of the ransom note."

That sounds pretty clear to me.




Then why did you bring it up?



Thank you for that concession.



POLICE are allowed, not other lawyers:

Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct state: Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."

Not only that, but Patsy admitted they were hers. In October of 2002, she finally went on the record, when she would NOT do so with the actual investigators.

PATSY: "I had my whole body on her body. My sweater fibers or whatever are going to transfer to her clothing."

AHA! I got her! because:

1) according to her OWN book, that scenario could not have happened. John wrote that he had already covered JonBenet's body.

2) The fibers were not on JB's clothing.

3) She says sweater. Whoops...

Two full years, and that story is all she could come up with. Boy, those lawyers really earned their money.

4) Even Lou Smit says that the fibers are incriminating:

ERIN: "Isn't the fact that there were fibers consistent with Patsy Ramsey's clothing incriminating?"

SMIT: "Sure."

But like usual, he ignores it.


Where did he say that? And mind you, he was the evidence man, and he thinks she did it, even if it can't be proven BARD. He said back in 2002 that the staging was one of the reasons he thinks she did it: "it was a very theatrical production and Patsy is a very theatrical person."

Fantastic job in debunking yet another bunch of IDI myths, SuperDave!!

jmo

[Athena]

We don't have the reports because the Ramseys never released them, Athena. And I mention that because you claim that there were people who were "just as close if not closer than Patsy's." So what did I do? I went over to Miss Marple's wiki. I found that the people you mention were named by you with disclaimers. Let's not forget that we are talking about a book published almost nine years ago, and probably written before that, when all the experts had to go on was incomplete information.

Let's take them on, shall we?

There's no mention of whether Bud Henderson's writing matched in any way. From pages 182 to 183 paperback, they mention him giving samples, but not what the results were.

Santa Bill McReynolds. Can't find the page just now.

Jeff Merrick. The PMPT reference is to another person, Gary Merriman. And what PMPT said is that the police thought he might have written the note. But on the next page, it says he gave another sample, and his writing is never mentioned again, so I think it was a dead-end.

Glenn Meyer. PMPT says that his first sample showed some similarities, so they asked for more. Again, nothing is ever mentioned.

Chris Wolf. This one intrigued me, until I found out who put the bee on him. The Ramseys' own professional hitman. "For example, forensic document examiner Lloyd Cunningham cannot eliminate plaintiff Chris Wolf as the author of the Ransom Note" He couldn't eliminate his own client, either.

That's my whole point. From what I can tell, the only people who say that these specific people were "just as close if not closer than Patsy's" were the Ramseys own experts. And that brings me to something I remembered as I pored over the transcript of the LKL face-off with ST. John mentions the "just as close if not closer than Patsy's" like you did, Athena, but he refuses to release his own experts' analysis, because "Steve's not a police officer anymore." The Ramseys have never released anything that says so-and-so was "just as close if not closer than Patsy's." They won't even release the analysis they claim eliminates them. Darnay Hoffman was on Bill O'Reilly's show back in 2006, and he said the same thing:

"The Ramseys have never released any of their handwriting reports, which they could have done and cleared up at any time. They released a polygraph, but none of their own reports."

Which is all they'd have to do to shut him up. His own words. That the Rs never released this supposed gold mine doesn't strike you as mildly off-center? I was an IDI when I first saw that face-off. I can tell you, it surprised the hell out of me. These two don't seem to have any problem with presenting their own findings. Why the sudden reluctance?

So I don't buy the story that "There were some whose handwriting was just as close if not closer than Patsy's." Hope you understand.

NONE of the people were eliminated because of handwriting. They were eliminated because of the DNA.

Although Ubowski could not eliminate Patsy, he needed corroboration for it to stick in court. I also noticed somewhere in a post that you said p667 Ubowski said Patsy's handwriting was the only one that could not be eliminated. Ubowski is quoted on 5 pages of PMPT; cannot find anything on p667 nor can I find where he made that statement except in STs book. They hired a QE from US Secret Service and he undermined Ubowski's report. Any expert testimony on the handwriting in a court of law would have been a moot issue. The testimony of the own BPDs experts; Ubowski and US Secret Service would have wiped each other out.

Re: Merriman -- they took 7 handwriting samples; it is said he could have written the note but they did not think he killed JBR. Merriman told the BPD if they came back to come back with handcuffs.

p182 - Glenn Meyer gave samples and it showed some similarities.

McReynolds handwriting was questionable; but ST believed he was too infirm.

Wolf refused to give handwriting samples and was very uncooperative and gave it months later when he became a true suspect. His handwriting could not be eliminated but he was cleared on DNA.

