JonBenet Ramsey - Open Discussion

[Jayelles]

Thanks, Daffodil.

That story above caught my eye because people form such strong opinions based on information that's often incomplete, or that only focuses on what is outrageous. That was done a lot in the Ramsey case and seems to have been done in that story too. I didn't think it was all that off topic, for that reason. It helps to know when you're stepping into previous conflict on these boards, and it's almost all conflict!

Welcome!

You are quite correct - pageant stories aren't "off-topic"! If you visit any forum, you will find thm. Pageants were part of Jonbenet's life but it's a world that many of us struggle to comprehend and is therefore occasionally contentious. It has often been debated that Jonbenet may have been a target because of the pageants or that there was stress in her life because of them. More often it is the psychology of the pageant mothers which spark interest. Lou Smit himself alluded to the potential significance of pageants when he referred to JBR as a "paedophile's dream".

The above story is interesting to me because pageants are not such a part of British culture as they are in the US and this is reflected in the little girl's mother's disdain for them in the article - the fact that the UK pageant organisers wanted the girls to look natural/like little girls and put a limit on the amount of make-up they could wear. The mother was proud that her daughter looked like an adult when fully made up.

At the end of the day, the age of consent is what makes one a sex offender or not. We all know that children reach sexual maturity at different ages and that there are 13 year olds who look 18 (aka jailbait) and 18 year olds who look 13! The law in the UK reflects this and imposes higher sentences according to age (a man having sex with a nearly-16 year old will get a lower sentence than one having sex with an under-13 year old).

It's nature's way that children are not sexually attractive to give them a chance to mature physically and emotionally in preparation for several decades of reproduction and fortunately, paedophiles are not the norm. In making a child look like an adult, it may be that not only are the fantasies of a paedophile being fed but somehow they may also be "justifiable" (in the mind of the paedo). i.e. that by deliberately making the child look as though she is over the age of consent that somehow approval is being given to sexually desire her as an adult. I think this is the point that many people find hard to reconcile in their minds. Many of us will remember our parents being strict about make-up when we were younger because they didn't want us drawing unwelcome attention from men! So it seems odd that there are mothers who deliberately set out to make their daughters look sexually alluring and adult before they've even reached puberty and when they are already most at risk from a very dangerous group of people.

[shill]

How does JonBenet being in Beauty Pageants have anything to do with her death, other then making her a pedophile target, which points to an Intruder Did It.

JonBenet didn't participate in a pageant the day of her death.

JonBenet went to school, so how is her participating in pageants any more responsible for her death, then her attending school was?

IMO this is just a line of reasoning brought up by those who resent beauty pageants.

[Atok]

Here is the link from MSNBC today July 8th, 2008.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25608543/

[SaraSidle]

Here is the link from MSNBC today July 8th, 2008.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25608543/

Great news Atok thank you

[Jayelles]

Any forensic development is good news. I just wish this had come from someone other than Mary Lacy. Her ineptitude in dealing with the Ramsey case has been extremely frustrating and disappointing.

Does this mean they now have a full DNA profile? There have been several cases solved here via relatives of the perp - i.e. where someone's DNA shows enough similarities to than in a cold case that investigators have been able to follow up the person's relatives. It's been quite exciting. I'll need to go off and study the other news reports.

[Zold1]

Great news Atok thank you

Outstanding news. I'm happy for the Ramsey family! Clearance has been long overdue. I feel sad they had to suffer for 12 years before someone had the brilliant idea to submit the found DNA from long ago. :rose:

[Jayelles]

Here's a good article:-

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9828903

Seems pretty compelling to me.

Apparently, it's a new technology which enables testing for touch. Last year someone had the idea of using this new technology to test the waistband of her longjohns on the premis that whomever assaulted her must have pulled them down and then back up again. According to the article, the touch DNA was found on both the right and left hand sides of the waistband of her longjohns and it matched the foreign DNA in her underwear.

At last some compelling evidence which would be very difficult to explain innocently.

[MissOtisRegrets]

:rose: :rose: :rose:

[Zold1]

That's okay, everyone is.

My studies are here:
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/anagramsummary.html

The ransom note is the first one.

How very disturbing. Really! :chicken:

[The R]

another story from the AJC on the issue:


Prosecutor: DNA clears JonBenet Ramsey's family
Published on: 07/09/08

Boulder, Colo. -- Prosecutors say new DNA tests have cleared JonBenet Ramsey's family in the 1996 killing of the 6-year-old beauty queen.

Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy said Wednesday the tests point to an "unexplained third party."


She says prosecutors don't consider any member of the Ramsey family to be a suspect.

JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, were long said to be under an "umbrella of suspicion" in the girl's slaying.

Lacy apologized to the family on Wednesday, saying, "To the extent that this office has added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any degree, I offer my deepest apology."

John Ramsey, a software entrepreneur, has said in interviews he believes the case will be solved.

Patsy Ramsey died June 24, 2006 of ovarian cancer at the age of 49 in Atlanta, where the family moved after JonBenet's death.

Patsy Ramsey and JonBenet Ramsey are buried in Marietta.

[Bystander]

Welcome!

You are quite correct - pageant stories aren't "off-topic"! If you visit any forum, you will find thm. Pageants were part of Jonbenet's life but it's a world that many of us struggle to comprehend and is therefore occasionally contentious. It has often been debated that Jonbenet may have been a target because of the pageants or that there was stress in her life because of them. More often it is the psychology of the pageant mothers which spark interest. Lou Smit himself alluded to the potential significance of pageants when he referred to JBR as a "paedophile's dream".

The above story is interesting to me because pageants are not such a part of British culture as they are in the US and this is reflected in the little girl's mother's disdain for them in the article - the fact that the UK pageant organisers wanted the girls to look natural/like little girls and put a limit on the amount of make-up they could wear. The mother was proud that her daughter looked like an adult when fully made up.

At the end of the day, the age of consent is what makes one a sex offender or not. We all know that children reach sexual maturity at different ages and that there are 13 year olds who look 18 (aka jailbait) and 18 year olds who look 13! The law in the UK reflects this and imposes higher sentences according to age (a man having sex with a nearly-16 year old will get a lower sentence than one having sex with an under-13 year old).

It's nature's way that children are not sexually attractive to give them a chance to mature physically and emotionally in preparation for several decades of reproduction and fortunately, paedophiles are not the norm. In making a child look like an adult, it may be that not only are the fantasies of a paedophile being fed but somehow they may also be "justifiable" (in the mind of the paedo). i.e. that by deliberately making the child look as though she is over the age of consent that somehow approval is being given to sexually desire her as an adult. I think this is the point that many people find hard to reconcile in their minds. Many of us will remember our parents being strict about make-up when we were younger because they didn't want us drawing unwelcome attention from men! So it seems odd that there are mothers who deliberately set out to make their daughters look sexually alluring and adult before they've even reached puberty and when they are already most at risk from a very dangerous group of people.

Thanks for the welcome, JL's. I agree with most of what you wrote except that I think pedophile is spelled differently? sry..:) joking. I'll be serious now.

I think that a paedo is deviant to the point where their urges wouldn't be driven by anything rational. They might try to justify it in their own minds by other means, but by their nature, they like children so I'm not sure if they would be affected by a child looking more like an adult. I'm sure there would be some type of person who would be affected by that sexualization of children, but I don't think paedo's are among that group. Lou Smit's a normal person trying to understand a mind that works differently so his allusion may be based in a normal man's point of view, but it wouldn't necessarily be the way a real paed would think.

Pageants in themselves aren't evil, any more than a dance recital is; neither are make-up or beauty treatments. It's when the parents display the kids the way that mother in the article is doing and the way PR did, that is the problem.

PR did mention in DOI that she thought the pageants might have been a factor in JBR's death; that if she hadn't had JBR in pageants, this wouldn't have happened to her daughter. I think that was mentioned by her at the end of DOI and that may be the case, somehow. In being "targeted because of the pageants," there could be more than one reason. Jealousy by other adults because of JBR's success would be one. Drawing attention to her is another, but I've never heard of child molesters being long term stalkers. It's more a crime of opportunity and vulnerablity, so I'm not sure paedophilia applies at all here. The exposure and attention alone would be the most dangerous factor. Dressing JBR up like an adult might be more likely to attract a non paedophile, but still a deviant?

I understand Patsy was a bit over the top competitively and I think that's one of the things that ruins it for everybody, whether it be Cheerleading, Dance Recitals, or Pageants. When one person raises the bar, (like the mother in your article) on what has to be spent and what has to be done to win (such as sexualizing the kids) everybody else has to meet the bar or stop competing. That could create a lot of bad feeling, and it would be a huge leap for it to lead to actually harming a child, but something similar has been attempted before: A lady in Texas tried to put out a hit on another cheerleaders mother.:eek:


Jurors in the 1991 trial heard secretly recorded tapes of Ms. Holloway asking her brother-in-law to hire a hit man to kill the mother of a girl who was vying against her daughter for a spot on the cheerleading squad.

Ms. Holloway said she wanted the mother killed because she believed that the daughter would be so upset that she would drop out of the competition.

Witnesses at the original trial described Ms. Holloway as a vindictive mother who was overzealous in pursuing her daughter's dreams. Both girls were 13 at the time.http://www.texnews.com/texas97/mom030197.html

You'd need a perfect storm of factors to converge for something like that to happen though, so I don't think that's a very likely scenario with JBR either.

If the kids are achieving something and working towards it, then the one's in pageants are no different than any other type of competition. Dance recitals, cheerleading, softball, swimming, soccer, girl scouts, riding and 4h are all much more prevalent here. The pageants are more popular in the south from what I read. I've never seen one and don't even know anyone who's ever been in one.

I do have a problem with the dressing up and the photos, such as the one's in the article you linked. All that make up and hair may be fine--at home, playing dress up, but that's not all they are doing. They're displaying the kids and teaching them behaviors they don't understand yet. And yes they'll attract attention that they are not prepared to handle either, so I think people would be incensed by that regardless of whether it caused a crime or not.

The very youngest girls are more like marionettes, dancing on strings that other's are pulling so I think it's damaging in itself, to the child, and that's the biggest problem that I have with pageants and also child models. I hope they stick to their guns over there and are not influenced by the bar being set to a different level by this mother, but if her methods work, that's going to be hard to maintain, because getting all that attention is a lure in itslef.

It's strange... nobody would ever think to put a child on a major league baseball field and expect them to compete at an adult level. At six, they play tee-ball. Every other sport is sized down to a child's level and ability. Why is it the opposite with pageants? They are being scaled up to adult levels way too early.

Wow.. I just got through some of the news stories.. I guess I picked the right time to start following the story in depth, because I didn't have to wait ten years to see it take a step forward. I can't wait to see more of the comments on this!

[MadameButterfly]

:rose: :rose: :rose:

[shill]

The laboratory found previously undiscovered genetic material on the sides of the girl's long underwear, where an attacker would have grasped the clothing to pull it down, authorities said. The DNA matched the genetic material found earlier.
Lacy said the presence of the same male DNA in three places on the girl's clothing convinced investigators it belonged to JonBenet's killer and had not been left accidentally by an innocent party.



"My first thought was obviously I wish Patsy Ramsey was here with us to be able to at least share vindication of her family," said L. Lin Wood, an attorney for the Ramsey family. "There are many people in this country, if not around the world, that also owe John and Patsy Ramsey and Burke Ramsey an apology."

[shill]

Any forensic development is good news. I just wish this had come from someone other than Mary Lacy. Her ineptitude in dealing with the Ramsey case has been extremely frustrating and disappointing.
Give the women a break. She is only one of many inept players in this case, and when she brings some good news in the case, you focus on her past to seemingly discredit her news.

Why does it matter who breaks the news to the press?
Who would you have liked the news to come from Jayelles, Steve Thomas?

[shill]

You are quite correct - pageant stories aren't "off-topic"! If you visit any forum, you will find thm.
How many little girls in beauty pageants get killed a year because of beauty pageants? How many in the last decade?
Do pedophiles only attack beauty pageant children?
Are there so many children in beauty pageants getting killed that this is proof that JonBenet was killed because of her involvement in beauty pageants?
Has there ever been a child killed that was in a beauty pageant other then JonBenet?

Does the DNA of the killer get on JonBenet and all the evidence of an intruder get left behind because of a beauty pageant?

The parents of a murdered little girl do get portrayed as villains by those who want the parents to be guilty, because of beauty pageants.

IMO the beauty pageant threads don't belong here and just because they show up, it is not reason to justify posting them.:patriot:

[Athena]

Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.
The DA then checked for innocent sources.

We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.

Bottom line:

The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.

[DAFFODIL]

Hmmm well I would want to know a LOT more before I am convinced.

[shill]

Hmmm well I would want to know a LOT more before I am convinced.What more would you need to know?

[Atok]

I know this is going to be really unpopular, especially in light of the recent news, but how does this new DNA evidence exonerate the family completely? I understand it means the murdering part because the dna from the longjohns and panties is male and doesn't match the Ramsey family, but it doesn't say that there is no accomplice behavior.
I do think it's an outside person who did the harming, but I struggle with the note and all the references and information therein. I applaud the new info and hope they can someday close this case for good.

[Bystander]

IMO the beauty pageant threads don't belong here and just because they show up, it is not reason to justify posting them.


Well, I don't know about anything else in that post, but the thread title says 'open discussion, a place to discuss other stuff.' So how would anyone know what's approved? However, the dna finding is a bit more interesting right now.


I wonder if they tested the knots on the cord?

[grneyes]

I was really happy to hear this. I know many do not agree but I've always felt that they (The Ramsey's) did not do it. I just wish this had happened before Patsy died.

[shill]

I know this is going to be really unpopular, especially in light of the recent news, but how does this new DNA evidence exonerate the family completely? ...it doesn't say that there is no accomplice behavior.

Well if you have a good reason or motive for the Ramseys to be accomplices to a stranger violating and killing their daughter, please let us know.

There has never been a motive for the Ramseys to kill their daughter other then the wishful thinking that the Rs accidentally killed her and tried to covered it up.

The DNA proves that a unknown male had pulled down JonBenet's pajamas and underwear, and pulled them back up.
So you need to tie this unknown male to the Ramseys and have a reasonable motive for their involvement if you are going to accuse the Ramseys of being accomplices and expect to be taken seriously.

[shill]

Well, I don't know about anything else in that post, but the thread title says 'open discussion, a place to discuss other stuff.' So how would anyone know what's approved? However, the dna finding is a bit more interesting right now.


I wonder if they tested the knots on the cord?I'm sure they will test many things, but the pajamas revealing DNA at points where the suspect would pull on her pajamas to get them off is an interesting choice of first discovery.
I believe it also tells us that the suspect made intimate contact with his hands on JonBenet's vaginal area based on his need to wipe that area down and DNA samples from skin contact of gloveless hands.

P.S. This thread is called "JonBenet Ramsey-Open Discussion", not "Let's discuss how immoral we think parents are who put their children in beauty pageants". This is truTV Crime Library, not the National Inquirer.

[shill]

I must say it is pretty amusing the explanations RDI are concocting to explain away DNA evidence to remain in their bubble of denial.

But my favorite explanation of why the Ramseys were never arrested and brought to trial that is shared by many RDI, is given in this RDI post.

"Don't be fooled. That's exactly what the R's and Lacy want everyone to think. This case has always been a fine example of one of the largest cover-ups in US history."

Of course this poster is forgetting that we never went to the moon but we do have little green men in captivity that have.
:biggrin::patriot:

[Jayelles]

The Ramseys are not the only suspects who were tried by Internet and media or the only people whose lives were ruined by this tragic murder. So if this evidence is as compelling as Mary Lacy is making out, I hope she is going to clear all those other suspects and apologise to them too!

[shill]

...So if this evidence is as compelling as Mary Lacy is making out, I hope she is going to clear all those other suspects and apologise to them too!Are all those others suspects in her jurisdiction? Do they have compelling evidence that will clear them?

If so, I would expect that she would.

But if in your use of the term "those other suspects" you mean suspects out of her realm with no compelling evidence to clear them, why on earth would you expect Mary Lacy to clear them?

So Jayelles, who are these suspect that Mary Lacy is responsible for not clearing and needs to apologies to?

Because if there are no suspects that need clearing under Mary Lacy's jurisdiction, I see no logic or reasoning in your request for her to do so.

And may I remind you that Mary Lacy didn't do the DNA testing, she just accepted the results, which is good advice for any RDI or alleged fence sitter.

[Jayelles]

What does RDI mean?

It stands for Ramseys Did It. There are three camps who follow the Ramsey case - Intruder theorists (IDI), Ramsey theorists (RDI) and Fencesitters. The IDIs tend to lump the Fencesitters in with the RDIs because (in my experience) IDIs tend to believe that if you're not with them, then you're against them.

IMO, it often gets rather silly. Evidence is evidence and so far, the evidence has been such that it could be interpreted in different ways - i.e. could have an innocent explanation.

[Jayelles]

Thanks for explaining that. But can there be any doubt now after the finding of the DNA evidence?

Well that's what we need to find out. The vast majority of written word about the Ramsey case has been on the forums and the Ramseys have not been the only suspects discussed by a long stretch. If the DA's office have proof that this is undeniably the killer's DNA, then Mary Lacy should put her money where her mouth is and clear EVERYONE whose DNA doesn't match it and apologise to them too!

[Jayelles]

Who else's DNA is there?

I think 200 people had their DNA tested (I think I read that in one of the press releases about this latest development but I can't remember precisely where). We know the Whites and the Mcsantas and the Pughs had their DNA tested and all of them have been discussed - even vilified on the forums by people who believe in their guilt. So I think to keep the playing field level, it's only fair that Mary White afford them the same privilege that she has given the Ramseys for precisely the same reasons. If she doesn't, then speculation will simply continue about these other people (who unlike the Ramseys and to the best of our knowledge, have fully co-operated with the investigation).

We know Mary Lacy has a degree of personal involvement with the Ramseys (she attended Patsy's funeral at her own expense). For this reason I think it is particularly imperative that she demonstrate total fairness with this latest development otherwise her motives and agenda will undoubtedly be questioned.

It won't be enough to simply have it "go without saying" that all those people whose DNA was tested are also cleared. If that were the case then all she needed to do was make a public announcement that more samples of the underwear DNA were found on other pieces of her clothing which does not match anyone who has been investigated so far. The fact that she took the trouble to ALSO publicly name the Ramseys as cleared and further still to apologise to them IMO requires her to do the same for everyone else.

[etphoto]

I rarely visit these forums but I was in the RDI camp. It would appear I was wrong and happily admit it. I think the touch DNA is extremely powerful evidence and have seen it used in other cases. It also shows that apparently none of the strong suspects the police have developed over the years are responsible.

ET

[Bystander]

I'm sure they will test many things, but the pajamas revealing DNA at points where the suspect would pull on her pajamas to get them off is an interesting choice of first discovery.
I believe it also tells us that the suspect made intimate contact with his hands on JonBenet's vaginal area based on his need to wipe that area down and DNA samples from skin contact of gloveless hands.

P.S. This thread is called "JonBenet Ramsey-Open Discussion", not "Let's discuss how immoral we think parents are who put their children in beauty pageants". This is truTV Crime Library, not the National Inquirer.

I believe I'll let tru-tv and Crime Library dictate the subject matter then, (along with majority interest)and will contact them for guidance on what to discuss and what not to discuss, if you feel it is so off topic. But please rest assured I'm not one who feels anyone is immoral for entering their kid into a pageant and that isn't my focus, though it may enter into any discussion about them.

But since that discussion was only going on before there was new news, it will most likely fall on the back burner anyway.

I see a lot of people making leaps from what they have found which I believe is compelling due to it's being found in two separate places. From there I can't make any conjectures, but it seems to me that if it were transferance of any kind it would not land in those two spots specifically, ie, the waistband.

It also seems that other people's dna should be found there too. Jbr's and/or her mother's specifically, and I wondered about the ligature knots because of gloves. It seems a good point where someone would have to take gloves off in order to tie the knots.

The dna will be really useful if it can solve the murder, if they can identify someone with it, rather than eliminate who it doesn't belong to, whether it be an outsider or an insider. (Even if it rules out the parents, even they said that it must have been someone who knew them) I'm very curious to see what the real story was behind the attack so I hope it will lead that way definitively.

[Bystander]

I rarely visit these forums but I was in the RDI camp. It would appear I was wrong and happily admit it. I think the touch DNA is extremely powerful evidence and have seen it used in other cases. It also shows that apparently none of the strong suspects the police have developed over the years are responsible.

ET

I pretty much had no opinion either way since what was out there was compromised and a bit skewed. I'm happy enough to let the real facts lead the way and have tried to avoid pre-judging any of it, difficult as that is.

[Notknowingall]

The DA's office is now hoping to get a hit on the DNA from the Federal database. But there seems to be a huge backlog of getting the samples loaded into the system to start looking for a match.

[Zold1]

SNIP: **
We know Mary Lacy has a degree of personal involvement with the Ramseys (she attended Patsy's funeral at her own expense). For this reason I think it is particularly imperative that she demonstrate total fairness with this latest development otherwise her motives and agenda will undoubtedly be questioned.

It won't be enough to simply have it "go without saying" that all those people whose DNA was tested are also cleared. If that were the case then all she needed to do was make a public announcement that more samples of the underwear DNA were found on other pieces of her clothing which does not match anyone who has been investigated so far. The fact that she took the trouble to ALSO publicly name the Ramseys as cleared and further still to apologise to them IMO requires her to do the same for everyone else.

It is refreshig to see a District Attorney who is doing their job in a humane and positive way. I'm pretty sick of all the Nifong's throwing their weight around. Obviously she has more access to information than any of us have, to have lead her to believe in the innocense of the Ramsey's who have been footballs for years by the gleeful media and other people with agenda's. The pain had to be insufferable. I've believed in their innocense from the day I looked at that huge house without a dog that made it possible for unknown person or persons to have entered unseen. The Ramsey's are not the first, nor will they be the last homes invaded by some pervert with evil on their mind.

As far as having to send out apologies to any or all of the other suspects or persons of interest who have been cleared, how do we know that has not been done? Just as they have not been named in the media or public, they will not be named now. Those people were not persecuted to the fullest extent the National Enquire persued for a buck. A lot of money was made on the backs of the Ramsey's and I hope those people are hanging their heads in shame. I also home Mr. Ramsey pursues some legal pursuit for the injustice served on them. He's so mild mannered, I doubt he will.

