Housekeeper and more...

[Sharon]

This is a totally misleading statement. A correct statement would be that BPD have EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT fibers from Patsy's sweater-jacket that she wore the night JonBenet was killed were found on the blanket her body was wrapped in (body room), on the sticky side of the duct tape that covered her mouth (body room), tied into the ligature that was around her neck (body room), and in the paint tote (outside body room).

Even that does not amount to anything very much. Did BPD go around the house and test other items that might have had fibers from Patsy's sweater-jacket that she wore the night JonBenet was killed on them? I don't believe they did. If they had they might very well have found fibers from Patsy's sweater-jacket on practically every item in the house. Without having done that control test their evidence is essentially valueless, given that Patsy lived in the house and fibres from her clothes would be expected to be all around the house. Only if these fibres were on those crime scene items alone would there be any reason to give any weight to the fibre evidence.

If the paint tote was in the butler's kitchen and Patsy wore the coat a lot when she went outside, she might have tossed it on top of the paint tote when she came inside the house one day. If the duct tape was a piece of pre-used tape that came off a package that Patsy had unwrapped while wearing the jacket, that is how they might have gotten there. I imagine Patsy was wearing the jacket when she put JonBenet in bed, and the fibres could have gotten on JonBenet's neck and blanket then. What we don't know and what might put it all in better perspective, is just how many items around the house had fibres consistent with those of Patsy's jacket.

This fibre evidence is just very very weak and really tells us nothing except maybe that Patsy wore the jacket a lot in winter and it shed a lot of fibres.

Great reasoning Aussie.
Lately when I ponder on this case (surprisingly often) I wonder what fibers are in my home & on my family members. I mean, we might be shocked to find out that we are all contaminated with unknown fibers & the like. Or, we might have each others fibers (for lack of a better word) that would seem incriminating if put under the microscope.

My point is.....what is considered normal & reasonable in a family environment re. forensic evidence. Its pointless to make such a fuss over the R. fiber evidence unless it is truely unusual. I would love to know how much weight to put on this evidence.
jmo

[Sharon]

Sheila, in the Atlanta 2000 interviews it was disclosed that fibers from Patsy's sweater-jacket that she wore the night JonBenet was killed were found on the blanket her body was wrapped in (body room), on the sticky side of the duct tape that covered her mouth (body room), tied into the ligature that was around her neck (body room), and in the paint tote (outside body room). Patsy denies ever painting in that sweater-jacket or wearing it in the basement, which is why those fibers found in those places are incriminating, as Patsy can't offer a legitimate reason for them to be there. This post is my opinion.

Tober, (or other posters!), why do you think P. would deny ever painting in the jacket or wearing it in the basement.

If she wanted to distance herself from being a suspect she could have said that she had worn the said jacket in those places. No one would have questioned that. Why would P. insist that she hadnt worn the jacket in the basement, thus making herself look more suspisious.
jmo

[Tober]

Tober, (or other posters!), why do you think P. would deny ever painting in the jacket or wearing it in the basement.

If she wanted to distance herself from being a suspect she could have said that she had worn the said jacket in those places. No one would have questioned that. Why would P. insist that she hadnt worn the jacket in the basement, thus making herself look more suspisious.
jmo

The Ramseys made a strategic decision that they were going to distance themselves from items involved in the crime or items which might implicate them in the crime. This was probably done on the advice of one or more of their lawyers. This may have also been done for psychological reasons, e.g. by distancing themselves from the crime, they attempt to convince themselves that they weren't responsible for what happened or that they were somehow justified in perpetrating the crime. This strategy of distancing most certainly drew suspicion upon them, but it worked quite well in part because they were treated in such a friendly manner during interviews/interrogations and were never really held to their contradictions or pressed on certain issues. (IMO)

[Sharon]

The Ramseys made a strategic decision that they were going to distance themselves from items involved in the crime or items which might implicate them in the crime. This was probably done on the advice of one or more of their lawyers. This may have also been done for psychological reasons, e.g. by distancing themselves from the crime, they attempt to convince themselves that they weren't responsible for what happened or that they were somehow justified in perpetrating the crime. This strategy of distancing most certainly drew suspicion upon them, but it worked quite well in part because they were treated in such a friendly manner during interviews/interrogations and were never really held to their contradictions or pressed on certain issues. (IMO)

Ok, I will try to ask in a different way.

Assuming that the R. were trying to stage a murder and take suspission off themselves......why didnt P. admit to wearing her own jacket in certain parts of her own house in an attempt to take the heat off herself.