The point is that Patsy Ramsey was NOT the only one's whose handwriting could not be eliminated.

Re: Your Colorado rules; Kane and Levin's roles were investigators to bring evidence to the Grand Jury -- they are allowed to lie in an interrogation or interview. It is not punished and whatever information they get from their interrogations/interviews are UPHELD in a court of law provided they DO NOT MANUFACTURE IT. They are not allowed to lie in a court of law. They are allowed to present alleged evidence they do not have and it is sanctioned by the our judicial system. Big difference. Prosecutors, lawyers, investigators and LE lie all of the time.

[andU]

NONE of the people were eliminated because of handwriting. They were eliminated because of the DNA.

Although Ubowski could not eliminate Patsy, he needed corroboration for it to stick in court. I also noticed somewhere in a post that you said p667 Ubowski said Patsy's handwriting was the only one that could not be eliminated. Ubowski is quoted on 5 pages of PMPT; cannot find anything on p667 nor can I find where he made that statement except in STs book. They hired a QE from US Secret Service and he undermined Ubowski's report. Any expert testimony on the handwriting in a court of law would have been a moot issue. The testimony of the own BPDs experts; Ubowski and US Secret Service would have wiped each other out.

Re: Merriman -- they took 7 handwriting samples; it is said he could have written the note but they did not think he killed JBR. Merriman told the BPD if they came back to come back with handcuffs.

p182 - Glenn Meyer gave samples and it showed some similarities.

McReynolds handwriting was questionable; but ST believed he was too infirm.

Wolf refused to give handwriting samples and was very uncooperative and gave it months later when he became a true suspect. His handwriting could not be eliminated but he was cleared on DNA.

The point is that Patsy Ramsey was NOT the only one's whose handwriting could not be eliminated.

Re: Your Colorado rules; Kane and Levin's roles were investigators to bring evidence to the Grand Jury -- they are allowed to lie in an interrogation or interview. It is not punished and whatever information they get from their interrogations/interviews are UPHELD in a court of law provided they DO NOT MANUFACTURE IT. They are not allowed to lie in a court of law. They are allowed to present alleged evidence they do not have and it is sanctioned by the our judicial system. Big difference. Prosecutors, lawyers, investigators and LE lie all of the time.


:rose: You, Go, Girl!

[Louisadelmar]

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene2.html

Perhaps Rashomon can show where there is a disclaimer that not all the photos on this page are from the crime scene?

Or maybe she can point out where on the page there is a link to the original site for that picture?

These are the only warnings I found:

Page 1
- WARNING: Certain material on page one is extremely graphic!!!
Page 3
*
Ramsey's Boulder Home's Floor Plans - floor plans of the Boulder home where JonBenét was murdered.
*
JonBenét Case - Comprehensive listing of information and resources focusing on the JonBenét Ramsey murder case.
*
JonBenét Ramsey Case Bungled - JonBenet Ramsey: The sad true story of the murder of a tiny pageant princess.
*
JonBenét Ramsey AUTOPSY REPORT: (transcribed)
*
JonBenét Ramsey ACTUAL AUTOPSY REPORT - By "The Smoking Gun"
*
JonBenét Ramsey Case Timeline - Complete timeline of case

WARNING: Certain material on this site is graphic. It may disturb or offend some viewers. Crimeshots © does not intend in any way to glorify crime or criminals. Rather, the site seeks to inform and educate the public.

Some of the photos on these pages are gruesome and shocking, and are posted here as reference to be used for forum discussion purposes only.

[Athena]

IIRC, Elvis described those marks as petechial hemmorhaging - trauma from being strangled.

Where is the blood and skin that should be under her fingernails from wounding herself like that? If she was able to reach her neck, she should have her own skin/blood under her fingernails, perhaps even bits of skin that could be matched to specific wounds. That simply is not the case. I know you're going to say that Smit said there was, but it is NOT in the autopsy, and NO ONE other than Smit says that.

This should be in the autopsy, if it is true. There would be no reason to hold that information back, especially with all of the other info that could have been held back that wasn't. Smit is the only one who makes this claim - I think Smit is wrong. I don't see Smit's claims supported elsewhere.

Can you find anyone else in this investigation that is not associated with the DA's office, has not been hired by the Ramseys, or is not repeating reports coming from Team Ramsey that also says that JonBenet's own skin and/or blood was found under her fingernails, and that the skin/blood got there from her struggling?