As far as the specultators like Dr. Baden, his credibility keeps sliding into the toilet as far as I'm concerned. So sorry for the disappointment to all the pundit terrorists in America. :punch:

[Jayelles]

SNIP: **


It is refreshig to see a District Attorney who is doing their job in a humane and positive way. I'm pretty sick of all the Nifong's throwing their weight around. Obviously she has more access to information than any of us have, to have lead her to believe in the innocense of the Ramsey's who have been footballs for years by the gleeful media and other people with agenda's. The pain had to be insufferable. I've believed in their innocense from the day I looked at that huge house without a dog that made it possible for unknown person or persons to have entered unseen. The Ramsey's are not the first, nor will they be the last homes invaded by some pervert with evil on their mind.

As far as having to send out apologies to any or all of the other suspects or persons of interest who have been cleared, how do we know that has not been done? Just as they have not been named in the media or public, they will not be named now. Those people were not persecuted to the fullest extent the National Enquire persued for a buck. A lot of money was made on the backs of the Ramsey's and I hope those people are hanging their heads in shame. I also home Mr. Ramsey pursues some legal pursuit for the injustice served on them. He's so mild mannered, I doubt he will.

As far as the specultators like Dr. Baden, his credibility keeps sliding into the toilet as far as I'm concerned. So sorry for the disappointment to all the pundit terrorists in America. :punch:


If Mary Lacy weren't so unreliable with regard to the Ramsey case, I'd agree with you. However, during the John Mark Karr fiasco, she demonstrated a breathtaking lack of knowledge about the case and I have no reason to suppose she has since become an expert!

Regarding private apologies being sent out to everyone else - maybe they have, but why then make the Ramsey apology so public? That wouldn't be even-handed. If the goal is to stop the injustice of false accusation being levelled at people, then the announcements and apologies need to be public for everyone.

Regarding John Ramsey being mild-mannered. I can see why you might think this, but he didn't get to be a multi-million pound businessman by being mild-mannered. If you'd followed the case in any detail, you'd know this simply isn't the case. There are even images online of him assaulting Frank Coffman!

[Zold1]

I rarely visit these forums but I was in the RDI camp. It would appear I was wrong and happily admit it. I think the touch DNA is extremely powerful evidence and have seen it used in other cases. It also shows that apparently none of the strong suspects the police have developed over the years are responsible.

ET

There is something in the back of my mind where someone in Louisiana or somewhere down south confessed to the murder of JBR and was poo poohed by the authorities. They did very little investigation since he was incarcerated, and Boulder Police rejected anyone but the Ramsey's. When he died in custody (which leads me to believe he was trying to clear his conscious) they cremated his remains. I doubt there was any DNA done on the perp which is too bad. There should be an automatic law that anyone convicted of a crime and in custody needs to present their DNA for the data base.

Just Wondering:
Hit in the head with a flashlight heavy enough (Kale flashlights are very heavy and used as batons when necessary). Hit by a taser (used by police and/or security guards. Some of the wounds like handcuff's or plastic handcuff's were used, leads me to believe some wanna be came prepared. Had Joe Horn been the Ramsey's neighbor, that baby girl would still be alive today. I wonder who that padgett hired for parking lot security, and/or inside security for all of the parties.

In lieu of all the disappearing people, that pervert could still be alive and having never been caught or ever incarcerated for a serious crime. He has been free to pusue his/their homicidal tendancies for the last 12 years while the local police pursued their stubborn focus on the Ramsey's. So many shallow minds. So many other potental dead bodies. :mad:

I would suggest they start with security and whomever quit their job and left town the next day. I'd also focus a little more on the moron they flew back here from Thailand.

[Zold1]

If Mary Lacy weren't so unreliable with regard to the Ramsey case, I'd agree with you. However, during the John Mark Karr fiasco, she demonstrated a breathtaking lack of knowledge about the case and I have no reason to suppose she has since become an expert!

Wasn't she just a newly installed DA at the time Karr surfaced?! Up to that point I'm sure she wasn't just sitting on her hands and was in dialogue with the Ramsey's. I did not focus my life on the case as I should have. I watched like everyone else did as the "fiasco" unfolded. It seems to me she wasn't the only one involved in that "fiasco."

Regarding private apologies being sent out to everyone else - maybe they have, but why then make the Ramsey apology so public? That wouldn't be even-handed. If the goal is to stop the injustice of false accusation being levelled at people, then the announcements and apologies need to be public for everyone.

With all due respect, You have no idea what she knew and when she knew it. Who she cleared or how she did it. Why should she name names and make public apologies when nobody knew they were persons of interest in the first place. That makes no sense to me, but then... thats JMOO. Perhaps you have some insider information to share with us.


Regarding John Ramsey being mild-mannered. I can see why you might think this, but he didn't get to be a multi-million pound businessman by being mild-mannered. If you'd followed the case in any detail, you'd know this simply isn't the case. There are even images online of him assaulting Frank Coffman!

I don't know who Frank is, nor do I care. I'd have assaulted a lot more people with their in your face B.S. over 12 years. I don't know how he used such restraint and I hope he does go after the jerks in a huge monetary way. A lot of the jerks are no longer protected by government since they have left their jobs and wrote bogus books, again for a buck. They need to be stripped of their capital gains.

[MaybytheBay]

.....snipped....
In lieu of all the disappearing people, that pervert could still be alive and having never been caught or ever incarcerated for a serious crime. He has been free to pusue his/their homicidal tendancies for the last 12 years while the local police pursued their stubborn focus on the Ramsey's. So many shallow minds. So many other potental dead bodies. :mad:

I would suggest they start with security and whomever quit their job and left town the next day. I'd also focus a little more on the moron they flew back here from Thailand.



Hopefully, the perp will land himself in the database....sooner or later. But how frustrating it was to see the Ramseys magnified with scrutiny...law officials perpetually fueling the vilifying.

[Jayelles]

Wasn't she just a newly installed DA at the time Karr surfaced?! Up to that point I'm sure she wasn't just sitting on her hands and was in dialogue with the Ramsey's. I did not focus my life on the case as I should have. I watched like everyone else did as the "fiasco" unfolded. It seems to me she wasn't the only one involved in that "fiasco."

I don't think she was newly appointed. How long is a term? She'd been involved in the case from quite early on and is on record in an early transcript of the case.



With all due respect, You have no idea what she knew and when she knew it. Who she cleared or how she did it. Why should she name names and make public apologies when nobody knew they were persons of interest in the first place. That makes no sense to me, but then... thats JMOO. Perhaps you have some insider information to share with us.

Well we know what she has said publicly with regard to the case. She brought John Mark Karr back on a First Class ticket from Thailand to face charges for Jonbenet's murder stating that he was privy to information that only the killer could have known - yet she was completely ignorant of the fact that this information had been in the public domain for years! It was a complete shambles. Internet posters all over the world demonstrated a more solid knowledge of the facts of the case than Mary Lacy did.




I don't know who Frank is, nor do I care. I'd have assaulted a lot more people with their in your face B.S. over 12 years. I don't know how he used such restraint and I hope he does go after the jerks in a huge monetary way. A lot of the jerks are no longer protected by government since they have left their jobs and wrote bogus books, again for a buck. They need to be stripped of their capital gains.

You are quite right not to care who Frank is - most of us don't. I also agree that people can be pushed too much, but my point is that John Ramsey may *seem* mild mannered but that doesn't make him a pushover.

[Zold1]

I believe I'll let tru-tv and Crime Library dictate the subject matter then, (along with majority interest)and will contact them for guidance on what to discuss and what not to discuss, if you feel it is so off topic. But please rest assured I'm not one who feels anyone is immoral for entering their kid into a pageant and that isn't my focus, though it may enter into any discussion about them.

But since that discussion was only going on before there was new news, it will most likely fall on the back burner anyway.

I see a lot of people making leaps from what they have found which I believe is compelling due to it's being found in two separate places. From there I can't make any conjectures, but it seems to me that if it were transferance of any kind it would not land in those two spots specifically, ie, the waistband.

It also seems that other people's dna should be found there too. Jbr's and/or her mother's specifically, and I wondered about the ligature knots because of gloves. It seems a good point where someone would have to take gloves off in order to tie the knots.

The dna will be really useful if it can solve the murder, if they can identify someone with it, rather than eliminate who it doesn't belong to, whether it be an outsider or an insider. (Even if it rules out the parents, even they said that it must have been someone who knew them) I'm very curious to see what the real story was behind the attack so I hope it will lead that way definitively.

ITA! But, I believe there were three places located for the touch or DNA. I'm also positive someone being able to tie those kind of knots this person used is or was a boy scout, military person, police or security personnel, or a grandfather who taught him how. You just don't wait for the day you use it. You have to be able to make an immediate tie. This guy was sadistic and probably practiced on little animals. You would think some parent would recognize the profile.

[Notknowingall]

ITA! But, I believe there were three places located for the touch or DNA. I'm also positive someone being able to tie those kind of knots this person used is or was a boy scout, military person, police or security personnel, or a grandfather who taught him how. You just don't wait for the day you use it. You have to be able to make an immediate tie. This guy was sadistic and probably practiced on little animals. You would think some parent would recognize the profile.

I tend to agree with you on the knots. Sure you can get the basics from a book or website, but it still takes SOME degree of practice and someone letting you know that you got it right. From what I have seen of these knots, the person seemed to be well practiced.

Regarding other DNA (ie parents' if they had touch the body) I would think that those samples too would have been tested and their location determined before persons being ruled out.

[Adalena935]

I think 200 people had their DNA tested (I think I read that in one of the press releases about this latest development but I can't remember precisely where). .

It was in the news yesterday from the press. I didn't read an exact number. It said many.




We know the Whites and the Mcsantas and the Pughs had their DNA tested and all of them have been discussed - even vilified on the forums by people who believe in their guilt. So I think to keep the playing field level, it's only fair that Mary White afford them the same privilege that she has given the Ramseys for precisely the same reasons. If she doesn't, then speculation will simply continue about these other people (who unlike the Ramseys and to the best of our knowledge, have fully co-operated with the investigation).

We know Mary Lacy has a degree of personal involvement with the Ramseys (she attended Patsy's funeral at her own expense). For this reason I think it is particularly imperative that she demonstrate total fairness with this latest development otherwise her motives and agenda will undoubtedly be questioned.

It won't be enough to simply have it "go without saying" that all those people whose DNA was tested are also cleared. If that were the case then all she needed to do was make a public announcement that more samples of the underwear DNA were found on other pieces of her clothing which does not match anyone who has been investigated so far. The fact that she took the trouble to ALSO publicly name the Ramseys as cleared and further still to apologise to them IMO requires her to do the same for everyone else.

[Adalena935]

I think 200 people had their DNA tested (I think I read that in one of the press releases about this latest development but I can't remember precisely where). .

It was in the news yesterday. I didn't read an exact number. It said many.




We know the Whites and the Mcsantas and the Pughs had their DNA tested and all of them have been discussed - even vilified on the forums by people who believe in their guilt. So I think to keep the playing field level, it's only fair that Mary White afford them the same privilege that she has given the Ramseys for precisely the same reasons. If she doesn't, then speculation will simply continue about these other people (who unlike the Ramseys and to the best of our knowledge, have fully co-operated with the investigation).

We know Mary Lacy has a degree of personal involvement with the Ramseys (she attended Patsy's funeral at her own expense). For this reason I think it is particularly imperative that she demonstrate total fairness with this latest development otherwise her motives and agenda will undoubtedly be questioned.

It won't be enough to simply have it "go without saying" that all those people whose DNA was tested are also cleared. If that were the case then all she needed to do was make a public announcement that more samples of the underwear DNA were found on other pieces of her clothing which does not match anyone who has been investigated so far. The fact that she took the trouble to ALSO publicly name the Ramseys as cleared and further still to apologise to them IMO requires her to do the same for everyone else.

[Adalena935]

I apologize for the duplicate post. Everything's running so slow it won't delete.

[Zold1]

Greetings, everyone! It's a pleasure to be here and to meet all of you! As for contentious, well, contentious in a nice way is what I'd say!

I agree this is a very perplexing murder, and what I wouldn't give to get my hands on on the case file or Lou Smit's file. It seems to be glaringly short on forensics or either forensics have been omitted from public disclosure.

The murder was so sensationaized by the press that I paid no attention to it when it occured and only became interested after watching "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" this year a 2nd time. I sorta decided that if only 1/2 of it was true, it was the worst handling of a murder case since the Brown/Goldman-OJ case. I was appalled at how badly the Boulder Police bungled the situation from the outset.

Then you may be interested in these 2006 Jan Statistics. The url no longer works, but I'm glad I saved the information it provided:

NOT GUILTY AFTER ALL

Since 1989, at least 200 inmates have been released from California prisons after courts found that they were unjustly convicted. This figure includes mass exonerations in the Ramparts police scandal in Los Angeles and in the Kern County ritual child sex-abuse cases, as well as dozens of individual cases in which an innocent person was erroneously convicted of murder, sexual assault, robbery, a three-strikes violation, or a less serious crime. The figure does not include two other types of wrongful convictions that are more common: people who were denied a fair trial but were probably guilty, and people who were convicted on more serious charges than their actual crimes warranted.

In trying to understand the reasons behind California's wrongful conviction problem, San Francisco did a detailed analysis of 30 cases from around the state, culled from a variety of sources. All but one of the cases involved people serving life or very long sentences. We did not look at exonerations involving death sentences (the single exception: one inmate whose original sentence of death was reduced on appeal to life without parole; he served another 11 years before new evidence emerged, leading to his release). We left out the 100 to 150 Ramparts cases, which mostly involved shorter sentences, as well as most of the Kern County sex-abuse cases; both would have slanted the sample, especially the findings related to police and prosecutorial misconduct.

THE FINDINGS

Factors leading to wrongful conviction:

60 percent of the wrongful convictions involved at least one mistaken eyewitness
33 percent involved false testimony by a key witness at trial
20 percent involved false testimony by an informant at trial
63 percent entailed misconduct or serious error by police
50 percent entailed misconduct or serious error by prosecutors at trial
43 percent involved serious errors by defense lawyers at trial
13 percent involved incorrect lab results or faulty science


Appeals

10 percent of the wrongful convictions were overturned on direct appeal
63 percent were overturned on a habeas petition in the state courts*
27 percent were overturned on a habeas petition in the federal courts*
13 percent were overturned on a habeas petition by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals*
23 percent were overturned as a result of DNA testing
Average length of incarceration: 13 years
Average compensation theoretically owed by state (assuming $100 for each day of wrongful imprisonment): $474,500
*Includes cases that had multiple appeals.


Race

African American: 43 percent
White: 40 percent
Latino: 10 percent
Asian American: 3 percent
Other: 3 percent


Counties

Los Angeles: 37 percent (11 cases, including 4 from Long Beach, or 13 percent of total)
Orange County: 13 percent (4 cases)
San Diego County: 10 percent (3 cases)
Bay Area counties: 20 percent (6 cases)

[Zold1]

Hopefully, the perp will land himself in the database....sooner or later. But how frustrating it was to see the Ramseys magnified with scrutiny...law officials perpetually fueling the vilifying.

Yes, thank you. Which is suspicious in itself, don't you think?

[Zold1]

SNIP**
Well we know what she has said publicly with regard to the case. She brought John Mark Karr back on a First Class ticket from Thailand to face charges for Jonbenet's murder stating that he was privy to information that only the killer could have known - yet she was completely ignorant of the fact that this information had been in the public domain for years! It was a complete shambles. Internet posters all over the world demonstrated a more solid knowledge of the facts of the case than Mary Lacy did.

Jaynell:

Any prosecutor has to go by the reports they have received from the Officers in her jurisdiction. She just cannot make stuff up like Nifong did. Well, she can, but not without the police approval and cover. So, what exactly is going on in Boulder, Co.? Inquiring minds want to know in lieu of the newly released circumstances.

I'm sure it is unfortunate that this prosecutor has many other duties and cases to tend to besides the Ramsey case and doesn't have the time to spend hours on a message board on the internet. Even if she did all the details and crush of misinformation is criminal. She has no business doing anything but prosecuting a case as presented to her by L.E. Officials. So many inept tunnel visioned people had already gone before Mary Lacey. I don't see anyone in her office complaining, do you?! Newspapers love that stuff. As I recall the prior DA did not want to prosecute the Ramsey's either and is why he was replaced. Can we say interferance?! By whom?!

This is where I disagree in the Nifong case. The police knew or should have known the baloney was piling pretty high. Yet! They did and said nothing and should have been held to the same high standards Nifong got fired and sued over. Why only he paid for his evil deeds is beyond my comprehension.

Getting my bread and stacking my samwich... now. :tongue:

[Pelicanette]

Mary Lacy is the same one who had John Mark Karr tried and convicted before he even got on the plane from Thailand. She ended up with egg all over her face for that one. Why the rush to "clear" the Ramseys. I agree with the person who said that many others were vilified, often at the behest of the Ramseys. Those people gave their dna, too, so when will Mary Lacy issue apologies to them and clear their names for good? Why is she concerned only about the Ramseys? As for John Ramsey, I read a recent interview of his and he is still using the same cliches and whining and offensive comparisons. For instance, he still calls JonBenet a "sparkplug." He still says he and Patsy suffered from the incompetent police and the press. He still uses that awful comparison of "2000 children are killed every year but only one of them is famous." How insensitive and untrue. We all know baby Connor Peterson by name. How about beautiful little Polly Klaas? Has he heard of Megan's Law? Does he know about Adam Walsh? Many children who have been killed are completely memorable and well-known to the public, not just JonBenet. Mary Lacy's strange letter of apology and exoneration only makes many of us more suspicious and doubtful.

[Pelicanette]

The main sticking point for me is the ransom note. It just does not fit with a stranger/intruder or a random act of violence against a child. Nor does it jibe with a sadistic pedophile. Why was it written? How did the writer know about the Ramseys? Why was it important to him/her to write something down? Why add one more piece of evidence against himself and leave it there? I cannot see an outsider doing that.

Another sticking point is the relative lack of sexual assault. Yes there was the penetration, but would a sadistic pedophile be satisfied with that? And wouldn't a sadistic pedophile (Lou Smit's best guess) want to take the child to a safe place where he could have access to her for days or weeks?

There are still so many questions. Is it a stranger or someone who knew the Ramseys fairly well? Is it a sadistic pedophile or someone bent on revenge or a family dysfunction gone terribly too far?

I am not convinced of anything by Ms. Lacy's letter.

[Vera]

I was so glad to hear the Ramseys have been publicly cleared and that the DA apologized for the added grief they put this family through with their accusations. If only they had done this before Patsy Ramsey passed away.

Steve Thomas should be ashamed of himself and should not have been allowed to write that book because he was a law enforcement investigator directly involved in a yet unsolved case. He persecuted Mrs Ramsey and did it on National TV too.

[shill]

If the DA's office have proof that this is undeniably the killer's DNA, then Mary Lacy should put her money where her mouth is and clear EVERYONE whose DNA doesn't match it and apologise to them too!The Ramseys weren't cleared because their DNA wasn't a match.
The Ramseys were never a match to the DNA mixed in the blood spot of JonBenet's panties, nor were the 200 others previously tested and cleared of being a DNA match, so ML owes no one an apology other then the Ramseys.

The Ramseys were cleared because the DNA has been proven to have been left at the crime scene and not a factory in Singapore, meaning an unknown male made contact with JonBenet the night she was murdered, proving the presence of an intruder.

You obviously show a dislike for Mary Lacey that is impairing your reasoning of the facts imo.

[shill]

It stands for Ramseys Did It. There are three camps who follow the Ramsey case - Intruder theorists (IDI), Ramsey theorists (RDI) and Fencesitters. The IDIs tend to lump the Fencesitters in with the RDIs because (in my experience) IDIs tend to believe that if you're not with them, then you're against them.

(in my experience) a Fence sitter who only questions the logic and reasoning of IDI, and never RDI, is not a fence sitter. That could explain why that fence sitter is always being accused of being RDI.

Let's see, DNA evidence that proves there was an intruder, you'd think that a fence sitter would lean towards that evidence instead of choosing to refute it, like RDI do.

[shill]

We know Mary Lacy has a degree of personal involvement with the Ramseys (she attended Patsy's funeral at her own expense). For this reason I think it is particularly imperative that she demonstrate total fairness with this latest development otherwise her motives and agenda will undoubtedly be questioned.

It won't be enough to simply have it "go without saying" that all those people whose DNA was tested are also cleared. All the suspects that were DNA tested, were cleared a long time ago as not matching the DNA.

It was only because RDI refused to accept the DNA commingled in the blood of the panties as that of the killer's, that posters continued to suspect those cleared who did not match the DNA, including the Ramseys.

Your accusations of Mary Lacy's personal involvement are very slanted and implies you are already questioning her motives and agenda Jayelles.

[shill]

Regarding John Ramsey being mild-mannered. I can see why you might think this, but he didn't get to be a multi-million pound businessman by being mild-mannered. So by your logic Jayelles, Bill Gates of Microsoft must be a real tough guy, even though he comes across as a quiet nerd by those who talk about him.

[shill]

She brought John Mark Karr back on a First Class ticket from Thailand to face charges for Jonbenet's murder stating that he was privy to information that only the killer could have known - yet she was completely ignorant of the fact that this information had been in the public domain for years!JMK new the nickname of JonBenet's grandmother. As far as I know, that was never known in the public domain before the JMK arrest.

And JMK may have known something else that wasn't disclosed to the public, even after his arrest.

[Xainia]

Hopefully, the perp will land himself in the database....sooner or later.

Snipped

I saw a CI show just the other day. A young lady was stabbed and died in a car park. LE had finger prints but no record. This was back when prints were hand scanned for comparison.
Years went by and in came the national fingerprint database. Still no match.

However around 18 years after the murder a wife reported her hubby over a domestic. Although she later dropped any charges he had been finger printed.. Bingo They had a match.

So it can happen. Years later technology catches up and crims are caught.

[shill]

Another sticking point is the relative lack of sexual assault. Yes there was the penetration, but would a sadistic pedophile be satisfied with that? And wouldn't a sadistic pedophile (Lou Smit's best guess) want to take the child to a safe place where he could have access to her for days or weeks?

Well we now know that he took his gloves off, there was saliva mixed with blood in JonBenet's panties, and he wiped down her vaginal area, most likely to get rid of his saliva and fingerprints as evidence. This appears to be evidence of sexual assault.
I would say that the paintbrush handle was a major sexual assault, especially if it was still part of the handle of the garrote wrapped around her neck when he assaulted her with it.