Why didnt she cover her own tracks by giving LE a credible & innocent reason for her fibers to be everywhere. It would be logical & actually give her more distance from the crime if she said....yes I wore that jacket in every room & while painting sometimes.

Why would she not give her fibers an explaination to make them look more innocent?
jmo

[Louisadelmar]

Apparently their strategy was to tell copious 'lies' about things that don't really matter but then when it comes to questions about evidence that could make them look guilty they were to be sticklers for the truth.

[shill]

The Ramseys made a strategic decision that they were going to distance themselves from items involved in the crime or items which might implicate them in the crime. This was probably done on the advice of one or more of their lawyers. This may have also been done for psychological reasons, e.g. by distancing themselves from the crime, they attempt to convince themselves that they weren't responsible for what happened or that they were somehow justified in perpetrating the crime. This strategy of distancing most certainly drew suspicion upon them, but it worked quite well in part because they were treated in such a friendly manner during interviews/interrogations and were never really held to their contradictions or pressed on certain issues. (IMO)

Funny how you describe this as "distancing themselves". They might distance themselves if they were guilty but they are not, and when they're not guilty that behavior is called "telling the truth" because they are innocent and they want the case solved.
Why would they say they did something that they didn't do to LE?

You Tober, the GJ, the DA, and LE have not proven them guilty so your "distancing" theory does not apply except in your imagination.

[Sharon]

Apparently their strategy was to tell copious 'lies' about things that don't really matter but then when it comes to questions about evidence that could make them look guilty they were to be sticklers for the truth.

Thats exactly it!!!!!

Like they would rather incriminate themselves than tell a lie about something that could let them off the hook.

Its like P. was saying I know the fibers from my jacket on the crime scene look like I murdered my daughter but I will not tell a fib & try to give a reason why they would be there.

Another thought is that maybe the fibers were not there & the forensics were wrong??? That would make more sense ....maybe.
jmo

[thewhitewitch1]

Apparently their strategy was to tell copious 'lies' about things that don't really matter but then when it comes to questions about evidence that could make them look guilty they were to be sticklers for the truth.


That depends on whether you believe they were telling the truth about JB being asleep, the pineapple, Burke being asleep during the 911 call, among other things.
Which questions about the evidence were they "sticklers for telling the truth" about? And how do you know this for a fact? You can't. It is only your opinion that they were telling the truth about anything.

[Louisadelmar]

That depends on whether you believe they were telling the truth about JB being asleep, the pineapple, Burke being asleep during the 911 call, among other things.
Which questions about the evidence were they "sticklers for telling the truth" about? And how do you know this for a fact? You can't. It is only your opinion that they were telling the truth about anything.

We were talking about why Patsy wouldn't say she may have occasionally worn the jacket when she was painting. A simple nebulous statement that could head off any questions about fibers. Even if she didn't know whether or not they'd found fibers a guilty person woud want to cover all possibilities.

[bullmoose]

The Ramseys made a strategic decision that they were going to distance themselves from items involved in the crime or items which might implicate them in the crime. This was probably done on the advice of one or more of their lawyers. This may have also been done for psychological reasons, e.g. by distancing themselves from the crime, they attempt to convince themselves that they weren't responsible for what happened or that they were somehow justified in perpetrating the crime. This strategy of distancing most certainly drew suspicion upon them, but it worked quite well in part because they were treated in such a friendly manner during interviews/interrogations and were never really held to their contradictions or pressed on certain issues. (IMO)Tober, it always warms my heart to see your posts, because I know deep down inside of your blowhard exterior, there is a core being that wants to to tell us the that which we keep asking of you, e.g. evidence to back up all the blah, blah, blah! Or, oh I hate to think of the alternative, that you are a blowhard all the way through! What a terrible thought! I'm sure that you will soon start putting evidence behind your statements, starting with when the date was that the CBI or the BPD did the chemical test on the flashlight found in the Ramseys kitchen to try to raise fingerprints and found evidence that it was all wiped clean. Come-on Tober, old boy, take a deep breath-----thats right ------tap the keys----- you can do it if you just want to---come on, come on------give us evidence, Tober. NO go, huh? Well, go on with your blathering, then. Blah, blah, blah. JMHO:biggrin:

[bullmoose]