I don't think you can. I have asked this before, and still am waiting for an answer.
<snip>

I realize that there is pectechial hemorrhage on her neck; there are also abrasions across the entire neck above and below the ligature furrow. The lab reports somewhere just recently post also show JBRs OWN DNA under her fingernails. From the autopsy report:

FINAL DIAGNOSIS:
I. Ligature strangulation
A. Circumferential ligature with associated ligature furrow
of neck
B. Abrasions and petechial hemorrhages, neck
C. Petechial hemorrhages, conjunctival surfaces of eyes and
skin of face

The remainder of the abrasions and petechial hemorrhages of the skin
above and below the anterior projection of the ligature furrow
are nonpatterned, purple to rust colored, and present in the
midline, right, and left areas of the anterior neck.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html

[rashomon]

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene2.html

Perhaps Rashomon can show where there is a disclaimer that not all the photos on this page are from the crime scene?

Or maybe she can point out where on the page there is a link to the original site for that picture?

These are the only warnings I found:

Page 1
- WARNING: Certain material on page one is extremely graphic!!!
Page 3
*
Ramsey's Boulder Home's Floor Plans - floor plans of the Boulder home where JonBenét was murdered.
*
JonBenét Case - Comprehensive listing of information and resources focusing on the JonBenét Ramsey murder case.
*
JonBenét Ramsey Case Bungled - JonBenet Ramsey: The sad true story of the murder of a tiny pageant princess.
*
JonBenét Ramsey AUTOPSY REPORT: (transcribed)
*
JonBenét Ramsey ACTUAL AUTOPSY REPORT - By "The Smoking Gun"
*
JonBenét Ramsey Case Timeline - Complete timeline of case

WARNING: Certain material on this site is graphic. It may disturb or offend some viewers. Crimeshots © does not intend in any way to glorify crime or criminals. Rather, the site seeks to inform and educate the public.

Some of the photos on these pages are gruesome and shocking, and are posted here as reference to be used for forum discussion purposes only.
I haven't found any disclaimer, but since Lou Smit is also on one of the pictures (where he is trying to climb into the basement), imo it is clear that not all the pictures are from the original crime scene as found by the investigators on the morninig of Dec. 26th/1996.

jmo

[Louisadelmar]

I haven't found any disclaimer, but since Lou Smit is also on one of the pictures (where he is trying to climb into the basement), imo it is clear that not all the pictures are from the original crime scene as found by the investigators on the morninig of Dec. 26th/1996.

jmo

Should we believe that's really Lou Smit? Why would that forum owner try and trick us?

[Qwilleran]

Should we believe that's really Lou Smit? Why would that forum owner try and trick us?

Here is the source for the "traced" boot print:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/nebula/9337/print.html

The photo on the other site was taken from Ruthie's site, but they failed to take the explanation along for the ride.

[Louisadelmar]

Here is the source for the "traced" boot print:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/nebula/9337/print.html

The photo on the other site was taken from Ruthie's site, but they failed to take the explanation along for the ride.

Thank you Quilleran.

What I would like to know is why Rashomon accuses someone of 'trickery' for using that photo when there was absolutely nothing on the site to suggest it wasn't a photo of the relevant Hi-Tec boot print.

[Athena]

Thank you Quilleran.

What I would like to know is why Rashomon accuses someone of 'trickery' for using that photo when there was absolutely nothing on the site to suggest it wasn't a photo of the relevant Hi-Tec boot print.

I did not see anything either Louisa or else I would not have posted it the other site. I did go back however and provide the link that Qwilleran gave us above lest it be said that I intentionally posted erroneous information. JMO

Thanks for the link Qwilleran (sp?) (sorry if I spelled your name wrong)

[Jayelles]

Thank you Quilleran.

What I would like to know is why Rashomon accuses someone of 'trickery' for using that photo when there was absolutely nothing on the site to suggest it wasn't a photo of the relevant Hi-Tec boot print.

For something like this, I would tend to be work from the opposite premis - i.e. I would doubt something's suthenticity unless verified rather than assume it's authenticity unless told otherwise.

Ruthie states quite openly on her site that she traced it from one of her husband's boots. She also provided a photo showing that not all Hi-Tec soles have the logo in the same place.

[Louisadelmar]

The Crimeshots site makes no reference to Ruthie's site and presents the print as an authentic photo.

It is Rashomon's immediate willingness to label an error as a ruse or trick that I don't understand.

[Jayelles]

The Crimeshots site makes no reference to Ruthie's site and presents the print as an authentic photo.

It is Rashomon's immediate willingness to label an error as a ruse or trick that I don't understand.