BTK is an example of murder without sexual assault for sexual purpose.

And his plan indicates he was thinking of removing her from the house alive, possibly "to take her to a safe place where he could have access to her for days or weeks" while the police waited for kidnappers to call.

But something happened and he bashed her head in and abandoned his plan, leaving her hidden in the basement while he escaped town.

[shill]

According to PMPT
DNA: Barnhill's DNA could not be excluded p182

[Greenstar89]

I have always been baffeled by the fact that they were never able to find this childs murderer? How come?

The thing is when you take into consideration the fact that she was put out for public view in beauty contests and that at any given time or place you have Pedophiles who will become obsessed with a certain child they have seen in the papers. They will do anything to get to a child they are obessed with. Take the case of the child killer Mark Schwab (excuted on July 1, 2008 by lethal injection). He saw his victim in a local newspaper for winning a kite making contest and did everything in his power to ingratiate himself with the family and he suceeded!

I feel that something like this happened with Jon B. This beautiful child was put out on public display for all to see. I think that these child pagents should be banned. If you are going to display your child in these public places, people should be aware that they are asking for trouble.


Whoever it was is extremely dangerous and is on the loose. Prehaps it was even a law enforcement person? Child molesters know no social or racial bounderies and they are getting worse due to laws that are ineffective to contain them.

My two cents worth.

[Zold1]

I was so glad to hear the Ramseys have been publicly cleared and that the DA apologized for the added grief they put this family through with their accusations. If only they had done this before Patsy Ramsey passed away.

Steve Thomas should be ashamed of himself and should not have been allowed to write that book because he was a law enforcement investigator directly involved in a yet unsolved case. He persecuted Mrs Ramsey and did it on National TV too.

Yes he should be ashamed of himself, but it won't happen. He will intensify his hatred for anyone meddling in the case who wishes to find the truth and the perpetrator. I'm still very concerned that whomever did this not only was in the house for hours enough to know their business by reading their private information, but there is still that danged flashlight baton, taser and the ability to tie military knots. Just exactly who is being protected here?

[Zold1]

[SIZE="4"]Mary Lacy is the same one who had John Mark Karr tried and convicted before he even got on the plane from Thailand. She ended up with egg all over her face for that one. Why the rush to "clear" the Ramseys. I agree with the person who said that many others were vilified, often at the behest of the Ramseys. Those people gave their dna, too, so when will Mary Lacy issue apologies to them and clear their names for good? Why is she concerned only about the Ramseys? As for John Ramsey, I read a recent interview of his and he is still using the s

WHO supplied Mary Lacy with that information to extradite Karr with?! She didn't pick his name out of thin air. Use your head. If she has egg, she needs to share it with the ones who put it there.

RUSH to clear the Ramsey's? GMAB. Twelve Years is a gross amount of time to have solved a case the inept investigators should have solved in the first 72 hours. I Don't think anyone need blame Mary Lacey for the lack of true investigation since it appears only tunnel vision surfaced, focused on the parents. I strongly am concerned where those people got their credentials to practice L.E., and I do mean practice. It was a whole lot better for them to run off and write books rather than stay and work for a living.

Same cliches and whining and offensive comparisons. For instance, he still calls JonBenet a "sparkplug." He still says he and Patsy suffered from the incompetent police and the press. He still uses that awful comparison of "2000 children are killed every year but only one of them is famous." How insensitive and untrue.

Uh.. talking about insensitive. After 12 years I don't consider that whining. He already lost an older daughter and now the light of their lives was snuffed out. They HAVE A RIGHT to WHINE. Patsy did suffer the butt of media scrutiny and someone should have to pay for their evil stalking.

I've never heard anyone use the term famous for a murdered child. That is also insensitive. Children should never be referred to in such manner. If he is referring to the number of children murdered every year, it is an obvious attempt to educate the public that something is very wrong within our society. We should be looking for answers, not criticising the messenger.


We all know baby Connor Peterson by name. How about beautiful little Polly Klaas? Has he heard of Megan's Law? Does he know about Adam Walsh? Many children who have been killed are completely memorable and well-known to the public, not just JonBenet. Mary Lacy's strange letter of apology and exoneration only makes many of us more suspicious and doubtful.

No, I don't think so. There may be the die hard people and the inept investigators who didn't do their job in the first place, who think it suspicious and doubtful. The normal public are feeling pretty bad so many had to suffer, in particular the parents who were also victims of a serious loss.

OR... the killer of Jon Benet feeling heat roasting his running away rear end as the law is closing in to end his crime spree of harming children. :flamemad:

[Zold1]

Hopefully, the perp will land himself in the database....sooner or later. But how frustrating it was to see the Ramseys magnified with scrutiny...law officials perpetually fueling the vilifying.

Absolutely, and your observation is outstanding. As I recall it was not the L.E. who specifically outed other suspects, but the snooping and interferring media who continously interject themselves into criminal cases and have a tendacy to cause some corruption. Making wild guesses and innuendos only corrupt the jury pool. Everyone is guaranteed the Contitutional Right to a court trial to prove innocense or guilt. I prefer the Presumption of Innocense and rely on evidentiary presentation to find guilt in which to make a reliable assumption. Before we go ruining people's lives and disrupting society, we need to take a deep breath and stop the madness sooner rather than later. Sheer speculation and false information breed contempt for our system of justice. Constant bombardment for entertainment of alleged perpetrators really sucks and have caused people to commit suicide in the past. Driving a human being to suicide for monetary gain makes you what? A killer?!

We need to let the police go back to being police and stay out of their way until their job is completed. IMHO.

[Zold1]

[SIZE="4"]The main sticking point for me is the ransom note. It just does not fit with a stranger/intruder or a random act of violence against a child.

Are you suggesting you are an expert on intrusion or home invasion robbery?!
Not all things go accoring to plan, eh? For instance, the ability to lie within a home waiting for the family to return, once, twice, three times? How many times can you enter a broken window to get out of the cold and search the house for all the information you want to utilize. Did the perp come across the information he wrote on the tablet? Probably. Does not necessarily mean he knew anything until he got inside snooping. Why were you so freely allowed to roam the streets without detection. Hmmm, that is the question. Someone who would not draw suspicion perhaps.

Nor does it jibe with a sadistic pedophile. Why was it written? How did the writer know about the Ramseys? Why was it important to him/her to write something down? Why add one more piece of evidence against himself and leave it there? I cannot see an outsider doing that.

I don't know how much more sadistic you can get to suffocate a little baby girl, hang her with a garoute and pull her panties down to assault her sexually with some item. THAT IS SADISTIC! Only someone retarded would believe otherwise.

Another sticking point is the relative lack of sexual assault. Yes there was the penetration, but would a sadistic pedophile be satisfied with that? And wouldn't a sadistic pedophile (Lou Smit's best guess) want to take the child to a safe place where he could have access to her for days or weeks?

And you would deem penetration nothing? She died before the perp could drag her out and keep her two or three weeks. Unless he had a better plan it appears this one failed. If he were homeless where would he take her. If he could get a lot of money for ransom out of the parents he would be rich, but the victim was too fragile and died on him. Who knows what he did with her body after she died. HOW MUCH MORE SADISTIC WOULD PLEASE YOU?!

Ramseys fairly well? Is it a sadistic pedophile or someone bent on revenge or a family dysfunction gone terribly too far?

I am not convinced of anything by Ms. Lacy's letter.

GMAB! Mary Lacy is not responsible for making sadistic pedophiles and dead bodies. Mary Lacy is trying to help and stop the madness. Talk about Dysfuntional, we are seeing a good example of that unfolding right in front of our eyes, eh?!

For Patsy: :rose:

[Zold1]

The Ramseys weren't cleared because their DNA wasn't a match.
The Ramseys were never a match to the DNA mixed in the blood spot of JonBenet's panties, nor were the 200 others previously tested and cleared of being a DNA match, so ML owes no one an apology other then the Ramseys.

The Ramseys were cleared because the DNA has been proven to have been left at the crime scene and not a factory in Singapore, meaning an unknown male made contact with JonBenet the night she was murdered, proving the presence of an intruder.

You obviously show a dislike for Mary Lacey that is impairing your reasoning of the facts imo.

Oh thank you. I feel like somebody stuck my finger in a light socket. :chicken:

[Vera]

Yes he should be ashamed of himself, but it won't happen. He will intensify his hatred for anyone meddling in the case who wishes to find the truth and the perpetrator. I'm still very concerned that whomever did this not only was in the house for hours enough to know their business by reading their private information, but there is still that danged flashlight baton, taser and the ability to tie military knots. Just exactly who is being protected here?

I believe there was another local incident, before JonBenet was murdered, where a mom caught someone in her child's room. Luckily, it scared the perpetrator away. This indicates there are pedophiles in the area.

I agreed with Lou Smit findings and opinions. Those marks on JonBenet certainly did look like they were made with a taser and ability of the perpetrator to make a garrote is not common knowledge. I think the Boulder Police messed this case from the outset and in an attempt to solve it, and avoid scrutiny and panic in the area, focused on the Ramseys.

In my opinion

[Athena]

I believe there was another local incident, before JonBenet was murdered, where a mom caught someone in her child's room. Luckily, it scared the perpetrator away. This indicates there are pedophiles in the area.

I agreed with Lou Smit findings and opinions. Those marks on JonBenet certainly did look like they were made with a taser and ability of the perpetrator to make a garrote is not common knowledge. I think the Boulder Police messed this case from the outset and in an attempt to solve it, and avoid scrutiny and panic in the area, focused on the Ramseys.

In my opinion

Yes -- and the perp hid out in the house. The mother's bedroom was close and was able to scare him off. The little girl also went to the same dance school that JBR went to.

I don't know for sure if they were stun gun marks but I've never heard an alternative credible explanation.

[Zold1]

I have always been baffeled by the fact that they were never able to find this childs murderer? How come?

The thing is when you take into consideration the fact that she was put out for public view in beauty contests and that at any given time or place you have Pedophiles who will become obsessed with a certain child they have seen in the papers. They will do anything to get to a child they are obessed with. Take the case of the child killer Mark Schwab (excuted on July 1, 2008 by lethal injection). He saw his victim in a local newspaper for winning a kite making contest and did everything in his power to ingratiate himself with the family and he suceeded!

I feel that something like this happened with Jon B. This beautiful child was put out on public display for all to see. I think that these child pagents should be banned. If you are going to display your child in these public places, people should be aware that they are asking for trouble.


Whoever it was is extremely dangerous and is on the loose. Prehaps it was even a law enforcement person? Child molesters know no social or racial bounderies and they are getting worse due to laws that are ineffective to contain them.

My two cents worth.

And a good two cents worth. Back in those days parents were very naive and innocent of the fact of pedophiles or what they were capable of. We've all learned the hard way. Before soccer and other sports, the parents would allow their children to participate in little beauty pagetts. My own grandchildren won several awards because they were so darned cute. Continuing to villify a parent is condeming a victim before they become victims. Not everyone was aware of stranger danger in those days and dressing children up was a fun thing to do. The costumes were important as well as helping a child develop interpersonal people skills. The age of innocense has been torn from the pages of history and everyone NOW KNOWS how dangerous society has become. It doesn't bother the Madonna's of the world nor the Britney Spears who have so much money they don't care what you think. Now the wild child of the era are pregnant teens on purpose and sugar and spice and everything nice that can be purchased while we play house with live dolls. It makes dressing up little baby dolls seem ancient history. Now we have U Tube, Boob Tube and irreverant movies on television that would make a ghoul proud. I should think we would want to concentrate more on the sickness spreading among our youth and less attention to the poor naive parent who thought dressing up was cute and fun and just another club. Even "Santa" thought so, eh?! :seeya:

[Athena]

Who else's DNA is there?

The results of DNA testing were inconclusive at this time the police said. The DNA found under JonBenet’s fingernails showed the possibility of contamination. Nevertheless, the police claimed they had been able to exclude certain people by these DNA tests. This led Barry Scheck to comment, “You can’t say the DNA test results are iffy and then exclude people because their DNA doesn’t match. You can’t have your cake and eat it.” He recommended further RFLP or newer types of PCR testing. Most in the audience considered the DNA test results the WEAKEST part of the presentation.

Source: PMPT

[Vera]

Yes -- and the perp hid out in the house. The mother's bedroom was close and was able to scare him off. The little girl also went to the same dance school that JBR went to.

I don't know for sure if they were stun gun marks but I've never heard an alternative credible explanation.

I wonder if the dance school was ever looked into as a link to both. I think both girls were targeted and the fact they both attended the same dance school cannot be overlooked or minimized. The perpetrator could have worked at the dance school in some capacity, and as such, might have had access to their records containing personal information such as their where they live and their phone numbers.

I saw a comparison of the marks made by a taser and those on JonBenet and they appeared similar/the same to me.

By the way, are you experiencing long posting delays? After I click submit, it takes a very long time before the post finally appears.

[Athena]

<snip>
I am not convinced of anything by Ms. Lacy's letter.



I personally think people have been very hard on Ms Lacy re: JMK. She was damned that she did it and would have been damned if she didn't. I'm not a fan, but she did what she had to do with JMK based on probable cause. To do otherwise would have been negligent. How do you ignore a potential confession with facts that were known within the scope of the case? She did the right thing IMO and if nothing else, parents know to keep their children away from him. He was exposed and at least will never be able to teach our children. JMHO

[cookiewench]

I would say that the paintbrush handle was a major sexual assault, especially if it was still part of the handle of the garrote wrapped around her neck when he assaulted her with it.

[/SIZE]


And just how did this intruder manage to get fibers from Patsy's clothing in the garotte, but none from his own clothing?

And no fibers on that basement window, either.

Was "he" naked?

[SaraSidle]

I wonder if the dance school was ever looked into as a link to both. I think both girls were targeted and the fact they both attended the same dance school cannot be overlooked or minimized. The perpetrator could have worked at the dance school in some capacity, and as such, might have had access to their records containing personal information such as their where they live and their phone numbers.

I saw a comparison of the marks made by a taser and those on JonBenet and they appeared similar/the same to me.

By the way, are you experiencing long posting delays. After I click submit, it takes a very long time before the post finally appears.

I agree about the stun gun. And yes it does take a while to post sometimes and others it is right away. I have not found a pattern yet. IMO

[Athena]

I wonder if the dance school was ever looked into as a link to both. I think both girls were targeted and the fact they both attended the same dance school cannot be overlooked or minimized. The perpetrator could have worked at the dance school in some capacity, and as such, might have had access to their records containing personal information such as their where they live and their phone numbers.

I saw a comparison of the marks made by a taser and those on JonBenet and they appeared similar/the same to me.

By the way, are you experiencing long posting delays. After I click submit, it takes a very long time before the post finally appears.

There are also other experts that agreed with Lou that in fact they were stun gun marks. I've always wished LE had gone ahead and exhumed her body to confirm but alas much like they bungled up everything else hell bent on the parents being the killers -- just don't think they wanted to confirm IMO.

I've actually had to log out and log back in and don't even know my post goes through until I log back in. It's terribly slow.

[Athena]

And just how did this intruder manage to get fibers from Patsy's clothing in the garotte, but none from his own clothing?

And no fibers on that basement window, either.

Was "he" naked?

There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that any such fibers of Patsy's or John's were found. However, there are still unsourced fibers that ere found in her hand and on her body that have yet to be sourced to anyone in the home. There were also carpet fibers that were consistent with the basement carpet found on a baseball bat outside of that window that DID NOT belong to the Ramseys. IMO they lied in the interviews and threw everything out there trying to get a confession. In no other documentation were any such fibers mentioned and they accused the fibers of being from John's shirt which obviously is a lie:

Source: PMPT - "The police reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBenet’s labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers DID NOT match any clothes belonging to John or Patsy. The police were STUMPED."

[cookiewench]

There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that any such fibers of Patsy's or John's were found. . There were also carpet fibers that were consistent with the basement carpet found on a baseball bat outside of that window that DID NOT belong to the Ramseys.

Source: PMPT - "The police reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBenet’s labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers DID NOT match any clothes belonging to John or Patsy. The police were STUMPED."

I said that Patsy's fibers were in the garotte - not on Jonbenet's thighs.

They were.

Do you have a link to that baseball bat that did NOT belong to the Ramsey's? That's a new one.

Did the naked perp climb out the window with baseball bat in hand and then leave it there?

[Athena]

I said that Patsy's fibers were in the garotte - not on Jonbenet's thighs.

They were.

Do you have a link to that baseball bat that did NOT belong to the Ramsey's? That's a new one.

Did the naked perp climb out the window with baseball bat in hand and then leave it there?

There were two baseball bats. One was Burke's found in the front of the house that the Ramseys identified and the second one found outside the window that could not be identified as belonging to a Ramsey. This is all in PMPT and in the interviews.

Sorry I wasn't clear. There was not mention of the fibers in the garotte because there were none. They came up in one of their interviews and as I stated they lied in an attempt to coerce a confession thinking they did it.

Re: exit and entrance of the perp - I have no idea. But houses have been known to be broken into with no signs of forced entry. Happens everyday.

The interviews can be found at:

www.acandyrose.com

[cookiewench]

Sorry I wasn't clear. There was not mention of the fibers in the garotte because there were none. They came up in one of their interviews and as I stated they lied in an attempt to coerce a confession thinking they did it.

[/url]

What do you mean, "they" lied?

Are you talking about when they told JOHN that some of his fibers had been found inside Jonbenet's underwear.


I haven't read any of the books in years, but I do remember that Patsy's fibers were definitely found in that garotte.

And as for people entering & exiting houses every day without leaving anything of themselves behind: perhaps, but not when they've spent hours there and have been on three floors of the house, and have been in the bathroom and changed the victims clothing, washed her, carried her around, blah blah.

[shill]

I said that Patsy's fibers were in the garotte -
Looks like people are coming out of the wood work claiming microscopic DNA might have been transfered from JonBenet's underwear to her pajamas by someone touching the same spots, these are the same people that deny fibers that are visible to the naked eye and prone to static cling, could have transfered from someone touching JonBenet and then the rope.

Unknown fibers were all over JonBenet and the crime scene.
You can only match fibers to their sources.
Ramseys were the only ones that supplied sources.
Therefor the only matches there could be, are to the Ramseys, who live there and are expected to match.
So Ramsey fiber match is a moot point.
Fiber evidence only works when fibers are found where they shouldn't be.

Had they caught somebody early on, they could have got sources from the suspect to look for matching fibers.

[cookiewench]

Fiber evidence only works when fibers are found where they shouldn't be.

Had they caught somebody early on, they could have got sources from the suspect to look for matching fibers.


And you're claiming that Patsy's fibers SHOULD BE on the paintbrush handle, underneath the garotte rope - fibers from the very clothing she wore that night?

The reason they didn't catch somebody "early on" is because there was no one else to catch, and no one else in the house that night.

[cookiewench]

...............and I contend that there's no one someone could squeeze themselves through a basement window without leaving numerous fibers, and most likely skin DNA and hair.

[SaraSidle]

I do not think there was enough evidence for an arrest to be made before this week. When that perp is entered into Codis (and he will be) hopefully this case will finally be solved.

[Zold1]

I said that Patsy's fibers were in the garotte - not on Jonbenet's thighs.

They were.

Do you have a link to that baseball bat that did NOT belong to the Ramsey's? That's a new one.

Did the naked perp climb out the window with baseball bat in hand and then leave it there?


I have not heard they were in the garotte, but it is not uncommon to lose your hair around the house, or have it tangle in a button and pull out. After all, the child was put to bed and tucked in. Even if there was hair belonging to Patsy it means nothing. She lived there. Her hair will be everywhere.

[Zold1]

And you're claiming that Patsy's fibers SHOULD BE on the paintbrush handle, underneath the garotte rope - fibers from the very clothing she wore that night?

The reason they didn't catch somebody "early on" is because there was no one else to catch, and no one else in the house that night.

The evidence presented lately indicates an unknown DNA was in the house that night. It is indisputable and will eventually be proven. Killers only think they can get away with it. ;)

[Zold1]

...............and I contend that there's no one someone could squeeze themselves through a basement window without leaving numerous fibers, and most likely skin DNA and hair.

That is another bone of contention that sticks in my craw. The inept investigating officer refused to examine the basement window for any evidentiary matter. The mere fact the latch was broken should tell the story of illegal entry. There would be no fingerprints since the perp wore mittens or gloves due to the cold weather. Coats or Jackets would also prevent any transference onto the sill. This criminal is a professional at burglary and probably small in stature. A small man can present a BEEG problem. What's that about little man's syndrome?! :cool:

[cookiewench]

That is another bone of contention that sticks in my craw. The inept investigating officer refused to examine the basement window for any evidentiary matter. The mere fact the latch was broken should tell the story of illegal entry. There would be no fingerprints since the perp wore mittens or gloves due to the cold weather. Coats or Jackets would also prevent any transference onto the sill. This criminal is a professional at burglary and probably small in stature. A small man can present a BEEG problem. What's that about little man's syndrome?! :cool:


I don't agree with that at all. Not only would this "intruder" leave fibers, hair and skin on the windowsill - they would have left it all over the place.

There's no way that someone could have spent that much time with Jonbenet and leave nothing but a miniscule bit of DNA that would take 12 years to "find".

No one outside of the family came into the house that night. Patsy wrote that note.....Patsy (probably accidently) killed her daughter and staged the entire scene. John went along with the program - although they may have never even spoken about it.

[Zold1]

I don't agree with that at all. Not only would this "intruder" leave fibers, hair and skin on the windowsill - they would have left it all over the place.

There's no way that someone could have spent that much time with Jonbenet and leave nothing but a miniscule bit of DNA that would take 12 years to "find".

No one outside of the family came into the house that night. Patsy wrote that note.....Patsy (probably accidently) killed her daughter and staged the entire scene. John went along with the program - although they may have never even spoken about it.