That depends on whether you believe they were telling the truth about JB being asleep, the pineapple, Burke being asleep during the 911 call, among other things.
Which questions about the evidence were they "sticklers for telling the truth" about? And how do you know this for a fact? You can't. It is only your opinion that they were telling the truth about anything.tww1:It is certainly my opinion that they were telling the truth; and here you are demanding that they prove their innocence again, to your satisfaction; a task that IMO is flat-out impossible. Fortunately the burden of proof lies with the accusers, which has never, IMHO, occurred, seeing how there was never even an indictment in the case, right?:biggrin:

[LadyFisher]

But why would an intruder do these things to her while her parents were there, in her own home? Why a ransom note?? If it was a real RN, why didn't he just take her out of the house and do these things to her elsewhere where there was no chance of being caught? If it wasn't real, why write it and leave evidence? Where was the duct tape at the time he was strangling her and "penetrating" her? Shouldn't he have used it before he started hurting her? Is it even possible to scream when you are being strangled?

Why wouldn't an intruder do it in the basement, the parents were 3 flights up...far out of hearing distance! Look at the tragic case going on right now with the murder of Jessica Lundsford (sp?) Couey supposedly had her in his sister's trailer in a bedroom for days...and these folks didn't know she was there? :confused: I do believe the killer of JonBenet had been in that home many times before the murder...he knew where the basement was and the wine cellar..I still think the housekeeper's family remain suspect in this case jmho....is LHP still with Merv? Was her own daughter scared to be alone with him? Why wasn't he gainfully employed? There are so many unanswered ?s about that family! in my humble opinion

[aussiesheila]

I have to admit that I read Stephen Singular's book which speaks about pedophile rings and even certain people that were given a slap on the wrist and allowed to continue to work but seems alot of this was not publicized due to a coverup.I have heard of Singular's book, but haven't read it, sounds as though it has interesting information in it. I must see if I can get hold of it.


I'm not sure though that I would think JR would allow JBR to be exploited.Absolutely, Athena I couldn't agree more. I have always maintained that John knew absolutely nothing, didn't even have a whiff of a suspicion that things were going on with JonBenet. I think it quite likely that the majority of the abuse took place while he was away on business. So no way do I think that he was in any way involved.


I still do have alot of questions re: FW. It seems Singular also believes that the ads the Ramseys placed also implicated FW or believed him to have something to do with it.Yes, I am very suspicious of FW, while I do not think he was involved in the murder, I do think he had sexually abused JonBenet in the past whenever she was at his house and the opportunity presented itself. I think that after the murder he masterminded the whole coverup for the others who were responsible, one of whom I think was one of his houseguests.


The book was interesting to say the least and one thing is for sure if it was pursued by the BPD whatever their investigation revealed, was never leaked. It is not a stretch to believe that alot of government officials within the US are involved in such rings as have been publicized more recently so I won't say it was impossible.I think there was some connection between FW and Eller. I don't necessarily think Eller was a pedophile, but I do think FW 'had' something on him and was able to manipulate him into 'botching' the investigation.


However, if this were the case I really do not believe Patsy had anything to do with it JMOI believe Patsy DID suspect something was going on. But IMO never had the strength, if that is what was needed, to do anything to stop it. I don't think she liked the idea, and didn't promote it in any way, but neither did she take a firm stand and put a stop to it. The most she ever did was to make constant visits to that pediatrician and all he did was to reassure her that everything was normal. I suspect that pediatrician was in cahoots with certain pedophiles in Boulder, and didn't report anything suspicious in the children he knew they were abusing. There is one thing I would really like to know, and that is just who it was that referred Patsy to him. Was it DP? Was it F or PW?

I actually think Patsy had been abused herself as a child by her own father and that it was him who started the abuse of JonBenet and FW joined in later. Perhaps because of Patsy's own childhood experiences she felt that it was just the way of the world. Perhaps it was just too confronting for her, there are often tremendous pressures within the family to go along with things. I'm sorry I never did psychology and I don't have all the jargon to explain things very well.

[andU]

I suspected that Patsy's father had abused her also; and that Nedra was involved, herself with JB's molestation. Just reading some of her quotes made me feel ill at ease at kind of nauseated.

[aussiesheila]

I suspected that Patsy's father had abused her also; and that Nedra was involved, herself with JB's molestation. Just reading some of her quotes made me feel ill at ease at kind of nauseated.The only thing I know about Nedra is that statement attributed to her "JonBenet was only a little bit molested". I don't even know if it is true that she said such a thing. But having heard it, I must admit I immediately became suspicious. I know women molest sometimes, but since it is much rarer, I was inclined to think it was only her husband that did the molesting, but I could be wrong.