I'm afraid I can't see where Rashomon has posted this. The only one I see referring to ruses and trickery is yourself.

Louisa:
Should we believe that's really Lou Smit? Why would that forum owner try and trick us?

[Louisadelmar]

I'm sure when Rashomon shows up she can answer any questions.

[Jayelles]

I'm sure when Rashomon shows up she can answer any questions.

I can't follow your posts. I can't find what you are responding to. Doesn't seem to be anything here.

[Louisadelmar]

I can't follow your posts. I can't find what you are responding to. Doesn't seem to be anything here.

As you are well aware, it isn't something 'here.'

[Jayelles]

As you are well aware, it isn't something 'here.'


Well I suspected it wasn't something here. I'm just wondering why you didn't just say so or ask her by pm.

ETA - I actually haven't seen any post by rashomon anywhere that suggest "trickery" or "ruses".

[rashomon]

I'm sure when Rashomon shows up she can answer any questions.
The Hi-tech boot discussion is a classic example of how myths in the Ramsey case can grow legs and lead a life of their own forums due to wrong info posted on websites.
These mistakes can happen even on serious sites like Crimeshots, where the caption under a bootprint picture says:

"The "Hi - Tech" shoe print found beside JonBenét's body"

But this is clearly WRONG. For the picture is merely from an experiment which Ruth Gerstenkorn performed. Thanks again to Jayelles who has corrected this misinformation.

Knowing that Athena is extremely well informed about the Ramsey case and has a lot archived, I assumed that she knew about Ruth Gerstenkorn's experiment also. But maybe she really believed it was an actual crime scene picture. It would interest me for how long she has been researching the Ramsey case. For a long-time JBR case researcher would be more likely to know about 'Ruthie' than others who came in later.

jmo

[Qwilleran]

I think these are the crime scene photos of the boot print about halfway down the page.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html

[Louisadelmar]

I think these are the crime scene photos of the boot print about halfway down the page.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html
There are 2 pictures. I'm not sure that the Rockymountainews one is the Hi-Tec. Here's a larger version of the one you referenced.
http://www.acandyrose.com/footprint1.jpg
http://www.acandyrose.com/footprint1.jpg

This one definitely says Hi-Tec.
http://www.acandyrose.com/footprint2.jpg
http://www.acandyrose.com/footprint2.jpg

[Louisadelmar]

The Hi-tech boot discussion is a classic example of how myths in the Ramsey case can grow legs and lead a life of their own forums due to wrong info posted on websites.
These mistakes can happen even on serious sites like Crimeshots, where the caption under a bootprint picture says:

"The "Hi - Tech" shoe print found beside JonBenét's body"

But this is clearly WRONG. For the picture is merely from an experiment which Ruth Gerstenkorn performed. Thanks again to Jayelles who has corrected this misinformation.

Knowing that Athena is extremely well informed about the Ramsey case and has a lot archived, I assumed that she knew about Ruth Gerstenkorn's experiment also. But maybe she really believed it was an actual crime scene picture. It would interest me for how long she has been researching the Ramsey case. For a long-time JBR case researcher would be more likely to know about 'Ruthie' than others who came in later.

jmo

I knew about Ruth's site and had even visited it a couple times over the past 8+ years but that picture at Crimeshots fooled me recently. It doesn't seem 'clearly wrong' when Crimeshots has it mislabeled.

Being misled isn't resorting a ruse or trickery and I think its sad you felt the need to join in a pecking party.

[Jayelles]

I knew about Ruth's site and had even visited it a couple times over the past 8+ years but that picture at Crimeshots fooled me recently. It doesn't seem 'clearly wrong' when Crimeshots has it mislabeled.

Being misled isn't resorting a ruse or trickery and I think its sad you felt the need to join in a pecking party.

Well to be honest, I didn't know if was from Ruthie's site but I was skeptical that it was a crime scene photo for the simple reasons that A) I'd never seen it before and b) it was a sketch/rubbing of an entire shoe, and we all know the Hi-Tec print left in the Ramsey basement was only a partial.

I then found the original photo on Ruthie's website by doing a simple Google Image search.

[rashomon]

I knew about Ruth's site and had even visited it a couple times over the past 8+ years but that picture at Crimeshots fooled me recently. It doesn't seem 'clearly wrong' when Crimeshots has it mislabeled.

Being misled isn't resorting a ruse or trickery and I think its sad you felt the need to join in a pecking party.
Based on my prior experience with several of Athena's posts, I was skeptical, that's all. Should she in fact not have known that it was not a crime scene picture, I'll stand corrected on that.

jmo