Well I can see it is important for you to believe that. However, there was no transference detected and was not even examined until years later. Kinda after the fact I would say, giving the perpetrator a puffed up narcistic ego safety net of himself. So if you were not present at the home then you DON'T know who came and went or hid wherever. Since all of the evidence is pointing to the impending arrest of the true perpetrator it is just a matter of time we will be receiving the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.... FINALLY! Anyone relying on the old faked up war story is doomed to disappointment. The cops are trailing the criminal as we speak. Getting warmer... eh? ;)

[Athena]

The evidence presented lately indicates an unknown DNA was in the house that night. It is indisputable and will eventually be proven. Killers only think they can get away with it. ;)

And there certainly is NO INNOCENT explanation for unknown male DNA (allegedly salva) to be found in JBRs underwear which match the DNA (skin cells) on the waistband of her longjohns. :beer:

[cookiewench]

Well I can see it is important for you to believe that. However, there was no transference detected and was not even examined until years later. Kinda after the fact I would say, giving the perpetrator a puffed up narcistic ego safety net of himself. So if you were not present at the home then you DON'T know who came and went or hid wherever. Since all of the evidence is pointing to the impending arrest of the true perpetrator it is just a matter of time we will be receiving the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.... FINALLY! Anyone relying on the old faked up war story is doomed to disappointment. The cops are trailing the criminal as we speak. Getting warmer... eh? ;)

I have no worries about being "shown up" or having to eat my words some day.

That teeny bit of "touch" DNA could have come from just about anywhere. It could be something as simply as transfer from someone Patsy had touched before she changed JonBenet's clothes that night. I wonder if every single person at the party that day, or who Patsy was in contact throughout the day, was tested?

Every single aspect of this case....from the circumstantial to the physical to the demeanor to just plain old common sense...........points at the Ramseys (mainly Patsy) and to no one else.


Did you ever ask yourself why, if one of your children had just been "kidnapped", you would let your other child out of you sight to go to a friend's house? You wouldn't be clinging to that kid? If you were Patsy.....wouldn't you be running through every room in the house, looking in every closet, under every bed, out in the yard - for your daughter, or for some clues?

Would you not be sitting right by the phone waiting for the "kidnappers" to call, rather than in another room with your friends? Would you not run to your husband when he came back in the house with the mail, to see if there was any communication from the "kidnappers"?

And what do you think of a child-molesting murderer who is so polite that he puts a pen back in the cup after he uses it to write a kidnap note?

Patsy did this crime. Patsy wrote that note.

BTW: "Stun gun marks" is just a theory put out there. Someone on one of the message boards once mentioned that those marks look just like the bottoms of the legs of the ironing board that was out in the hallway near Jonbenet's room. I believe that's more like what caused those marks than a stun gun is.

[SaraSidle]

How would ironing board marks get onto JonBenet?

[shill]

Every single aspect of this case....from the circumstantial to the physical to the demeanor to just plain old common sense...........points at the Ramseys (mainly Patsy) and to no one else.

Well your posts certainly do indicate the level of your common sense.

I don't think DNA technology falls under the category of common sense so your misguided conclusions are excusable.

So why do you think Patsy helped this male suspect kill her daughter?

[shill]

And just how did this intruder manage to get fibers from Patsy's clothing in the garotte, but none from his own clothing?

And no fibers on that basement window, either.

Was "he" naked?So you know he came through the window and yet you say he doesn't exist?

Obviously you are RDI and most RDI think Lou Smit is the only IDI explanation for everything.
There were a lot of points of entry available to that house, I believe there were 99, of which several were unlocked. So LS is just one explanation of how he might have got in.

There was a lot of unknown fiber evidence left behind, which is most likely that of the killer, so you are so wrong on inferring that the killer didn't leave behind any fiber evidence.

To often these mostly exclusive RDI websites preach false truths over and over that RDI start to believe it unquestionably. But most of the time it is simply urban legend and conspiracy theories.

You can hate the Ramseys if you want, but you can't prove they killed their daughter because you hate them.

[cookiewench]

So you know he came through the window and yet you say he doesn't exist?

Obviously you are RDI and most RDI think Lou Smit is the only IDI explanation for everything.
There were a lot of points of entry available to that house, I believe there were 99, of which several were unlocked. So LS is just one explanation of how he might have got in.

There was a lot of unknown fiber evidence left behind, which is most likely that of the killer, so you are so wrong on inferring that the killer didn't leave behind any fiber evidence.

To often these mostly exclusive RDI websites preach false truths over and over that RDI start to believe it unquestionably. But most of the time it is simply urban legend and conspiracy theories.

You can hate the Ramseys if you want, but you can't prove they killed their daughter because you hate them.


Lou Smit is ridiculous. He has some kind of religious connection to the R's, and so has sold his integrity down the river.


I can't prove they killed their daughter, but law enforcement should have had them arrested, tried, and convicted a long time ago.

But I wouldn't hold my breath about some "outside perp" being arrested and tried - ever. Such a person doesn't exist.

[cookiewench]

Well your posts certainly do indicate the level of your common sense.

I don't think DNA technology falls under the category of common sense so your misguided conclusions are excusable.

So why do you think Patsy helped this male suspect kill her daughter?

You actually believe that some "intruder" did all the things that this one did, on all three floors of the house....carried JB all around....molested her, washed her, killed her, staged her - and all they left was some miniscule "touch DNA" that took 12 years to identify?

Okay. That's your right if you want to believe it.

I don't.

[cookiewench]

How would ironing board marks get onto JonBenet?


When her mother was out in the hallway getting the pull-ups to change her daughter who had wet the bed - and her daughter perhaps followed her out there and had the ironing board thrown at her.

That would be before she (most likely) got slammed around in the bathroom while getting washed & changed by her tired, stressed-out mother, and perhaps hit her head - hard - on the edge of the sink or tub.

Which would be....before her mother took her downstairs, staged the garotte thing, drew a heart in her daughter's palm and wrapped her in her blanket.

[SaraSidle]

What do you mean by "most likely"? I thought you had this figured out. You do not know how she fractured her skull and where? Maybe she was strangled in the bathroom too?

[cookiewench]

What do you mean by "most likely"? I thought you had this figured out. You do not know how she fractured her skull and where? Maybe she was strangled in the bathroom too?

You must have me confused with some other poster. I never said that I "had this figured out" as far as the details of what went on that night.

What I did say was that I'm sure that Patsy was the perp and that Patsy wrote that note.



On the other hand..........why do you believe that a perp would go down two full floors into the basement to get a paintbrush to make the garotte, and then bring it up the two sets of stairs again? You don't think there was a pencil or some other object that could have been used in the garotte in the upstairs? The pencil cup in the kitchen certainly would have been closer/easier than rummaging around in the basement for a paintbrush.

[SaraSidle]

Actually I have no idea what happened that night. not enough evidence or testimony to make a decision. I do find the new dna very exciting news. You sounded so confident I thought you had some details. IMO

[cookiewench]

Actually I have no idea what happened that night. not enough evidence or testimony to make a decision. I do find the new dna very exciting news. You sounded so confident I thought you had some details. IMO


I was completely confident in the first minutes I heard about the John Mark Karr arrest that it was a mistake or a bungle.

I was correct.

There are a lot of red herrings in this case, but the REAL evidence all leads straight to the Ramseys.


Don't you ask yourself why Lacey hasn't officially cleared all the OTHER suspects in this case who's DNA doesn't match this "new find"?


Way too hinky. Something crooked is going on.

[SaraSidle]

I was completely confident in the first minutes I heard about the John Mark Karr arrest that it was a mistake or a bungle.

I was correct.

There are a lot of red herrings in this case, but the REAL evidence all leads straight to the Ramseys.


Don't you ask yourself why Lacey hasn't officially cleared all the OTHER suspects in this case who's DNA doesn't match this "new find"?


Way too hinky. Something crooked is going on.

well it has been hinky from the start in my opinion. Is this like a gut feeling you have about the whole crime then?

[Jayelles]

I was completely confident in the first minutes I heard about the John Mark Karr arrest that it was a mistake or a bungle.


I wasn't! I was very excited that they'd "got the guy" and intrigued to hear how it all fitted together. I was bemused to see the "face of the killer" and to discover that he was an unknown! I'd always wondered if the truth would turn out to be considerably less convoluted than the theories.

Similarly, when Tracey III was shown here, I was also excited at the compelling evidence which was presented for theory of the evil mystery man who'd used Michael Helgoth as an accomplice and who'd almost certainly killed several other people too.

In both cases, as it sank in, I started to see the flaws - little details which weren't adding up - weren't as compelling or watertight as they'd been first portrayed. In the case of the documentary, it turned out to be a complete fabrication and in fact - a total disgrace. Their "prime suspect" had never been on the police radar and in fact had been in Indiana at the time of the murder - something which he could prove. What was worse, the Ramsey PIs would appear to have been aware of the weakness of their "case" when the documentary was made. They claimed their suspect had "disappeared" knowing full and well that he hadn't. One of the "witnesses" who had taken part in the documentary even had the "suspect's" phone number and had used it when Michael Helgoth had died. He knew exactly where to find him! The bottom line was that here was proof that there were Ramsey supporters who were prepared to lie in order to build a case against an "intruder".

In the case of John Mark Karr - Lacy said he knew things that only the killer could have known. We waited with baited breath only to discover that these "things" had been in the public domain for years! Not only that, but Karr started to say things about the crime which case followers knew to be garbage. The final straw was when Karr's ex-wife and family were approached and they said "But he was here with us in Alabama and Atlanta that Christmas as he was every Christmas". Turned out Karr had never been to COlorado. The family couldn't actually provide phtographic proof that Karr had spent Christmas with them but said that this was because he probably took the photos of the rest of them. His father remembered that Christmas particularly because there was a new baby in the family and they all remembered the new baby. After ten years, they couldn't specifically prove that he had been there - but they knew that they would have recalled if he hadn't been with them at Christmas - especially since he had a young family of his own. (I can identify with this. I don't remember specific Christmasses over the last couple of decades that my husband and I have been together, but I know we've never spent a Christmas apart!).

Yet Mary Lacy was so sure - so confident about her case against John Mark Karr that she brought him back on a first class ticket from Thailand to face a charge of JonBenet's murder BEFORE she checked out his alibi. Then too, as now we heard outrage against the RDIs and demands for apologies to the Ramseys. It took days for the case against Karr to fall apart officially, but Internet sleuths all over the world were voicing doubts long before then. The point at which I felt the first nagging doubts myself was when I heard that Michael Tracey had been involved (because of the Tracey III documentary and some other reasons). I didn't feel he was "concrete". I have the same feeling now about Mary Lacy because of the John Mark Karr fiasco. I simply do not have confidence in the woman. I distrust people in authority who demonstrate bias of any sort whilst claiming to be unbiased.

I'm afraid that for me it's a case of "once bitten, twice shy". When someone has a history of getting it wrong, I'm wary. If Mary Lacy had fessed up to her incompetency over Karr - held her hand up and said "I blew it..." then I would have had a degree of respect for her... but she didn't. Instead she wriggled and made excuses and pointed the finger of blame elsewhere and tried to justify her actions and that to me is an untrustworthy person. Anyone can make mistakes, but it's how they handle it thereafter that really counts IMO. Sometimes people do bad things, but if they own up to it and accept accountability for it then it doesn't mean they are a bad person.

There are people whose word you would trust. I'm leery of the fact that Mary Lacy had this test done and then used it to clear the Ramseys and issued a very public apology to them. I'd have been less leery if she'd had the test done and then announced the results saying that the DNA didn't match anyone who had been tested as a result of the investigation. If she'd then issued a blanket apology to ALL those who'd suffered as a result of media and Internet speculation then it would have been (IMO) the professional thing to do. However, because she has demonstrated personal involvement with the Ramseys and a degree of cronyism, it's harder to trust her motives.

So I'm left wishing that this case could be put to bed once and for all because it all detracts from the tragic fact that a beautiful child was brutally tortured and murdered.

[LadyFisher]

You must have me confused with some other poster. I never said that I "had this figured out" as far as the details of what went on that night.

What I did say was that I'm sure that Patsy was the perp and that Patsy wrote that note.



On the other hand..........why do you believe that a perp would go down two full floors into the basement to get a paintbrush to make the garotte, and then bring it up the two sets of stairs again? You don't think there was a pencil or some other object that could have been used in the garotte in the upstairs? The pencil cup in the kitchen certainly would have been closer/easier than rummaging around in the basement for a paintbrush.

Patsy has been OFFICIALLY cleared of murdering her daughter! RDIs need to get over it! :)

[LadyFisher]

When her mother was out in the hallway getting the pull-ups to change her daughter who had wet the bed - and her daughter perhaps followed her out there and had the ironing board thrown at her.

That would be before she (most likely) got slammed around in the bathroom while getting washed & changed by her tired, stressed-out mother, and perhaps hit her head - hard - on the edge of the sink or tub.

Which would be....before her mother took her downstairs, staged the garotte thing, drew a heart in her daughter's palm and wrapped her in her blanket.

I bet you read Stevie "wonder" Thomas' book and bought his bedwetting theory??? :confused: He was wrong....Patsy has been CLEARED! :)

[cookiewench]

I bet you read Stevie "wonder" Thomas' book and bought his bedwetting theory??? :confused: He was wrong....Patsy has been CLEARED! :)

And I bet you think that Steve Thomas is the only person who came up with/believed the bedwetting theory?

And I bet you gloss over the fact that the FBI profiler knows this wasn't an "intruder crime".

When JMK was arrested, some people immediately ran over to amazon.com to write nasty "reviews" of his book, because " a perp has been arrested. Steve Thomas needs to apologize, blah blah".

A DA can "clear" a person, but that doesn't make them innocent.......just like a Not Guilty verdict didn't make OJ innocent.

[Zold1]

How would ironing board marks get onto JonBenet?

I suppose the same way someone carried the ironing board to the other girls house to hit her wilth too? I've heard of dense before, but it's getting spooky in here. :tongue:

[cookiewench]

I suppose the same way someone carried the ironing board to the other girls house to hit her wilth too? I've heard of dense before, but it's getting spooky in here. :tongue:

I've always thought the taser theory was silly - as silly as the John Mark Karr theory.

Are taser guns completely silent? Don't people scream and thrash around when tasered? Why would an adult need a taser gun to control a little child?

Was this taser gune used before, or after, this "intruder" served JonBenet some pineapple, sat there with her while she ate it, and then let her digest it for an hour or two?

[cookiewench]

I've heard of dense before, but it's getting spooky in here. :tongue:

You know; this used to be an active board that has more or less "died". Some posters are here now only because insessions is having problems.

Posts like your one above is the main reason, IMO. There are more than the average number of posters here who have no idea how to have a discussion on a topic, and so, resort to foolish name-calling and childish jabs.

[Zold1]

Wow. You make great points. i don't know what to think.:shrug:

This is annoying as hell to have to log in every time I post!

I do not see any valid points made by the CookieWench. Karr had confessed! How was Lacy to know the interferring moron was with family on Christmas. They couldn't prove it, but blood is thicker than water. That was only learned AFTER the big expensive transport and Karr has no one to blame but himself and his spooky rhetoric involving himself with JBR.

So I see no great points to harrah about. I am only interested in facts and the facts point to: DNA X 3 or more on the body and clothing of JBR. The DNA found does not match Patsy or John. How much more clear can that be?

The investigation was faulty and a rip from the beginning by people who obviously barely passed the academy. I don't fault them but things happen. When the shoe fits wear it.

Cookie obviously knows nothing about children and the fact the family NEEDED to get the child out of that house to prevent further tramatization. If you love your child that is.

Since Cookie was nowhere near the place she cannot vouch for the actions of Patsy or John and no one else knows what they would do under the same circumstances. Sure, after 12 years I guess you have time to conjure up your own plan A and B. Initial reaction shows the belief the child was kinapped for ransom and there was no reason to believe Patsy would be rushing from room to room. John and his neighbor did just fine and they mostly did what they were told by the responding officers.

To presume yourself in the role of Patsy would have been so cool makes me ill. :rolleyes:

Not only was Patsy sick, she was probably paralized with fear. Shock does odd things to ones physical and emotional reactions. We also do not know if a doctor had given sedation.

[Zold1]

When her mother was out in the hallway getting the pull-ups to change her daughter who had wet the bed - and her daughter perhaps followed her out there and had the ironing board thrown at her.

That would be before she (most likely) got slammed around in the bathroom while getting washed & changed by her tired, stressed-out mother, and perhaps hit her head - hard - on the edge of the sink or tub.

Which would be....before her mother took her downstairs, staged the garotte thing, drew a heart in her daughter's palm and wrapped her in her blanket.

I don't remember anything about a heart in JBR's palm. Where did that come from?! Who else knows that. Would that be like the other killers who leave happy faces and target crosses?! :confused:

[cookiewench]

1. Karr had confessed! How was Lacy to know the interferring moron was with family on Christmas.

2. Cookie obviously knows nothing about children and the fact the family NEEDED to get the child out of that house to prevent further tramatization. If you love your child that is.

3. Sure, after 12 years I guess you have time to conjure up your own plan A and B. Initial reaction shows the belief the child was kinapped for ransom and there was no reason to believe Patsy would be rushing from room to room.

4. To presume yourself in the role of Patsy would have been so cool makes me ill. :rolleyes:

Not only was Patsy sick, she was probably paralized with fear. Shock does odd things to ones physical and emotional reactions. We also do not know if a doctor had given sedation.


1. John Mark Karr confessed: whoop-de-doo. Do you think he was the first? A huge case likes this brings out all the nutbars.

How was Lacy to know he was with his family on Christmas? Well.......that's her JOB. DA's don't just arrest some nut because he claimed on the internet that he was "with Jonbenet" that night, without doing some investigation.

JMK had said he'd been at a Christmas party with JonBenet that night and had eaten pineapple with her! How could Lacy NO KNOW that if that was correct, he would have been identified and rounded up IMMEDIATELY? It's because Lacy knows NOTHING about this case, and just wants to be a Ramsey "friend".

2. I know enough about children AND parents to know that if one of your children is in the arms of a kidnapper, there's nothing that child or the parents need MORE than to be together. No parent in their right mind would let ONE child just la-de-da over to a friend's house while some viscious kidnappers who had a grudge against their OWN FAMILY was loose out there with their other child.

3. It's not my "plan", nor did it take 12 years for anyone to come up with it. Just about every detective, LE officer, FBI investigator/profiler has known for years that there was no intruder in the house that night, and that Patsy wrote that note.

4. Now THIS is hilarious. It makes you "ill" (roll eyes) that I would presume myself into the role of Patsy - but in YOUR VERY NEXT SENTENCE, YOU!!!!!! describe exactly how YOU decided she was feeling (not to even mention that you've again shown how you just can't discuss anything without throwing personal digs into the mix. That's a shame).

BTW: Have you followed this case at all? Patsy was given sedative medication later - at her friends home - NOT that morning at her home while Jonbenet was still missing.

[cookiewench]

I don't remember anything about a heart in JBR's palm. Where did that come from?! Who else knows that. Would that be like the other killers who leave happy faces and target crosses?! :confused:

With all due respect: why don't you bone up on this case a bit?

Witnesses who knew Patsy said that at times she would draw a heart on her daughter's palm. Jonbenet was found dead with a heart drawn on her palm - a heart that had not been there at the party.

She was also (IIRC: it's been a while since I read the books/news on this case) found in her favorite top with her favorite necklace and favorite blanket.

Another blanket was found near her body - a blanket that the housekeeper says was probably stuck with the other blanket (static electricity) in the dryer, and ended up on the floor when Patsy pulled the other blanket out of the dryer downstairs.

I think she's on to something there...

[Athena]

With all due respect: why don't you bone up on this case a bit?

Witnesses who knew Patsy said that at times she would draw a heart on her daughter's palm. Jonbenet was found dead with a heart drawn on her palm - a heart that had not been there at the party.

She was also (IIRC: it's been a while since I read the books/news on this case) found in her favorite top with her favorite necklace and favorite blanket.

Another blanket was found near her body - a blanket that the housekeeper says was probably stuck with the other blanket (static electricity) in the dryer, and ended up on the floor when Patsy pulled the other blanket out of the dryer downstairs.

I think she's on to something there...


Hmmm....... please provide a link where it says Patsy drew anything on her daughter at any time. According to one of her interviews; she did not like JBR drawing on herself. :confused: She even states that while playing with her friend "Daphne" it was possible JBR had drawn the heart herself.

[cookiewench]

Hmmm....... please provide a link where it says Patsy drew anything on her daughter at any time. According to one of her interviews; she did not like JBR drawing on herself. :confused: She even states that while playing with her friend "Daphne" it was possible JBR had drawn the heart herself.


No; I am not going to do searches and provide a link for you.

I remember it distinctly, and if you haven't followed this case enough to have heard it - well, go ahead and call me a liar. I don't care.


And you've heard it said that Patsy brought her daughter home, put her to bed, washed and changed her after she wet the bed - but hadn't noticed whether or not she'd had a heart drawn on her hand?

If she "didn't like it", why didn't Patsy wash it off?

[SaraSidle]

No; I am not going to do searches and provide a link for you.

I remember it distinctly, and if you haven't followed this case enough to have heard it - well, go ahead and call me a liar. I don't care.


And you've heard it said that Patsy brought her daughter home, put her to bed, washed and changed her after she wet the bed - but hadn't noticed whether or not she'd had a heart drawn on her hand?

If she "didn't like it", why didn't Patsy wash it off?

Do you think there is something you have read or heard about the scene of the crime besides the DNA that might not be true?

[cookiewench]

Do you think there is something you have read or heard about the scene of the crime besides the DNA that might not be true?

Not when it's in an autopsy report or a police report by law enforcement who have no dog in the fight. I don't believe that the Ramsey's friends had any reason to lie about them, either.


The only proven liars in this case are the Ramseys and JMK. Lacy might not be an intentional liar - just a real dumb broad with an agenda.

[docky]

I'm still leaning towards Santa..Dig him up and do some more DNA on him!!

[LindaA]

You must have me confused with some other poster. I never said that I "had this figured out" as far as the details of what went on that night.

What I did say was that I'm sure that Patsy was the perp and that Patsy wrote that note.



On the other hand..........why do you believe that a perp would go down two full floors into the basement to get a paintbrush to make the garotte, and then bring it up the two sets of stairs again? You don't think there was a pencil or some other object that could have been used in the garotte in the upstairs? The pencil cup in the kitchen certainly would have been closer/easier than rummaging around in the basement for a paintbrush.

Why do you think she was garroted on the top floor? Her urine on the basement floor indicates she died there.

[Bystander]

Patsy has been OFFICIALLY cleared of murdering her daughter! RDIs need to get over it! :)

I think that the opinion of neither the "RDI's," nor the "IDI's" are worth much since they are so completely polarized as to be predictable. I wish both sides would stop trying to force their views on everyone else, since both only post what suits their side and ignore the rest of the details. (with a very few exceptions.)

If the poor mother didn't do it, then more power to her for having something that helps exonerate her. She deserves much compassion for the way she's been treated. Even if she did do it, I would feel compassion for her losing a child that she cared deeply for, by all accounts.

But though the dna evidence is compelling and an indication of someone else being there, that is all it says so far. She wont be cleared in the minds of everybody until someone is found who matches that dna profile, whose handwriting matches the ransom note in some way, and who can explain how they did all the things they did. You can stand there bellowing that she's been cleared, but it's not gonna be the last word.

The dna evidence is a good start but it's nothing more than they had before, ie. reasonable doubt, which is probably the real reason they didn't indict anybody when all is said and done. Why then is there so much crowing going on for what's basically nothing new?

When they match that dna and come up with a real person, rather than some shadowy mysterious super intruder who combines all the abilities of clark kent and an ninja gone astray, (he uses editorial marks in his ransom notes? ) then there will be reason to celebrate and I'm sure everyone who is an RDI will be big enough to admit it. Or at least will do so grudgingly.

In the meantime, it's a chore trying to find a place that isn't infested with this stupid childish behavior so constantly.

Does anyone know of a truly open-minded discussion board where this doesn't intrude so religiously on the topic? It's entertaining to watch all the sophmoric behavior but it gets tiresome and the bias is so extreme it's made even good posters look really ugly.

[LindaA]

No; I am not going to do searches and provide a link for you.

I remember it distinctly, and if you haven't followed this case enough to have heard it - well, go ahead and call me a liar. I don't care.


And you've heard it said that Patsy brought her daughter home, put her to bed, washed and changed her after she wet the bed - but hadn't noticed whether or not she'd had a heart drawn on her hand?

If she "didn't like it", why didn't Patsy wash it off?


You obviously don't know Athena if you can doubt she has followed this case!!! Her info is reliable, and a poster who makes a claim should be able to back it up with a source. Just saying you rememeber it is a cop out.

[LindaA]

Talk about sophomoric behavior!!! Some of you Johnny-come-latelies to this discussion are being extremely rude and showing your ignorance of the case to boot. You obviously don't understand scientific evidence. The presence of DNA in the particular spots is proof that someone else was in that basement with JBR that night, pulled herl ongjohns and her pants down and was close top her when the paint brush was jabbed into her vagina. It is unreasonable to think otherwise. And if they were there and did those things, the odds are pretty good that they are the murderer. MOO.

[Athena]

No; I am not going to do searches and provide a link for you.

I remember it distinctly, and if you haven't followed this case enough to have heard it - well, go ahead and call me a liar. I don't care.


And you've heard it said that Patsy brought her daughter home, put her to bed, washed and changed her after she wet the bed - but hadn't noticed whether or not she'd had a heart drawn on her hand?

If she "didn't like it", why didn't Patsy wash it off?

First of all I did not call you a liar; I would not do that. Asking for a source for a claim that YOU have made that is unsubstantiated is SOP.

There you go again -- Patsy did not come home and change her AFTER she WET the bed nor did she wash her. :confused: Patsy put her to bed after returning from a visit to a friend's house to deliver Christmas gifts. If YOU'VE followed this case you should know that. The reason I asked for a source is because I have participated in and read just about every available document and/or books on this case and have never read what you are posting. :rolleyes:

[Bystander]

You obviously don't know Athena if you can doubt she has followed this case!!! Her info is reliable, and a poster who makes a claim should be able to back it up with a source. Just saying you rememeber it is a cop out.


Well there you go. Neither one of them provided a link, just their memory of the facts, which is what I view as bias.

[Athena]

I think that the opinion of neither the "RDI's," nor the "IDI's" are worth much since they are so completely polarized as to be predictable. I wish both sides would stop trying to force their views on everyone else, since both only post what suits their side and ignore the rest of the details. (with a very few exceptions.)

If the poor mother didn't do it, then more power to her for having something that helps exonerate her. She deserves much compassion for the way she's been treated. Even if she did do it, I would feel compassion for her losing a child that she cared deeply for, by all accounts.

But though the dna evidence is compelling and an indication of someone else being there, that is all it says so far. She wont be cleared in the minds of everybody until someone is found who matches that dna profile, whose handwriting matches the ransom note in some way, and who can explain how they did all the things they did. You can stand there bellowing that she's been cleared, but it's not gonna be the last word.

The dna evidence is a good start but it's nothing more than they had before, ie. reasonable doubt, which is probably the real reason they didn't indict anybody when all is said and done. Why then is there so much crowing going on for what's basically nothing new?

When they match that dna and come up with a real person, rather than some shadowy mysterious super intruder who combines all the abilities of clark kent and an ninja gone astray, (he uses editorial marks in his ransom notes? ) then there will be reason to celebrate and I'm sure everyone who is an RDI will be big enough to admit it. Or at least will do so grudgingly.

In the meantime, it's a chore trying to find a place that isn't infested with this stupid childish behavior so constantly.

Does anyone know of a truly open-minded discussion board where this doesn't intrude so religiously on the topic? It's entertaining to watch all the sophmoric behavior but it gets tiresome and the bias is so extreme it's made even good posters look really ugly.

I have always left open the possibility that a parent did this because parents are capable of killing their children, however, our Justice System allows for a person to be innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. There is ABSOLUTELY NO HARD EVIDENCE now or ever that has indicated the Ramseys killed their babygirl. NONE. Until such time that evidence is provided to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty - I stand by my convictions.

One thing is clear -- DNA does not lie. There was doubt of a third party because the DNA found in her underwear was claimed to be "artifact" because it was possibly deposited by a factory worker as he was packaging the underwear.

However, in light of the NEW DNA analysis which MATCHES the DNA in her underwear it is without doubt deposited by AN UNKNOWN male. There is NO INNOCENT explanation of the SAME DNA found on two totally different items of clothing unless of course the SAME factory worker also pulled up and down her longjohns as well as packaged those underwear; and just how likely would that be? LOL JMHO

[Athena]

Well there you go. Neither one of them provided a link, just their memory of the facts, which is what I view as bias.

Every possible document/article/transcript you want to find can be found on the site I linked to previously. They are neither IDI nor RDI but give both sides but since you asked:

http://www.acandyrose.com/

PR: And Stines and dropped off a little gift and drove home and JonBenet was asleep. She had fallen asleep in the car.

TT: Did you have to wake her up to get her inside or. . .

PR: Well, she was just really zonked and John carried her up to her room.

TT: Okay.

PR: And I uh, you know, ran up behind him and, or in front of him, I can’t remember. Maybe, or it might have been in front of him to turn the bed down.

TT: Um hum.

PR: And he laid her down and I got her undressed and put her, I left her shirt on her and uh, went in the bathroom and tried to find some pajama pants and all I could find was some, like long underwear pants. . .

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

21 PATSY RAMSEY: I didn't notice

22 anything that night when she went to bed. And,

23 you know, I know there was a red heart on her

24 hand or her forehead. I don't know when that --

25 I mean, you know, I didn't -- I didn't inspect

0195

1 her when I put her to bed.

2 THOMAS HANEY: But when you put her

3 to bed, let's talk about that. We will go into

4 a little more detail later, because we have some

5 photographs and we want to talk about that. You

6 were -- at least changed part of her clothing

7 when she is asleep?

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum, right.

9 THOMAS HANEY: Doesn't --

10 (INAUDIBLE). Did you notice anything?

11 PATSY RAMSEY: (No response.)

12 THOMAS HANEY: Would she have

13 washed her hands at a particular time?

14 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, at dinner, she

15 rarely washed her hands.

16 THOMAS HANEY: Would she, or

17 perhaps she had been eating crab and you have

18 that slimy stuff all over?

19 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, I think she is

20 going to wash her hands. But I didn't see her.

21 I don't know.

22 THOMAS HANEY: Getting her ready

23 that early afternoon, four or five o'clock, did

24 you give her a bath, did she take a bath?

25 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't think so.

0196

1 THOMAS HANEY: You don't think you

2 gave her one?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-uh.

4 THOMAS HANEY: Do you think she

5 took one?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, she didn't take

7 one (INAUDIBLE).

8 THOMAS HANEY: Showers?

9 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-uh.

10 THOMAS HANEY: Would she have

11 washed her hands before getting ready to go?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: I'd like to think

13 so, but I just don't know for sure.

14 TRIP DeMUTH: At the Whites, did

15 somebody say, oh, here, get ready for dinner?

16 Did somebody tell her to go wash her hands at

17 the Whites, do you remember anything about that?

18 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know.

19 TRIP DeMUTH: How was she about

20 washing her hands?

21 PATSY RAMSEY: Just typical kid,

22 you know, if she can get by with it, she

23 wouldn't do it. You know, but I was pretty much

24 always (INAUDIBLE). (Gesturing.)

25 TRIP DeMUTH: Had you referred to

0197

1 that at all Christmas Day?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. I

3 don't remember exactly, but I may have.

4 TRIP DeMUTH: How do you know there

5 was a heart on her hand?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: Because it was on

7 there in the morning, that's why.

8 TRIP DeMUTH: And you remember it

9 from the next morning?

10 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.

11 TRIP DeMUTH: You saw it the next

12 morning?

13 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.

14 TRIP DeMUTH: When you say the next

15 morning, did you remember it from the previous

16 evening?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: (Shaking head.) (No

18 response.)

19 TRIP DeMUTH: Did she -- I mean did

20 it get there, was that something she would do

21 or --

22 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, she and

23 Daphne, you know, a lot of times drew on

24 themselves.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

[LadyFisher]

Talk about sophomoric behavior!!! Some of you Johnny-come-latelies to this discussion are being extremely rude and showing your ignorance of the case to boot. You obviously don't understand scientific evidence. The presence of DNA in the particular spots is proof that someone else was in that basement with JBR that night, pulled herl ongjohns and her pants down and was close top her when the paint brush was jabbed into her vagina. It is unreasonable to think otherwise. And if they were there and did those things, the odds are pretty good that they are the murderer. MOO.Linda, I keep hearing about the "mountain of evidence" against the Ramseys, but, nobody seems to know what that evidence is.......and, the Ramseys have been officially cleared....I don't see them in the discussion equation concerning suspects beneficial....I do believe someone got away with murder....and not Patsy or John Ramsey......let them name-call......I've read meltdowns all over the boards over the R's being cleared.....did not expect anything but that to happen, did you???jmho

[cookiewench]

Every possible document/article/transcript you want to find can be found on the site I linked to previously. They are neither IDI nor RDI but give both sides but since you asked:

http://www.acandyrose.com/

PR: And Stines and dropped off a little gift and drove home and JonBenet was asleep. She had fallen asleep in the car.

TT: Did you have to wake her up to get her inside or. . .

PR: Well, she was just really zonked and John carried her up to her room.

TT: Okay.

PR: And I uh, you know, ran up behind him and, or in front of him, I can’t remember. Maybe, or it might have been in front of him to turn the bed down.

TT: Um hum.

PR: And he laid her down and I got her undressed and put her, I left her shirt on her and uh, went in the bathroom and tried to find some pajama pants and all I could find was some, like long underwear pants. . .

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

21 PATSY RAMSEY: I didn't notice

22 anything that night when she went to bed. And,

23 you know, I know there was a red heart on her

24 hand or her forehead. I don't know when that --

25 I mean, you know, I didn't -- I didn't inspect

0195

1 her when I put her to bed.

2 THOMAS HANEY: But when you put her

3 to bed, let's talk about that. We will go into

4 a little more detail later, because we have some

5 photographs and we want to talk about that. You

6 were -- at least changed part of her clothing

7 when she is asleep?

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum, right.

9 THOMAS HANEY: Doesn't --

10 (INAUDIBLE). Did you notice anything?

11 PATSY RAMSEY: (No response.)

12 THOMAS HANEY: Would she have

13 washed her hands at a particular time?

14 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, at dinner, she

15 rarely washed her hands.

16 THOMAS HANEY: Would she, or

17 perhaps she had been eating crab and you have

18 that slimy stuff all over?

19 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, I think she is

20 going to wash her hands. But I didn't see her.

21 I don't know.

22 THOMAS HANEY: Getting her ready

23 that early afternoon, four or five o'clock, did

24 you give her a bath, did she take a bath?

25 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't think so.

0196

1 THOMAS HANEY: You don't think you

2 gave her one?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-uh.

4 THOMAS HANEY: Do you think she

5 took one?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, she didn't take

7 one (INAUDIBLE).

8 THOMAS HANEY: Showers?

9 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-uh.

10 THOMAS HANEY: Would she have

11 washed her hands before getting ready to go?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: I'd like to think

13 so, but I just don't know for sure.

14 TRIP DeMUTH: At the Whites, did

15 somebody say, oh, here, get ready for dinner?

16 Did somebody tell her to go wash her hands at

17 the Whites, do you remember anything about that?

18 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know.

19 TRIP DeMUTH: How was she about

20 washing her hands?

21 PATSY RAMSEY: Just typical kid,

22 you know, if she can get by with it, she

23 wouldn't do it. You know, but I was pretty much

24 always (INAUDIBLE). (Gesturing.)

25 TRIP DeMUTH: Had you referred to

0197

1 that at all Christmas Day?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. I

3 don't remember exactly, but I may have.

4 TRIP DeMUTH: How do you know there

5 was a heart on her hand?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: Because it was on

7 there in the morning, that's why.

8 TRIP DeMUTH: And you remember it

9 from the next morning?

10 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.

11 TRIP DeMUTH: You saw it the next

12 morning?

13 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.

14 TRIP DeMUTH: When you say the next

15 morning, did you remember it from the previous

16 evening?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: (Shaking head.) (No

18 response.)

19 TRIP DeMUTH: Did she -- I mean did

20 it get there, was that something she would do

21 or --

22 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, she and

23 Daphne, you know, a lot of times drew on

24 themselves.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm


And this means what.............as per witnesses/friends who said that Patsy sometimes drew a heart on her daughter's palm?

[cookiewench]

First of all I did not call you a liar; I would not do that. Asking for a source for a claim that YOU have made that is unsubstantiated is SOP.

There you go again -- Patsy did not come home and change her AFTER she WET the bed nor did she wash her. :confused: Patsy put her to bed after returning from a visit to a friend's house to deliver Christmas gifts. If YOU'VE followed this case you should know that. The reason I asked for a source is because I have participated in and read just about every available document and/or books on this case and have never read what you are posting. :rolleyes:

Are you saying that someone who followed this case wouldn't know that Jonbenet had a heart drawn on her palm?

[cookiewench]

Or......are you saying that the hallway cabinet door wasn't hanging open and a bag of pull-ups hanging out of them - as if someone had grabbed on in a hurry?

Or are you saying that an intruder changed Jonbenet into her favorite top and wrapped her in her favorite blanket - after washing her up after she wet the bed?


Oooooookay

[cookiewench]

Patsy put her to bed after returning from a visit to a friend's house to deliver Christmas gifts. If YOU'VE followed this case you should know that. :rolleyes:


I've followed this case enough to know that Patsy didn't "put her to bed after returning from a visit to a friend's house to deliver Christmas gifts".

Patsy claims to have put her to bed after the entire family returned home from a Christmas party - and from dropping off some gifts on their way home.

[Athena]

What I've said are NONE OF THE ABOVE just in case this was multiple choice.

What I did say was backed up by documentation. Still waiting for yours.

[cookiewench]

Why do you think she was garroted on the top floor? Her urine on the basement floor indicates she died there.


I didn't say that I think she was garotted on the top floor. I do not think that.


I was responding to a poster with a "perp" theory, asking them why the perp would go down into a dark basement, break off a paintbrush, and bring it upstairs to use as a garotte.

Someone carried her downstair after the head wound but before the garotting.

Someone also fed her pineapple and then waited around 1-2 hours for her to digest it.

I guess Jonbenet sat there "digesting" while this intruder wrote the practice note/ransom note.

[Bystander]

Talk about sophomoric behavior!!! Some of you Johnny-come-latelies to this discussion are being extremely rude and showing your ignorance of the case to boot. You obviously don't understand scientific evidence. The presence of DNA in the particular spots is proof that someone else was in that basement with JBR that night, pulled herl ongjohns and her pants down and was close top her when the paint brush was jabbed into her vagina. It is unreasonable to think otherwise. And if they were there and did those things, the odds are pretty good that they are the murderer. MOO.

LOL!!! um, which scientific evidence specifically shows that he pulled her longjohns down, along with her pants? Can you say how far he pulled them down, too, based on the touch dna? No, it proves that someone touched her longjohns in that area, but doesn't show anymore than that. The fact that they looked in a certain area and found evidence to back up their theory is good. The rest is a theory based on the little scientific evidence they have and still needs corroboration. As I said, I will appreciate if you also, will allow other's to decide what a reasonable conclusion is, for themselves. Even the Johnny-late-comers, since you have no idea what we do or don't understand.

What shows that the paint brush was actually used? (besides the fibers in the autopsy report?) I'm relying on your superior understanding of the the scientific evidence here.

[cookiewench]

Reference to Patsy having drawn hearts on Jonbenet's palm in the past:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/nebula/9337/unexplained.html


Patsy says she saw the heart on Jonbenet's body, but later claims that she "can't remember" if she saw it or not:


http://forum.signonsandiego.com/archive/index.php/t-6440.html

[cookiewench]

Talk about sophomoric behavior!!! Some of you Johnny-come-latelies to this discussion are being extremely rude and showing your ignorance of the case to boot. You obviously don't understand scientific evidence. The presence of DNA in the particular spots is proof that someone else was in that basement with JBR that night, pulled herl ongjohns and her pants down and was close top her when the paint brush was jabbed into her vagina. It is unreasonable to think otherwise. And if they were there and did those things, the odds are pretty good that they are the murderer. MOO.

WHO doesn't understand scientific evidence?

DNA on the longjohns only shows that someone touched those lj's at some point.

It is NOT scientific evidence that this person was in the basement with Jonbenet, NOR that they pulled the longjohn's down.

Now.........fibers from the clothes Patsy wore that night being underneath the garotte rope IS scientific evidence.

Especially since...........Jonbenet was garotted in the basement AFTER the perp had washed her and changed her clothes. That poor perp just happened to get Patsy's fibers on his hands and managed to have enough of them still on "his" hands after handlling Jonbenet's washed body/clean clothes, carrying her down two flights of steps - and still had enough of them clinging to his hands that they got inside the garotte.

Sure.

[Athena]

Reference to Patsy having drawn hearts on Jonbenet's palm in the past:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/nebula/9337/unexplained.html


Patsy says she saw the heart on Jonbenet's body, but later claims that she "can't remember" if she saw it or not:


http://forum.signonsandiego.com/archive/index.php/t-6440.html

OK I'm done! I understand now why you have misinformation. Perhaps you should read opening statements from your link (and note this was written in 1998 and since then misinformation has been corrected):

I have tried to keep these pages as simple to load and read as I can. These pages are my thoughts and are not represented as facts concerning the JonBenet Ramsey Murder. I have tried to be as accurate as I can. After two years of reading and thinking about this case, some information is bound to be misinterpreted or wrong.

[LindaA]

I'm out of this discussion, too. No point in arguming with people who don't want to understand the facts.

[Bystander]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bystander
Well there you go. Neither one of them provided a link, just their memory of the facts, which is what I view as bias.

Every possible document/article/transcript you want to find can be found on the site I linked to previously. They are neither IDI nor RDI but give both sides but since you asked:

I wasn't asking the OP for a link. I was pointing out that she said one poster was copping out for not linking, while the person she was sticking up for didn't link either. It's gang banging based on rdi/idi bias and a double standard to boot. I appreciate you taking the time to find it though.

[cookiewench]

OK I'm done! I understand now why you have misinformation. Perhaps you should read opening statements from your link (and note this was written in 1998 and since then misinformation has been corrected):

I have tried to keep these pages as simple to load and read as I can. These pages are my thoughts and are not represented as facts concerning the JonBenet Ramsey Murder. I have tried to be as accurate as I can. After two years of reading and thinking about this case, some information is bound to be misinterpreted or wrong.

Are you saying that there aren't any facts on those links? That's interesting?

Of course....you could google "Patsy Ramsey heart Jonbenet's palm" yourself.........but since you've left this discussion, I guess you won't see my post.

I'll just post here in case any lurkers are interested, then:

There was something on one of those links that reminded me of something else in this case:

The Swiss Army knife had residue from the duct tape that was found on Jonbenet. This was assumed, for that reason, to be the knife that was used to cut that tape.

One of the housekeepers said that she had taken that Swiss Army knife away from Burke and hidden it in a cabinet - in a place that she told Patsy, only of.

The alleged "intruder" came into that house to commit a complicated, heinous crime, and yet brought no tools with him:

No duct tape, knife, garotte, paper & pencil for the note - nothing.

The baseball bat outside the house with carpet fibers is just another red herring: if it had been used on Jonbenet's head, a lot more than some carpet fibers would have been found on it.

[cookiewench]

Patsy lets her only living child walk out the door with his Nintendo game to go to a friend's house, but then tells the rest of the city to "hold your babies close" because there's a killer on the loose.

I guess a kidnapper on the loose wasn't enough for her to "hold her baby close".


I'll never forget seeing Patsy on her first PR "commercial", with her perfect makeup, claiming that "at least two" people know who did this: "the perpetrator, and perhaps one person who they told".


The look of amazement on John's face as he looked over at her and tried to hide mask his feeling was really something else.

Astounding. The note said "a small foreign faction", but now Patsy has decided that it was ONE person, and that his ONE person told ONE other person: not that this ONE person may have told NO ONE, or that this ONE person may have told two or three people.

It was a confession of sorts, and John's face showed it.

Indeed.....two people DID know what happened: the perpetrator (Patsy) and the ONE person she told about it (either directly or tacitly): John.

[Bystander]

I rarely visit these forums but I was in the RDI camp. It would appear I was wrong and happily admit it. I think the touch DNA is extremely powerful evidence and have seen it used in other cases. It also shows that apparently none of the strong suspects the police have developed over the years are responsible.

ET

I think that's very interesting also, that this DNA doesn't lead to one single person that they've investigated over the years, so far. (and there's no hidden meaning in that statement) I'm guessing that money's an object, since I hear dna testing is expensive. Maybe there will be a match down the road. I would be surprised if it were a total stranger and this was just a random targeting, simply because of the comfort level that was exhibited during the crime and as you say, they've looked at people over the years. They must have some other's who stand out as possiblities based on the other available evidence.

[Athena]

I think that's very interesting also, that this DNA doesn't lead to one single person that they've investigated over the years, so far. (and there's no hidden meaning in that statement) I'm guessing that money's an object, since I hear dna testing is expensive. Maybe there will be a match down the road. I would be surprised if it were a total stranger and this was just a random targeting, simply because of the comfort level that was exhibited during the crime and as you say, they've looked at people over the years. They must have some other's who stand out as possiblities based on the other available evidence.

Although it is true a lot of "potential suspects" had DNA testing, most of them came back inconclusive but were still cleared. IMO they all need to be re-tested with more advanced DNA methods. I also think the perp knows the Ramseys and is not a random intruder.

This is a statement Barry Scheck made re: the DNA testing just before the grand jury convened: Source: PMPT

The results of DNA testing were inconclusive at this time the police said. The DNA found under JonBenet’s fingernails showed the possibility of contamination. Nevertheless, the police claimed they had been able to exclude certain people by these DNA tests. This led Barry Scheck to comment, “You can’t say the DNA test results are iffy and then exclude people because their DNA doesn’t match. You can’t have your cake and eat it.” He recommended further RFLP or newer types of PCR testing. Most in the audience considered the DNA test results the WEAKEST part of the presentation.

[Bystander]

Although it is true a lot of "potential suspects" had DNA testing, most of them came back inconclusive but were still cleared. IMO they all need to be re-tested with more advanced DNA methods. I also think the perp knows the Ramseys and is not a random intruder.
This is a statement Barry Scheck made re: the DNA testing just before the grand jury convened: Source: PMPT



Maybe they've already done some retesting?

There are things that make people think the murderer knew the family and the house. I would be willing to bet that they are many of the same things that others see as pointing to the family. There's some middle ground there, so it'd be nice to see what everyone thinks they are.

[shill]

Lou Smit is ridiculous. He has some kind of religious connection to the R's, and so has sold his integrity down the river.


I can't prove they killed their daughter, but law enforcement should have had them arrested, tried, and convicted a long time ago.

But I wouldn't hold my breath about some "outside perp" being arrested and tried - ever. Such a person doesn't exist.
You know rashomon told me the same thing, "don't hold your breath".

You think LE should have had "them arrested, tried, and convicted a long time ago", but that never happened, and yet you don't wonder why?.
Well let me tell you why this never happened, there was no evidence to do this, do you understand?

[Jayelles]

I think that the opinion of neither the "RDI's," nor the "IDI's" are worth much since they are so completely polarized as to be predictable. I wish both sides would stop trying to force their views on everyone else, since both only post what suits their side and ignore the rest of the details. (with a very few exceptions.)

If the poor mother didn't do it, then more power to her for having something that helps exonerate her. She deserves much compassion for the way she's been treated. Even if she did do it, I would feel compassion for her losing a child that she cared deeply for, by all accounts.

But though the dna evidence is compelling and an indication of someone else being there, that is all it says so far. She wont be cleared in the minds of everybody until someone is found who matches that dna profile, whose handwriting matches the ransom note in some way, and who can explain how they did all the things they did. You can stand there bellowing that she's been cleared, but it's not gonna be the last word.

The dna evidence is a good start but it's nothing more than they had before, ie. reasonable doubt, which is probably the real reason they didn't indict anybody when all is said and done. Why then is there so much crowing going on for what's basically nothing new?

When they match that dna and come up with a real person, rather than some shadowy mysterious super intruder who combines all the abilities of clark kent and an ninja gone astray, (he uses editorial marks in his ransom notes? ) then there will be reason to celebrate and I'm sure everyone who is an RDI will be big enough to admit it. Or at least will do so grudgingly.

In the meantime, it's a chore trying to find a place that isn't infested with this stupid childish behavior so constantly.

Does anyone know of a truly open-minded discussion board where this doesn't intrude so religiously on the topic? It's entertaining to watch all the sophmoric behavior but it gets tiresome and the bias is so extreme it's made even good posters look really ugly.

You really speak the truth :beer:

[Jayelles]

LOL!!! um, which scientific evidence specifically shows that he pulled her longjohns down, along with her pants? Can you say how far he pulled them down, too, based on the touch dna? No, it proves that someone touched her longjohns in that area, but doesn't show anymore than that. The fact that they looked in a certain area and found evidence to back up their theory is good. The rest is a theory based on the little scientific evidence they have and still needs corroboration. As I said, I will appreciate if you also, will allow other's to decide what a reasonable conclusion is, for themselves. Even the Johnny-late-comers, since you have no idea what we do or don't understand.

What shows that the paint brush was actually used? (besides the fibers in the autopsy report?) I'm relying on your superior understanding of the the scientific evidence here.

There is more than one possible explanation for touch DNA being on the sides of the waistband of the longjohns. That is where a person would hold them if they were being folded or held up for perusal by a shopper in a store or handled by a shop assistant. The presence of DNA on longjohn waistband is not merely indicative that the owner of the DNA pulled them down whilst they were being worn.

I am puzzled by the fact that there is no match to the DNA. This was a particularly heinous and high risk crime and it seems odd that it would be a first and only offence if it were NOT committed by someone close to the victim whose motive was very "personal".

[Jayelles]

Although it is true a lot of "potential suspects" had DNA testing, most of them came back inconclusive but were still cleared. IMO they all need to be re-tested with more advanced DNA methods. I also think the perp knows the Ramseys and is not a random intruder.

This is a statement Barry Scheck made re: the DNA testing just before the grand jury convened: Source: PMPT

The results of DNA testing were inconclusive at this time the police said. The DNA found under JonBenet’s fingernails showed the possibility of contamination. Nevertheless, the police claimed they had been able to exclude certain people by these DNA tests. This led Barry Scheck to comment, “You can’t say the DNA test results are iffy and then exclude people because their DNA doesn’t match. You can’t have your cake and eat it.” He recommended further RFLP or newer types of PCR testing. Most in the audience considered the DNA test results the WEAKEST part of the presentation.

IMO you are misinterpreting what ws meant by "inconclusive". I think the word "inconclusive" was used in relation to the degraded sample and whether it was related to the crime. I don't think for a second that Barry Scheck was suggesting that there were suspects whose DNA was "inconclusive" with regard to being a match for the foreign DNA.

[MyrDawn]

WHO doesn't understand scientific evidence?

DNA on the longjohns only shows that someone touched those lj's at some point.

It is NOT scientific evidence that this person was in the basement with Jonbenet, NOR that they pulled the longjohn's down.

Now.........fibers from the clothes Patsy wore that night being underneath the garotte rope IS scientific evidence.

Especially since...........Jonbenet was garotted in the basement AFTER the perp had washed her and changed her clothes. That poor perp just happened to get Patsy's fibers on his hands and managed to have enough of them still on "his" hands after handlling Jonbenet's washed body/clean clothes, carrying her down two flights of steps - and still had enough of them clinging to his hands that they got inside the garotte.

Sure.

Why do you ignore the fact that the DNA from JonBenet's long johns matches the DNA found on the crotch of her panties? If the person that left that DNA didn't pull JonBenet's long johns down, how did their DNA get on the crotch of her panties that were UNDER her long johns? The panties that were removed NEW from a package just before she wore them?

[Athena]

IMO you are misinterpreting what ws meant by "inconclusive". I think the word "inconclusive" was used in relation to the degraded sample and whether it was related to the crime. I don't think for a second that Barry Scheck was suggesting that there were suspects whose DNA was "inconclusive" with regard to being a match for the foreign DNA.

I am not misinterpreting what is meant by inconclusive. If you don't have enough of the most important markers to do DNA testing against -- how can you CLEAR someone? At the time DNA testing took place, the DNA under her fingernails and on the underwear were incomplete profiles. The second spot was finally isolated and was not entered into CODIS until 2002. IMO EVERYONE needs to be retested as Scheck suggested in 1999.

Scheck:
Nevertheless, the police claimed they had been able to exclude certain people by these DNA tests. This led Barry Scheck to comment, “You can’t say the DNA test results are iffy and then exclude people because their DNA doesn’t match. You can’t have your cake and eat it.” He recommended further RFLP or newer types of PCR testing. Most in the audience considered the DNA test results the WEAKEST part of the presentation.

[Jayelles]

I am not misinterpreting what is meant by inconclusive. If you don't have enough of the most important markers to do DNA testing against -- how can you CLEAR someone? At the time DNA testing took place, the DNA under her fingernails and on the underwear were incomplete profiles. The second spot was finally isolated and was not entered into CODIS until 2002. IMO EVERYONE needs to be retested as Scheck suggested in 1999.

Scheck:
Nevertheless, the police claimed they had been able to exclude certain people by these DNA tests. This led Barry Scheck to comment, “You can’t say the DNA test results are iffy and then exclude people because their DNA doesn’t match. You can’t have your cake and eat it.” He recommended further RFLP or newer types of PCR testing. Most in the audience considered the DNA test results the WEAKEST part of the presentation.

It is my understanding that the opposite is true. i.e. that if you only have a partial profile from a piece of DNA that definitely belongs to the perpetrator of a crime, then you can ONLY clear people from it! You can say for certain that it doesn't belong to Person A because Person A doesn't have those markers. There's a quote somewhere about the DNA only being good to clear people but not good enough to incriminate.

You seem to be saying that because the DNA profile was incomplete that everyone's DNA was inconclusive. How do you reconcile that with the fact that the DNA was eventually good enough to be entered into CODIS?

The problem was that there was uncertainty that the DNA was actually related to the crime and I think this is what barry Scheck is referring to here i.e. that you cannot say that DNA may not be related to a crime but then proceed to clear people by it - something myself and others have been saying for years.

I really do think you are misinterpreting this.

IMO if the DNA is questionable, then it shouldn't exclude anyone. I have always said that the only people who should have been cleared from this crime are those who had a cast-iron alibi.

[hankfromthebank]

They are not cleared in my mind.

[StarShine]

They are cleared in my mind but then I never ever thought they had anything to do with the murder of their daughter.

[cookiewench]

There is more than one possible explanation for touch DNA being on the sides of the waistband of the longjohns. That is where a person would hold them if they were being folded or held up for perusal by a shopper in a store or handled by a shop assistant. The presence of DNA on longjohn waistband is not merely indicative that the owner of the DNA pulled them down whilst they were being worn.



I believe you are correct on that issue.

An intruder couldn't have done all the things this on did and only leave a teeny amount of "touch" DNA there, IMO.

This miniscule amount of DNA, versus the huge number of evidences and circumstances that point to the Ramseys, and the Ramseys only is amazing, IMO.

[Zold1]

I believe you are correct on that issue.

An intruder couldn't have done all the things this on did and only leave a teeny amount of "touch" DNA there, IMO.

This miniscule amount of DNA, versus the huge number of evidences and circumstances that point to the Ramseys, and the Ramseys only is amazing, IMO.


Yet you refuse to acknowledge the DNA saliva on the crotch of JBR's panties, the same as the touch DNA on the sides of the P.J.'s?! What is this board, selective eyesight? Do not believe your lying eyes and positive findings?

THE HEART
I appreciate the clearance of the issue of the heart. I'm satisfied Patsy didn't have a clue a heart was on JB's hand until after the fact. You can't know everything your child is doing at a party of such magnitude and after an entertainment production. It is of little significance since it was there before the murder. I know police deliberately withhold information they believe only a killer would know.

LACK OF CASE KNOWLEDGE
There is no need to be vicious in posting because of the lack of knowledge of the other posters. Some of us are alarmed at the real evidence that has finally surfaced. I had eluded I had not followed the case as I should, because most of us have a serious work life style and not the time to devote to any case. I see many are very passionate about their viewpoints. However, if everyone is of like mind and only wishing to find the responsible, then we have to break the habit of zeroing in on specific persons of interest, stubbornly refusing to look at other possible candidates. Let's pursue someone else as they are cleared one by one. The possibility exits and is very real that strangers enter homes and steal children. There is no rhyme or reason to some of these killers. The only reason to kill JBR was that she knew her attacker. He could not let that happen and had to kill her. IMO.

RAMSEY HATRED
I do not understand the overwhelming hatred of Patsy Ramsey I have seen portrayed by some posters. It makes no sense to me, but there is obviously some axe to grind on her dead gravestone. I have no idea what would possess anyone to camp on a person cleared by the District Attorney who generally never wants to clear anybody ever, and who thinks everyone but themselves should be incarcerated. I obviously have great respect for a D.A. who bites the bullet and acknowleges innocence to the point of risking her future employment and climb up the social ladder by speaking out loud and very public, that these persons who were persecuted for 12 years are now without any doubt cleared of the murder of their daughter JBR. She is risking her climb to Governor by shouting innocense. Such an audacious individual!

[cookiewench]

Yet you refuse to acknowledge the DNA saliva on the crotch of JBR's panties, the same as the touch DNA on the sides of the P.J.'s?!


I just don't happen to think it's as weighty as you do, considering all the other evidences and circumstances that point to the Ramseys, and away from there ever being a stranger in the house that night.

We all pick up DNA all over the place, wherever we go. I believe it was Dr. Lee who tested some underwear right out of the bag from China, and found as much DNA on it as was on Jonbenet.

We don't even know if the tights were ones JB wore before, if she had worn them somewhere else and then not had them laundered, but put away to wear again (as Patsy has admitted that she, herself, does with her clothing), etc.

We do know that the underwear she had on was right out of the bag.

[cookiewench]

It is of little significance since it was there before the murder.


You know no such thing. You claim that Patsy doesn't know how or when it got there, and yet you do?


And what was this "entertainment production" they went to that night? That's news to me. I'd always heard they were at a private family party at a friend's house.

[Athena]

It is my understanding that the opposite is true. i.e. that if you only have a partial profile from a piece of DNA that definitely belongs to the perpetrator of a crime, then you can ONLY clear people from it! You can say for certain that it doesn't belong to Person A because Person A doesn't have those markers. There's a quote somewhere about the DNA only being good to clear people but not good enough to incriminate.

You seem to be saying that because the DNA profile was incomplete that everyone's DNA was inconclusive. How do you reconcile that with the fact that the DNA was eventually good enough to be entered into CODIS?

The problem was that there was uncertainty that the DNA was actually related to the crime and I think this is what barry Scheck is referring to here i.e. that you cannot say that DNA may not be related to a crime but then proceed to clear people by it - something myself and others have been saying for years.

I really do think you are misinterpreting this.

IMO if the DNA is questionable, then it shouldn't exclude anyone. I have always said that the only people who should have been cleared from this crime are those who had a cast-iron alibi.

I agree 100% with your last statement above and IMO this is what Barry Scheck is saying. Those DNA tests were done PRIOR to the sample that they isolated and was only entered into CODIS IN 2002. People should NOT have been cleared from the original "iffy" DNA sample including the Ramseys. JMHO

In light of this NEW DNA that now matches the DNA that has been entered into CODIS - EVERYONE should be re-tested. The only people now who are cleared are the Ramseys. There is NO INNOCENT explanation for the SAME DNA to be in the underwear/fluid and and on the waistband of the longjohns (skin cells).

Also Denver LE and the FBI were involved with this new DNA not just the Bode Tech.

[cookiewench]

I do not understand the overwhelming hatred of Patsy Ramsey I have seen portrayed by some posters. It makes no sense to me, but there is obviously some axe to grind on her dead gravestone. I have no idea what would possess anyone to camp on a person cleared by the District Attorney who generally never wants to clear anybody ever, and who thinks everyone but themselves should be incarcerated. I obviously have great respect for a D.A. who bites the bullet and acknowleges innocence to the point of risking her future employment and climb up the social ladder by speaking out loud and very public, that these persons who were persecuted for 12 years are now without any doubt cleared of the murder of their daughter JBR. She is risking her climb to Governor by shouting innocense. Such an audacious individual!

This paragraph is a mystery to me.

I have seen no one express "overwhelming hatred of Patsy Ramsey" on this board. Would you like to link to some of those posts? I have seen (and made) posts where people believe she killed her daughter (just like many believe that OJ killed his wife and her friend).

But then - even OJ didn't try to throw his friends under the bus by pointing fingers at them as the murderer.

But more than that.................what do you mean by the DA "biting the bullet"? She has always defended the Ramseys, even to the point of having an innocent man arrested with no evidence. Now, THAT was audacious.

Has she ever publicly apologized to JMK? I don't recall whether or not she did.............

[Zold1]

With all due respect: why don't you bone up on this case a bit?

Witnesses who knew Patsy said that at times she would draw a heart on her daughter's palm. Jonbenet was found dead with a heart drawn on her palm - a heart that had not been there at the party.

She was also (IIRC: it's been a while since I read the books/news on this case) found in her favorite top with her favorite necklace and favorite blanket.

Another blanket was found near her body - a blanket that the housekeeper says was probably stuck with the other blanket (static electricity) in the dryer, and ended up on the floor when Patsy pulled the other blanket out of the dryer downstairs.

I think she's on to something there...

Somewhere in the back of my mind one of the housekeepers had a son or son(s) just released from a correctional facilty for child molestation. Anyone remember anything like that? I researched all my documents that I had saved and obviously it's lost because I'm not as organized as you. Perhaps you can put my suspicion to rest with your keen knowledge of this case. :seeya:

[Zold1]

This paragraph is a mystery to me.

I have seen no one express "overwhelming hatred of Patsy Ramsey" on this board. Would you like to link to some of those posts? I have seen (and made) posts where people believe she killed her daughter (just like many believe that OJ killed his wife and her friend).

But then - even OJ didn't try to throw his friends under the bus by pointing fingers at them as the murderer.

But more than that.................what do you mean by the DA "biting the bullet"? She has always defended the Ramseys, even to the point of having an innocent man arrested with no evidence. Now, THAT was audacious.

Has she ever publicly apologized to JMK? I don't recall whether or not she did.............

You are a piece of work, Cookie. You are one of those persons that does not require a link for your hatred of Patsy which has been expressed quite well for all to see. Perhaps you aren't aware that hatred shines through loud and long and your total resentment for her exoneration sincerely blares like a rose with thorns. Perhaps I'm just mis-reading the underlying dripping venom.

As far as OJ goes, he was too busy defending himself while his so called "friends" threw him under the bus. They continue to do so to this day while making tons of money off their tire tracks. With friends and some relatives like rich people have they don't need enemies, wouldn't you agree?!

At no time did ML ever deliberately protect the Ramsey's. She did her job to the greatest extent of her ability, as we all know the investigating officers failed to do. They chose to write books for money and abandoned their post. ML sticks it out to the very end so I'm giving her a lot of credit.

Public apology for a dumb ass jerk like Karr who insisted he had some great relationship with JBR and confessed to being there at her death?! Why the HELL would she apologize to some mental retarded toilet bowl licker?! He should be incarcerated for impregnating the babies he married. He's a pedophile in my opinion and deserves NOTHING, let alone an apology. He should have been made to pay back all the costs involved of bringing his creepy butt back here for investigation. Let's not forget he was in Thailand ingratiating himself into the fold of the little children there as a school teacher, having his literal pick of the litters nobody gives a crap about. He's a pervert and I don't apologize for my impression of despicable distaste either!

Please feel free to stuff that in your pipe and smoke it along with whatever else you may be using. My pleaure, you're welcome! ;)

Have a nice day! :chicken:

[Zold1]

I just don't happen to think it's as weighty as you do, considering all the other evidences and circumstances that point to the Ramseys, and away from there ever being a stranger in the house that night.

We all pick up DNA all over the place, wherever we go. I believe it was Dr. Lee who tested some underwear right out of the bag from China, and found as much DNA on it as was on Jonbenet.

We don't even know if the tights were ones JB wore before, if she had worn them somewhere else and then not had them laundered, but put away to wear again (as Patsy has admitted that she, herself, does with her clothing), etc.

We do know that the underwear she had on was right out of the bag.

This statement really takes the cake. LOL! You are now insisting the saliva got onto the panties by the factory worker LICKING THE CROTCH before sealing the baggie. GMAB!

Is there such a thing as brain wash fluid?! :tongue:


I have to go eat breakfast. But I'll be back in a few hours. I've exonerated you of being the killer as I was beginning to suspect, because you are too funny to be capable of such thing. Don't go away. You are so entertaining.

[Jayelles]

I agree 100% with your last statement above and IMO this is what Barry Scheck is saying. Those DNA tests were done PRIOR to the sample that they isolated and was only entered into CODIS IN 2002. People should NOT have been cleared from the original "iffy" DNA sample including the Ramseys. JMHO

In light of this NEW DNA that now matches the DNA that has been entered into CODIS - EVERYONE should be re-tested. The only people now who are cleared are the Ramseys. There is NO INNOCENT explanation for the SAME DNA to be in the underwear/fluid and and on the waistband of the longjohns (skin cells).

Also Denver LE and the FBI were involved with this new DNA not just the Bode Tech.


Why do they need to be retested? Were the Ramseys retested before they were cleared?

ETA - Patsy certainly wasn't retested since she died before this new test was done! I don't know why you think the Ramseys should be the only onces afforded the privilege of being cleared without being retested.

Surely anyone would only need to be restested if their DNA profile is no longer on file and in an open case where the DNA was possibly not related to the crime, I think it's highly unlikely that they'd destroy ANY results. They don't compare actual DNA with actual DNA - it's the profiles they compare and once they've got a person's profile, they'ev got it.

Beckner responded to Lin Wood on the topic of retesting DNA:-

24 A My understanding of DNA you don't have to
25 do that. Once you have the DNA you have the DNA. A
53
1 person's DNA whether you get it from hair, saliva,
2 body fluids doesn't matter, it's the same. So one
3 DNA test is going to come back the same.

[rashomon]

WHO doesn't understand scientific evidence?

DNA on the longjohns only shows that someone touched those lj's at some point.

It is NOT scientific evidence that this person was in the basement with Jonbenet, NOR that they pulled the longjohn's down.

Now.........fibers from the clothes Patsy wore that night being underneath the garotte rope IS scientific evidence.

Especially since...........Jonbenet was garotted in the basement AFTER the perp had washed her and changed her clothes. That poor perp just happened to get Patsy's fibers on his hands and managed to have enough of them still on "his" hands after handlling Jonbenet's washed body/clean clothes, carrying her down two flights of steps - and still had enough of them clinging to his hands that they got inside the garotte.

Sure.
That perp must have been a cross-dresser who put on Patsy's jacket. :D

jmo

[rashomon]

I was completely confident in the first minutes I heard about the John Mark Karr arrest that it was a mistake or a bungle.

There are a lot of red herrings in this case, but the REAL evidence all leads straight to the Ramseys.

I was correct.
It was the same with me. I did not believe for a second that Karr was involved. For the evidence implicated the Ramseys, plain and simple.

Way too hinky. Something crooked is going on.
Yes it stinks. I smell a rat and her name is Mary Lacy.
For all that current touch DNA ballyhoo does not make the whole evidence against the Ramseys vanish into thin air. It is still there - just think of the ransom note strongly implicating Patsy as the writer.

My guess is Lacy was only too eager to quickly exonerate the Ramseys because that way she hopes no independent prosecutor will ever stick his nose into that case and open the can of worms showing the abysmal performance of the DA's office in that investigation.

jmo

[Athena]

Why do they need to be retested? Were the Ramseys retested before they were cleared?

ETA - Patsy certainly wasn't retested since she died before this new test was done! I don't know why you think the Ramseys should be the only onces afforded the privilege of being cleared without being retested.

Surely anyone would only need to be restested if their DNA profile is no longer on file and in an open case where the DNA was possibly not related to the crime, I think it's highly unlikely that they'd destroy ANY results. They don't compare actual DNA with actual DNA - it's the profiles they compare and once they've got a person's profile, they'ev got it.

Beckner responded to Lin Wood on the topic of retesting DNA:-

You are correct. Incorrectly worded my post. I meant that everyone's DNA should be retested. Duh!

[Athena]

Yes it stinks. I smell a rat and her name is Mary Lacy.
For all that current touch DNA ballyhoo does not make the rest of the evidence aginst the Ramseys vanish into thin air. It is still there - just think of the iransom note strongly implicating Patsy as the writer.

My guess is Lacy was only too eager to quickly exonerate the Ramseys because that way she hopes no independent prosecutor will ever stick his nose into that case and open the can of worms showing the abysmal performance of the DA's office in that investigation.

jmo

Just because Lacy cleared them it does not mean the Ramseys could not be charged by another DA if evidence in fact is found to prove the Ramseys committed this crime. DNA is VERY STRONG evidence however more so than any other element in crime investigation. There will never be an "independent" prosecutor assigned to this case; never.

Lacy did not perform the tests; the Bode Lab, the FBI and Denver Labs were all involved. No one in this country should be "under an umbrella of suspicion" which is a phrase coined ONLY in Boulder; for 12 years without evidence. Either you arrest them for probable cause or clear them. Our justice system allows that any person is innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. JMHO

[shill]

- even OJ didn't try to throw his friends under the bus by pointing fingers at them as the murderer.

Maybe if the Ramseys had killed their daughter, they wouldn't have thrown their friends under the bus by pointing fingers at them as the murderer, showing the same kind of behavioral response as OJ did.

[shill]

I am puzzledby the fact that there is no match to the DNA. This was a particularly heinous and high risk crime and it seems odd that it would be a first and only offence if it were NOT committed by someone close to the victim whose motive was very "personal".He has to get caught and convicted at least once, and then it would have to have been a crime or state that forces DNA sampling, if the killer is even in the United State anymore.
It's a big world to hide in and the killer could have certainly committed similar crimes and been caught, and even DAN tested, but in another country where he will never show up in the federal database.

DNA backlog may hamper JonBenet case - Crime & courts- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25629128/)

Wyoming authorities took a DNA sample from Diego Olmos-Alcalde in 2001 after a kidnapping conviction, but it languished for seven years. When it was finally processed and added to the federal database in January of this year, it was quickly matched to the 1997 slaying of 23-year-old Susannah Chase, a University of Colorado student who was sexually assaulted, beaten with a baseball bat and left to die in an alley in Boulder.Olmos-Alcalde, 38, is now charged with murder.

[hankfromthebank]

They are cleared in my mind but then I never ever thought they had anything to do with the murder of their daughter.

The absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. No one knows whether they had anything to do with that child's murder or not but dressing her up in such a sick way does not gain the parents much sympathy. They are obviously guilty of a form of child abuse.

[cookiewench]

This statement really takes the cake. LOL! You are now insisting the saliva got onto the panties by the factory worker LICKING THE CROTCH before sealing the baggie. GMAB!

Is there such a thing as brain wash fluid?! :tongue:





You'll have to take that up with Dr. Lee. He is the one who found DNA in the panties that were straight from the package which was straight from China.

[shill]

Why do they need to be retested? Were the Ramseys retested before they were cleared?



There are suspects whose DNA results were labeled "Inconclusive", the Ramseys results were conclusive, that is why they don't need to be retested.

Could it be the results are inconclusive because some suspects had a DNA match of only few of the sequences that were known at that time, and now with the complete set known, they may match more or no more, so now they can now make a conclusive decision?



This may be

[Zold1]

He has to get caught and convicted at least once, and then it would have to have been a crime or state that forces DNA sampling, if the killer is even in the United State anymore.
It's a big world to hide in and the killer could have certainly committed similar crimes and been caught, and even DAN tested, but in another country where he will never show up in the federal database.

DNA backlog may hamper JonBenet case - Crime & courts- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25629128/)

Wyoming authorities took a DNA sample from Diego Olmos-Alcalde in 2001 after a kidnapping conviction, but it languished for seven years. When it was finally processed and added to the federal database in January of this year, it was quickly matched to the 1997 slaying of 23-year-old Susannah Chase, a University of Colorado student who was sexually assaulted, beaten with a baseball bat and left to die in an alley in Boulder.Olmos-Alcalde, 38, is now charged with murder.

Wow! This was quite interesting, Shill! Thanks.

[shill]

You'll have to take that up with Dr. Lee. He is the one who found DNA in the panties that were straight from the package which was straight from China.It's obvious that the cookiewench doesn't get her facts from legitimate sources, and just makes things up or is repeating the gossip she has heard, not knowing how false it is.

Cookiewench's posts are full of falsehoods and inaccuracies and is a perfect example of how rumors are spread through gossip.

I don't know how posters like her can think that nobody is the wiser to their fictional claims?

[Zold1]

The absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. No one knows whether they had anything to do with that child's murder or not but dressing her up in such a sick way does not gain the parents much sympathy. They are obviously guilty of a form of child abuse.

Suggesting... what?! All scantily clad females deserve what they get? Sick is in the eyes of the beholder. Not all parents are sick. Naive perhaps, but not evil. It did turn into a lesson for all parents. Enroll the kid in soccer and stay away from stages.

Although that didn't stop the killer of Chandra Levy. Chandra worked in a well established profession and deserved neither death nor scorn. :cool:

[Athena]

You'll have to take that up with Dr. Lee. He is the one who found DNA in the panties that were straight from the package which was straight from China.

Oh my. He said that EARLY on in the case before the second spot in the underwear was isolated and you do realize he has since retracted that statement? :eek:

But investigator Henry Lee, who has worked on homicides including the O.J. Simpson and John F. Kennedy cases, said John and Patsy Ramsey already were cleared in their daughter’s death nearly a decade ago when a grand jury failed to find evidence to indict anyone.

As for the DNA, Lee said, evidence in the national database today is the same DNA that’s been there for years.

“So far they have not had a hit,” Lee said.

Investigators exonerated JonBenet’s family this week after learning that new DNA evidence found on long johns the girl was wearing at the time of her death matched foreign DNA discovered 11 years ago in her underwear.

Until now, some people speculated the DNA in the panties — because it never has matched any suspects — might have landed there innocently, perhaps through a factory worker who packaged the panties. The corroborating evidence found on the girl’s long johns recently gives investigators supportive proof that the DNA on the underwear didn’t land there innocuously.

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/10/forensic-expert-says-ramsey-investigation-still-co/

[Zold1]

It's obvious that the cookiewench doesn't get her facts from legitimate sources, and just makes things up or is repeating the gossip she has heard, not knowing how false it is.

Cookiewench's posts are full of falsehoods and inaccuracies and is a perfect example of how rumors are spread through gossip.

I don't know how posters like her can think that nobody is the wiser to their fictional claims?


I think she is getting her information from here. Some of the things she says are the same as posted there. There are also pictures of Ramsey's house and map. I lost interest when I came across the same rhetoric.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/

[Athena]

The absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. No one knows whether they had anything to do with that child's murder or not but dressing her up in such a sick way does not gain the parents much sympathy. They are obviously guilty of a form of child abuse.

It says more about the poster looking at a 6 year old and thinks she is dressed in a "sick way" than it does about the parents of a little 6 year old girl who just liked to play dress up and sees just that - a little girl who liked to perform and wear costumes. Pageants, dance recitals, little league football/baseball are ALL PERSONAL CHOICES. :shrug:

[shill]

Enroll the kid in soccer and stay away from stages.


It's so much easier for a pedophile to go unnoticed at a soccer field then it is hanging out at beauty pageants.

[Zold1]

:cool: Here are photographs of MAG llght flashlights. These are generally carried by police or security personnel. One was found on the kitchen counter and no one in the Ramsey family knows who owned it. It was believed by the police to be the object delivering the blow to Jon Benets head, light end first. :cool:

http://www.maglite.com/index.asp?m=skipflash

[shill]

No one knows whether they had anything to do with that child's murder or not but dressing her up in such a sick way does not gain the parents much sympathy. They are obviously guilty of a form of child abuse.How is dressing your child up, child abuse?
I guess you never take your kids tricker treating.
Now forcing your kid to learn to play the piano, that's child abuse.

I am always suspect about people who see something other then a sweet little girl in a costume. I certainly wouldn't want those kind of people near my kids.

[Zold1]

It's so much easier for a pedophile to go unnoticed at a soccer field then it is hanging out at beauty pageants.

That is so true! One of the best things with soccer is that parents are normally one or the other available, but not always. That still gives the ped access to the kid by being more able to speak with them. It does not take a whole lot to corrupt a childs mind. They are natrually explorative.

[cookiewench]

I think she is getting her information from here. Some of the things she says are the same as posted there. There are also pictures of Ramsey's house and map. I lost interest when I came across the same rhetoric.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/


Maybe you just think too hard. I've never seen that site before I just clicked on your link.

I read PMPT several times.....couldn't wait for the paperback to come out, had to buy the hardback. Then Steve Thomas's book.....the Ramsey's book......another book (Death Of A Little Princess, I believe)...the book on the ransom note (A Mother Gone Bad)?.....have read a lot of stuff on acandyrose.....watched all the Ramsey "press conferences" as well as their LKL appearance with Thomas..and have repeatedly read the transcripts from those interviews online......have been posting on websleuths about the case for years.

Nothing has ever lead me away from the firm belief that Patsy killed her daughter, (probably by accident while over-tired and stressed out from having to do everything and always be Ms. Perfect), staged the rest of the crime and coverup - and that John could tell what was going on right away but went along with Patsy.

The only Ramsey who ever sounded believable to me for a minute was John, when he said he hadn't molested his little girl. I don't believe he did.

Good luck with your "thinking", though.

[shill]

I think she is getting her information from here. Some of the things she says are the same as posted there. There are also pictures of Ramsey's house and map. I lost interest when I came across the same rhetoric.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Wiki certainly didn't post that the underwear was from "China" or "Patsy use to draw hearts on JB's hand".
She would be better off getting her information from the wiki source then the gossip she has been buying into.

CW has us on ignore anyways. Posters like her convince themselves that posters like us are just hostile, so they put us on ignore so they can go on believing their little lies and myths with out someone pointing out how wrong they are. "Ignore" is their little protective bubble of denial.

[Zold1]

These are stun guns and tasers. You can see they come in all styles. In California you have to take a course just like a gun course in order to carry one. They are normally designated to police and there is some question about the stun guns since so many people are dying when struck with one. You have to know they are also being abused by people, up to and including SOME police officers. We have all seen the demonstrations of that on television. Those Officers are no longer on their respective forces.

http://www.preventsecurity.com/category.asp?c=35

Just like guns, criminals do possess them. If they are bad enough to kill a grown male, then what could that do to a small child.

[cookiewench]

Wiki certainly didn't post that the underwear was from "China" or "Patsy use to draw hearts on JB's hand".
She would be better off getting her information from the wiki source then the gossip she has been buying into.

CW has us on ignore anyways. Posters like her convince themselves that posters like us are just hostile, so they put us on ignore so they can go on believing their little lies and myths with out someone pointing out how wrong they are. "Ignore" is their little protective bubble of denial.

Ignoring you and having you on ignore are two different things.

I am not responding to your screaming name-calling at me. I understand that people like you don't know how to discuss without doing so, so I tend to just ignore the silliness and keep my posts on topic.

[Zold1]

Wiki certainly didn't post that the underwear was from "China" or "Patsy use to draw hearts on JB's hand".
She would be better off getting her information from the wiki source then the gossip she has been buying into.

CW has us on ignore anyways. Posters like her convince themselves that posters like us are just hostile, so they put us on ignore so they can go on believing their little lies and myths with out someone pointing out how wrong they are. "Ignore" is their little protective bubble of denial.

Well, sorry about that. But it isn't nice to lie or mislead people. There is so much misinformation that people actually choose to believe rather than ferret out the truth. I have to find out when Alex Hunt left the D.A.'s office and Mary Lacy came in. It should be easy to find the time line, so I'm off to research. Inquiring minds need to know. ;)

[Zold1]

Whoa.. yet another DA in the workings.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080713/ap_on_re_us/jonbenet_ramsey_da_1

Alex Hunter = 1996

Mary Lacy = 2000

Stan Garnett = 2009 (Yet to be elected in November) Takes over January.

It will be good to have new eyes checking things out. The police who bungled the case is still excluded. I'm sure it doesn't break their heart.

[cookiewench]

You claim to be well informed and yet the information you post is so incorrect.

Why didn't you just post under the name you have used for so long and at websleuths?

You think I am going to respond to you differently if I think you are someone else? Your posts are still as ignorant as they always have been.

Maybe I can straighten this out for you, so you'll no longer have to waste your time trolling me:

I am here to discuss the Ramsey case, and will discuss any aspect of it that I care to discuss.

I am not interested in you. I don't care about you, nor do I care about your personal issues or conflicts.

You are of no interest to me at all. Your juvenile personal snipse don't rile me up because I just don't care about you. You mean nothing to me.

Now; since I've cleared that up, perhaps you can get back to what most of the other posters here are doing - which is, to discuss the topic of the thread.

[shill]

Now; since I've cleared that up, perhaps you can get back to what most of the other posters here are doing - which is, to discuss the topic of the thread.I and other posters are discussing the case facts.

You on the other hand are just a troll who thinks she is discussing case facts.

When you are capable of posting something that is fact base, then I will discuss the case with you.

Until then I will point out your ignorance in every post you make, because people want the truth, not gossip.

[cookiewench]

I and other posters are discussing the case facts.

You on the other hand are just a troll who thinks she is discussing case facts.

When you are capable of posting something that is fact base, then I will discuss the case with you.

Until then I will point out your ignorance in every post you make, because people want the truth, not gossip.

I see that it may take two times for you to get it:

I don't care if you discuss this case with me. I don't care what you think or post at all.

Up until I made my prior post to you, I have completely ignored your rude, juvenile, off-topic, trolling posts and have continued to post on the topic.

In fact.....I ignored your trolling to the point that you believed I had you on "ignore" - remember? Oops!

And I will continue to post on the topic of this thread, and people can and will decide for themselves just what is "truth" and what is "gossip".

You are stuck on this board and this board only, because you are incapable of controlling yourself, staying on topic, and not throwing out stupid personal insults when you post.

I, however, know how to discuss without screaming personal insults at the posters I don't agree with, and without breaking all of the board TOS that I (and you) agreed to when signing up for the board.

Because of that, I can post on all of the other Ramsey forums, as well as this one.

I'm sorry for you that you can't learn from your mistakes, but that is neither my fault nor my problem.

[shill]

And I will continue to post on the topic of this thread, and people can and will decide for themselves just what is "truth" and what is "gossip".

That's why I have pointed out your gossip that is not true, so people will be properly informed.

I Ames to please.

[cookiewench]

Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter.


Her high-end legal team and the cowardly DA who was cowed by them saved her from prosecution.

If she had been someone with less money and without Patsy's PR firm, she would have been tried, and most likely convicted.

And the most ironic thing is that the book the Ramseys published only convince even more of the general public that they were not only guilty, but narcisstic publicity hounds.

[shill]

Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter.

Before or after the male that assaulted her daughter that night?

[shill]

I have completely ignored your rude, juvenile, off-topic, trolling posts and have continued to post on the topic.Calling you a liar is not off topic when you are making up lies. As far as that being juvenile, well I'm not the one lying so people will side with me, so again the public can judge for themselves who is being juvenile.


You are stuck on this board and this board only, because you are incapable of controlling yourself, staying on topic, and not throwing out stupid personal insults when you post.

How am I stuck on this board?
Just because I got banned from your little tea parties on webslueths for punking RDI posters doesn't mean I've been banned anywhere else.
You don't think I would seriously want to post on webslueths with that gang of Ramsey haters so blinded by their hate for rich, beautiful, succesful people that they can't see the logic in any of the evidence?
I prefer to post with people who stick with logic and facts, not gossip and conspiracy theories.
Unfortunately this blog site doesn't discriminate.

[shill]

Ignoring you and having you on ignore are two different things.
Ignorance is ignorance whether you choose it or not.

[hankfromthebank]

Suggesting... what?! All scantily clad females deserve what they get? Sick is in the eyes of the beholder. Not all parents are sick. Naive perhaps, but not evil. It did turn into a lesson for all parents. Enroll the kid in soccer and stay away from stages.

Although that didn't stop the killer of Chandra Levy. Chandra worked in a well established profession and deserved neither death nor scorn. :cool:

What I see with my own eyes, is that these parents dressing up their child as an adult including make up are sickos. :shrug:

[cougermom]

Maybe you just think too hard. I've never seen that site before I just clicked on your link.

I read PMPT several times.....couldn't wait for the paperback to come out, had to buy the hardback. Then Steve Thomas's book.....the Ramsey's book......another book (Death Of A Little Princess, I believe)...the book on the ransom note (A Mother Gone Bad)?.....have read a lot of stuff on acandyrose.....watched all the Ramsey "press conferences" as well as their LKL appearance with Thomas..and have repeatedly read the transcripts from those interviews online......have been posting on websleuths about the case for years.

Nothing has ever lead me away from the firm belief that Patsy killed her daughter, (probably by accident while over-tired and stressed out from having to do everything and always be Ms. Perfect), staged the rest of the crime and coverup - and that John could tell what was going on right away but went along with Patsy.

The only Ramsey who ever sounded believable to me for a minute was John, when he said he hadn't molested his little girl. I don't believe he did.

Good luck with your "thinking", though.
You sound just like Steve Thomas, are you????CM

[cookiewench]

You sound just like Steve Thomas, are you????CM

I'm flattered that you think I sound "just like" one of the few people who didn't sell their soul to the Ramsey's legal/PR team.

[shill]

I'm flattered that you think I sound "just like" one of the few people who didn't sell their soul to the Ramsey's legal/PR team.At least they sold their soles to the Ramseys and not Satan like ST.:hat:

There are always RDI who think that the evidence couldn't compel those who found the Ramseys to be innocent and believe it had to be a big conspiracy to to find them innocent.
Why do people who believe in conspiracy theories always get so upset when no one takes them seriously.
I'm sorry, but I believe we landed on the moon.

[shill]

DNA from an unknown male was found in only two spots in JonBenet's underwear. And those two spots just happen to be were two tiny spots of JonBenet's blood was left.

The factory worker sneeze theory has always been a crock because there would have been more then two spots left from this unknown male and the odds of two spots of JonBenet's blood being found in the only two spots of the unknown males saliva is astronomical.
The unknown males saliva and JonBenet's blood getting mixed together before it was deposited on her underwear is the likely and very plausible explanation of how these only two spots were commingled.

Recently they find touch DNA on an item of JonBenet's clothing that did not come from the same factory as the underwear, it has the full DNA sequence and is a match to the DNA of the unknown male found in the underwear.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that JonBenet was assaulted by this unknown male that left his DNA.

[cookiewench]

The factory worker sneeze theory has always been a crock because there would have been more then two spots left from this unknown male


Pure guesswork on your part, and only a "crock" in your opinion.

Logically, there would be much more DNA left by someone who spent hours with the victim, molested, undressed, dressed, murdered her and carried her all over the house than there would be from a possible sneeze in a factory.

[cougermom]

I'm flattered that you think I sound "just like" one of the few people who didn't sell their soul to the Ramsey's legal/PR team.I doubt anyone else considerer's it to be a flattering question.:punch:

[cookiewench]

Mary Lacy didn't do John Ramsey any favors.

All she's done is to bring all the people who've seen, heard about and read about this crime and all the evidence against Patsy (as well as the non-cooperative behavior of both Ramseys) out of the woodwork and up in arms about this travesty.

[shill]

Mary Lacy didn't do John Ramsey any favors.

All she's done is to bring all the people who've seen, heard about and read about this crime and all the evidence against Patsy (as well as the non-cooperative behavior of both Ramseys) out of the woodwork and up in arms about this travesty.
Obviously you have a little group of RDI people reinforcing your unique narrow minded beliefs.

I guess she could have kept the information to herself, but it proves a male intruder did this crime to JonBenet and the public has a right to know.

All she's done is to bring all the RDI who've seen, heard about and read about this crime and all the evidence of an intruder, out of the woodwork and up in arms about this travesty.

[cookiewench]

There's a lot more than a "little group" of people in this country who believe that the Ramseys were involved with their daughter's death, and that there was no intruder in their home that night.

Most people who know the basic circumstances of the case, the note, and the evidence, and who have watched the Ramsey PR interviews and/or read transcripts of their police interviews, are convinced of their involvement.

Also, you and a few others on the internet may not see the lack of a frantic search for their daughter after they woke up and she was missing as a sign that they knew exactly where she was, but most people do (just as they saw that Scott Peterson not searching for his "missing" wife was telling).

You and a few others may not feel that John trying to arrange to head out of town as soon as his murdered daughter's body was found (and leaving her behind at the coroner's) was strange enough to make it suspicious, but many/most other people do.

You may also feel that the nonsensical "ransom" note was not written by Patsy as part of the "staging".....but many/most people (along with most/all of the experts) do.

That's just the way it is. The circumstances and evidence don't add up to anyone else being in the home that night - let alone being in the home long enough to do all that moving around, feeding the child, waiting for her to partially digest the food before killing her, washing and changing her and then taking her to an obscure, dark corner of the basement. The Ramsey's actions and statements add to the whole scenario of guilt........as did their ridiculous book, which backfired on them in its intent.

[shill]

Most people who know the basic circumstances of the case, the note, and the evidence, and who have watched the Ramsey PR interviews and/or read transcripts of their police interviews, are convinced of their involvement.


Like I said, obviously you have a little group of RDI people reinforcing your unique narrow minded beliefs, so much so that you actually think most people who have studied this case are of the same school of thought as you.

Of course if you studied the facts, you'd know the People on the Grand Jury who where privy to more information then you or I, don't agree with you at all or most of the people you allege agree with you.

FYI, I and many IDI have never believed an intruder fed JB pineapple, or switched her underwear, or entered and escaped out a basement window among other veiwpoints RDI insist on imposing on us because that's what RDI believe must have happened if an intruder did it.

[cookiewench]

You actually have no idea what the Grand Jury members believe or don't believe.

It's not about what they believe. They decide whether or not they think there is enough evidence have legal charges pressed against a person or persons - i.e., enough evidence to take the case to court.

A Grand Jury member can definitely believe that a person is guilty, but not believe that enough legal evidence has been collected to make a valid legal case against the person.

[shill]

...killing her, washing and changing her
It's posts like this that are such exagerations that have always required a link to back up, but since most posters know the facts they just let it slide.

When you post "washing" her, it's as if you are saying the killer gave her a bath, when in fact he wiped down her vaginal area to remove his fingerprints and DNA or to possible to keep a souvenir of her blood.
It certainly couldn't be called washing, there was no soap or running water used.
But maybe your idea of washing is a couple of moist towelettes once a month.

FYI There has never been any proof her underwear was changed after she was murdered, zero, zilch, it's just a myth that ill informed people spread around the gossip mill.

[shill]

Logically, there would be much more DNA left by someone who spent hours with the victim, molested, undressed, dressed, murdered her and carried her all over the house than there would be from a possible sneeze in a factory.But the killer didn't spend hours with the victim and carry her all over the house. Maybe you should study the house plan closer. And pulling her pants down and then back up is not undressing and redressing her, it's the same thing a women does when she takes a pee, and I have never heard a women say, "I need to go to the bathroom to undress and redress", when she needs to pee.

-Logically, there would be no factory worker DNA on any items other then the underwear, but there was.

-Logically, if you somehow transfered the DNA form the blood stain in the panties, it would not miraculously have more DNA then it started with, which it does have.

-Logically, the DNA is two different samples and not the results of one sample being transfered.

-Logically, people will see the facts and not the myths created by people who don't understand science and evidence but pass judgments based on their dislikes for the suspects lifestyle and behavior.

[cookiewench]

It's your option and your problem, not mine - if you interpret the word "washed" as "gave her a bath".

It's also your option if you have decided to believe that someone else gave Jonbenet the pineapple and then an "intruder" came in and killed her at least an hour after she ate it. That would, by the way, make two separate incidences of up/down stairs, moving around, light-turning-on that these "parents" slept right through.

It's also your option if you don't feel that being on three full floors of a house, going up/down at least two staircases, and spending time in the kitchen both writing the note and putting the pen/pad back where they were wouldn't be defined as being "all over the house".

It's also your option if you want to believe that it wouldn't take quite a bit of time for all that note-writing, molesting, washing, changing, hairdo-changing, blanket-wrapping, wine-cellar-finding, tying up, making and using a garotte, head-bashing, et al.


I happen to disagree.

[cookiewench]

And pulling her pants down and then back up is not undressing and redressing her, it's the same thing a women does when she takes a pee, and I have never heard a women say, "I need to go to the bathroom to undress and redress", when she needs to pee.



Um.........wasn't Jonbenet found in a different top than the one her mother claimed she was put into bed wearing?

[shill]

Um.........wasn't Jonbenet found in a different top than the one her mother claimed she was put into bed wearing? JonBenet was found in the same top that she wore to the party and was put to bed in. Patsy was mistaken the first time she was asked what JonBenet was last wearing. Jonbenet was still missing and the police needed a description of JonBenet was last seen wearing for their search. Patsy described the outfit she had picked out the previous day for the party that JonBenet chose not to wear, so that was on her mind when asked under duress.

But this is a good point. Most RDI think Patsy spent all this time staging this crime scene into the we hours of the mourning.
Don't you think the top Jonbenet was wearing would be fresh in her mind an hour or two after ditching her in the wine cellar and talking to police as apposed to putting her to bed 9-10 hours earlier, when what JonBenet was wearing was a detail Patsy would not even be thinking about, as apposed to staging a crime where you are going over all the details fresh in you mind?

So why tell the Police JonBenet is wearing one thing, if you know she is going to be found in another thing?

[shill]

It's your option and your problem, not mine - if you interpret the word "washed" as "gave her a bath".

It's also your option if you have decided to believe that someone else gave Jonbenet the pineapple and then an "intruder" came in and killed her at least an hour after she ate it. That would, by the way, make two separate incidences of up/down stairs, moving around, light-turning-on that these "parents" slept right through.

It's also your option if you don't feel that being on three full floors of a house, going up/down at least two staircases, and spending time in the kitchen both writing the note and putting the pen/pad back where they were wouldn't be defined as being "all over the house".

It's also your option if you want to believe that it wouldn't take quite a bit of time for all that note-writing, molesting, washing, changing, hairdo-changing, blanket-wrapping, wine-cellar-finding, tying up, making and using a garotte, head-bashing, et al.
I happen to disagree.Here again you are expressing your beliefs of what an intruder scenario is, and they are not at all mine or most IDI, but that of myth making RDI.

No one else gave Jonbenet the pineapple, she helped herself to pineapple in a bowl that was laying out, using her fingers.

That would, by the way, make only one incidence of up/down stairs.

JonBenet's bedroom has spiral staircase that leads right down to the kitchen where the note was written and the kitchen has stairs right down to the basement where she was found. There is a door from the kitchen leading right outside.
There are 4 floors, 15 rooms in the house, balconies, crawl spaces, and a garage, so where the killer went certainly wouldn't be defined as being "all over the house".

The note is not that long at all, but longer then a ransom note needs to be.
4-5 minutes to write, tops.

She was wiped down in a small area, that would take but a few seconds, it's not like she was washed.

She was never changed, that is a myth, not fact.

Her hairdo was never changed, that is a myth, not fact.
(I know how much you RDI think pictures from the Whites X-mas party will prove your myth, but that is a myth also)

The blanket was folded over her, takes two seconds.

The wine cellar could be seen through the boiler room when you got to the bottom of the basement steps.

And how long do you think it takes to bash a head in with one stroke? Because you included that in the "takes quite a bit of time" column.

You've clearly proven how misinformed you and many RDI are and how much your beliefs are based on myths.

[cookiewench]

Lots of speculation going on, there.

I see that you've made up your own make-believe scenario and don't like to have it challenged.

Oh, well.................

[DAFFODIL]

You know rashomon told me the same thing, "don't hold your breath".

You think LE should have had "them arrested, tried, and convicted a long time ago", but that never happened, and yet you don't wonder why?.
Well let me tell you why this never happened, there was no evidence to do this, do you understand?


Are you sure she said DONT hold your breath?

[Jayelles]

Are you sure she said DONT hold your breath?

Hey Daffodil! How are you doing my wee sassanach friend? :-)

What are you making of the latest developments? If this evidence is as solid as they are making out, I'm wondering if John Ramsey will now feel inclined to fill in a few gaps ... like the pineapple?

[DAFFODIL]

:) :) :) Hey Daffodil! How are you doing my wee sassanach friend? :-)

What are you making of the latest developments? If this evidence is as solid as they are making out, I'm wondering if John Ramsey will now feel inclined to fill in a few gaps ... like the pineapple?



Hi Jay,doing good thanks-bet you looking forward to the summer hiatus
:) .
I am not sure what to make of the DNA to be honest,I would feel more convinced if it was found also on the cord,tape and brush.As it is it all seems a little too convenient doncha think? :rolleyes:

[shill]

:) :) :)
I'm not sure what to make of the DNA to be honest,I would feel more convinced if it was found also on the cord,tape and brush.As it is it all seems a little too convenient doncha think? :rolleyes:
Hey Daffodil, how's your summer going? What have you been up to? How's the family?

How does it all seems a little too convenient?

Would you really be convinced if they found matching DNA on the cord, tape, and brush?

I think you're just patronizing to the other posters, aren't you, so they think you have an open mind about the DNA?

[shill]

I dont give a flying flip what you think shill TBH,actually I pity you for you must feel so insignificant in "real life" that you insult posters here to feel big and clever.Bless you :rose:Wow Daffy
I make some polite conversation with you and ask you a few questions, and instead of having any answers for them, you attack me.
I pity you for you must feel so insignificant in "real life" that you insult me here to feel big and clever.

And some posters call Patsy a Drama Queen!

[shill]

...I'm wondering if John Ramsey will now feel inclined to fill in a few gaps ... like the pineapple?A fence sitter would know that John Ramsey hasn't been shown to have any knowledge of the pineapple.

So why would John Ramsey feel inclined to fill in the gaps... like the pineapple?
Or in other words, why would John Ramsey have any more knowledge of the gaps then law enforcement?

Plain and simple you are leading the readers on, and it's sickening.
How about some facts instead of implying that John Ramsey knows more then he lets on to, when you have no proof of that.

Maybe you should try being a fence sitter to get a new perspective on this case since there is new evidence Jayelles.

[Athena]

IMO DNA trumps the digestion of pineapple and anything else that has been speculated about. There is NO INNOCENT EXPLANATION for the DNA match -- none -- Conclusion: The Ramseys are innocent and the DNA has proven there was an UNKNOWN MALE that should not have been there. In the interest of justice -- you would think everyone now would put their resources together in an attempt to catch the perp. I believe this says it best:

Lacy and Haddon acknowledged that despite the latest evidence, there will continue to be skeptics who insist that the family is involved.

"They can say all those things, but that doesn't address the scientific and conclusive evidence that exists," Haddon said. "Those people are just justifying their own slander and opportunism. They're wrong, they're losers, and to the extent they continue to try to justify what they've done, that demonstrates how little conscience they have."

http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/...new-direction/

[Mamie]

Whoa.. yet another DA in the workings.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080713/ap_on_re_us/jonbenet_ramsey_da_1

Alex Hunter = 1996

Mary Lacy = 2000

Stan Garnett = 2009 (Yet to be elected in November) Takes over January.

It will be good to have new eyes checking things out. The police who bungled the case is still excluded. I'm sure it doesn't break their heart.


Especially in the case of Mary Lacy. Sorry, not a fan of someone who acted like a loose cannon in the John Mark Karr case. It boggles the mind that this "new" DNA existed on other articles of clothing and that clothing was never tested!

[cookiewench]

IMO DNA trumps the digestion of pineapple and anything else that has been speculated about. There is NO INNOCENT EXPLANATION for the DNA match -- none -- Conclusion: The Ramseys are innocent and the DNA has proven there was an UNKNOWN MALE that should not have been there. In the interest of justice -- you would think everyone now would put their resources together in an attempt to catch the perp. I believe this says it best:

Lacy and Haddon acknowledged that despite the latest evidence, there will continue to be skeptics who insist that the family is involved.

"They can say all those things, but that doesn't address the scientific and conclusive evidence that exists," Haddon said. "Those people are just justifying their own slander and opportunism. They're wrong, they're losers, and to the extent they continue to try to justify what they've done, that demonstrates how little conscience they have."

http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/...new-direction/

I don't agree that some DNA trumps the pineapple - or all the other circumstances of this case that point straight the the Ramseys.

That amount of DNA can be picked up anywhere.

IMO, if you try to rule out the Ramseys - nothing else fits - nothing else makes sense - nothing they did or said - none of the circumstances of the crime - their post-crime behavior and statements - the other evidence (the note, pen, garotte having come from the house and not been brought there), no evidence at all of anyone breaking in or sneaking in to the house.......

And apparently..........those who knew them best and had spent the most time with and around the Ramseys........feel that they are complicit in some way in this crime..........which is very, very telling, IMO.

[debbyuk2008]

The infuriating thing about this case is someone has literally got away with murder. Its sickening to think a beautiful child was murdered and the responsible party was never brought to justice.

I have always felt (but I am not 100% convinced) it was either a family member or a close friend of the family.
I would love to see justice for this beautiful little girl. However, as time goes by the reality of someone being charged/named is virtually impossible.

[shill]

I don't agree that some DNA trumps the pineapple - or all the other circumstances of this case that point straight the the Ramseys..
The pineapple has proved nothing. RDI want to believe Patsy is lying about not knowing anything about it so they can say she is a liar. But there is no proof Patsy fed JonBenet pineapple.

-Burke was still up with John assembling a new toy and Burke said that JonBenet went to bed when they got home, he didn't say his mom and sister came back down to the kitchen and had pineapple.

-There was a glass next to the bowl, only the bowl had Patsy's finger prints and not the glass, and yet RDI allege she got those those things out and fed JonBenet. Only Burkes finger prints were on the glass. But how did Patsy not leave fingerprints on the glass if she got it out?
And since Burke's fingerprints were on both the glass and the bowl, he most likely got them out and if he didn't his fingerprints prove he was there if Patsy got them out, and he has never said she served him pineapple or tea that night, let alone Patsy feeding JonBenet pineapple.
More then likely Burke got the pineapple out, once this was revealed to the Grand Jury, the pineapple meant nothing other then JonBenet got a hold of some later that night.

-If Patsy fed JonBenet pineapple that would put her time of death at any where between 11:30pm and 1:00am which seems to me to be a stretch to say JonBenet wet her bed hours after she went to bed, oke up, woke her mom up, and her mom suddenly at the end of a very long day that would leave you totally exhausted, goes off and hits JonBenet with the force exerted by a large male.
Now JonBenet did have a routine of going to the bathroom at midnight, so she could have wakened Patsy, but there has never been an ounce of evidence that Patsy would loose it over a bed wetting incident, but I think it is more likely JonBenet went to the bathroom by herself and since she only had a crab cake at the Whites, was hungry and went to the kitchen for a midnight snack where she found the pineapple.
I believe she was killed around 1:30am- and 3:00am by this male intruder.

That amount of DNA can be picked up anywhere.The calim seems to be that the underwear was never washed and worn for the first time out of the package.
So straight out of the package onto JonBenet's little bottom.
So where is that amount of DNA getting picked up from?
Remember, it is commingled in with the blood, which only leaves two possibilities

1)The DNA was there from manufactureing and the blood commingled with it. But that doesn't explain the DNA on th pajamas with more sequences then on the DNA from the factory worker.
2)The killer's DNA commingled with JonBenets blood and got on the underwear. And the killer touched her pajamas with his hands.

#1 is ruled out because of the DNA found in the underwear couldn't possibly be transfered from a factory workers DNA and no other DNA could have commingled to the freshly opened package of underwear.

This DNA evidence trumps everything but the fact that this unknown male might not have done this by himself.

But without any doubt there was a male intruder involved in JonBenet's death that night.

To deny this at this point only deepens the true color of your blind hate that causes you to have a lack of ability to properly interpit and understand the evidence.


IMO, if you try to rule out the Ramseys - nothing else fits - nothing else makes sense - nothing they did or said - none of the circumstances of the crime - their post-crime behavior and statements - the other evidence (the note, pen, garotte having come from the house and not been brought there), no evidence at all of anyone breaking in or sneaking in to the house.......Yea, it's tough to realize you had it all figured wrong.
Maybe it will make sense to you someday why other people didn't see the evidence pointing to the Ramseys being guilty.
And maybe you realize how fixated you look for your futile attempts to disclaim powerful DNA evidence.

You might want to get a head start on your explanation of why you claims that all the evidence allegedly points to the Ramseys, and yet they arrest the guy who's DNA is a match and he confesses.

[SaraSidle]

Maybe you just think too hard. I've never seen that site before I just clicked on your link.

I read PMPT several times.....couldn't wait for the paperback to come out, had to buy the hardback. Then Steve Thomas's book.....the Ramsey's book......another book (Death Of A Little Princess, I believe)...the book on the ransom note (A Mother Gone Bad)?.....have read a lot of stuff on acandyrose.....watched all the Ramsey "press conferences" as well as their LKL appearance with Thomas..and have repeatedly read the transcripts from those interviews online......have been posting on websleuths about the case for years.

Nothing has ever lead me away from the firm belief that Patsy killed her daughter, (probably by accident while over-tired and stressed out from having to do everything and always be Ms. Perfect), staged the rest of the crime and coverup - and that John could tell what was going on right away but went along with Patsy.

The only Ramsey who ever sounded believable to me for a minute was John, when he said he hadn't molested his little girl. I don't believe he did.

Good luck with your "thinking", though.

sounds like you been reading hodges and frances hodgens. Have you been reading any current material cookie? IMO

[Jayelles]

IMO DNA trumps the digestion of pineapple and anything else that has been speculated about. There is NO INNOCENT EXPLANATION for the DNA match -- none -- Conclusion: The Ramseys are innocent and the DNA has proven there was an UNKNOWN MALE that should not have been there. In the interest of justice -- you would think everyone now would put their resources together in an attempt to catch the perp. I believe this says it best:

Lacy and Haddon acknowledged that despite the latest evidence, there will continue to be skeptics who insist that the family is involved.

"They can say all those things, but that doesn't address the scientific and conclusive evidence that exists," Haddon said. "Those people are just justifying their own slander and opportunism. They're wrong, they're losers, and to the extent they continue to try to justify what they've done, that demonstrates how little conscience they have."http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/...new-direction/

No Athena, the DNA doesn't trump the pineapple evidence for the simple reason that there are umpteen possible explanations for DNA presence but only one for the pineapple. Plus DNA cannot be precisly dated/timed but the pineapple CAN be to an accuracy of an hour or so.

The pineapple remains the bugaboo. IMO, the simplest explanation for the presence of the pineapple is that JonBenet was awake when she returned home that night and that she ate it herself unbeknownst to her family. I think the Ramseys lied about her being fast asleep to avoid intensive questioning by the police. This seems all the more likely now that the intruder evidene is stronger because the alternative explanation is that she died almost as soon as she got home - i.e. around the same time as John Ramsey claimed that he and Burke were making a model.

The digestion time of the pineapple has to be explained. We cannot simply dismiss it because it's inconvenient. It's a FACT. The digestive tract contents of a murder victim are always crucial. No amount of name-calling will change that. Like Elvis said, the people who ask these crucial and unexplained questions aren't "BORG" or "RDI" or trying to slander the Ramseys. Questions need to be satisfactorily answered.

I'll tell you something else (and Lou Smit was the first one to put this forward). If they arrest an intruder - his defence is going to be that the Ramseys did it. So it is all the more important for them to be honest and truthful. I've never thought the Ramseys killed JonBenet, but I do think they are hiding "something" and that they haven't told all they know. It could be something as simple as lying about her being awake when she got home, but I think that any lies they are telling is muddying the evidence.

[shill]

No Athena, the DNA doesn't trump the pineapple evidence for the simple reason that there are umpteen possible explanations for DNA presence but only one for the pineapple. Plus DNA cannot be precisly dated/timed but the pineapple CAN be to an accuracy of an hour or so.

The pineapple remains the bugaboo. IMO, the simplest explanation for the presence of the pineapple is that JonBenet was awake when she returned home that night and that she ate it herself unbeknownst to her family. I think the Ramseys lied about her being fast asleep to avoid intensive questioning by the police. This seems all the more likely now that the intruder evidene is stronger because the alternative explanation is that she died almost as soon as she got home - i.e. around the same time as John Ramsey claimed that he and Burke were making a model.

Ah-ha, so you are an RDI.
So nice to see you finally come out of the closet.

Well bring on your credible "umpteen possible explanations for DNA presence"

Maybe you should study up more on the case because there is more then one explanation for the pineapple contrary to your ignorant claim.

[Bystander]

IMO DNA trumps the digestion of pineapple and anything else that has been speculated about. There is NO INNOCENT EXPLANATION for the DNA match -- none -- Conclusion: The Ramseys are innocent and the DNA has proven there was an UNKNOWN MALE that should not have been there. In the interest of justice -- you would think everyone now would put their resources together in an attempt to catch the perp. I believe this says it best:

Lacy and Haddon acknowledged that despite the latest evidence, there will continue to be skeptics who insist that the family is involved.

"They can say all those things, but that doesn't address the scientific and conclusive evidence that exists," Haddon said. "Those people are just justifying their own slander and opportunism. They're wrong, they're losers, and to the extent they continue to try to justify what they've done, that demonstrates how little conscience they have."

http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/...new-direction/

(I'm using this post to respond but working in other's that I've previously seen too)

The dna evidence is strong but is not proof by itself, NO INNOCENT EXPLANATION, notwithstanding. This evidence does not stand alone, the dna profile has been known for years and has not done anything to find the killer in the past. Neither the new or old can prove their case:


In her letter, Lacy said authorities will need more than a DNA match to solve the crime. But, she stressed the significance of the latest development.

"DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find, and we rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes," she wrote.

It can not clear the Ramsey's any better than a Grand Jury did by refusing to indict them after 13 months of investigation. "Grand Juries usually do what prosecutors want," is what a criminal lawyer recently told me.

The system itself worked as it was supposed to. They WERE innocent until proven guilty. They did not have enough proof to charge anybody and they were not charged.

A Federal Judge supported the Ramsey's as well, the Grand Jury refused to indict them, the dna has been around for years, and the DA's office supported them for years, so officially clearing someone who was never charged is a little redundant.
"Since Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey have not been charged, much less convicted, they must be presumed innocent and must be treated accordingly," Keenan said in a 2003 press release..
Boulder DA consistently supported 'intruder theory' : Local News : The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/09/boulder-da-consistently-supported-intruder-theory/)

So what exactly was she apologizing for? She's been one of their best friends. It seems more like she is trying to quell the court of public opinion and I see nothing wrong with that, since their accusers have been very vocal in the past, but there seems to be more behind it. Maybe pressure from the formidable Ramsey lawyers.

Earlier, there was speculation that the DNA on JonBenet's underwear could have been left by a garment worker, a theory discredited by the discovery of the same DNA left on her long johns.

I think the above is the only thing the new dna evidence really changed. It blew that theory out of the water, but it was only ever a theory, supported by Dr. Lee finding dna on garments in previously unopened packages.

And it can help reinforce a picture of the sequence of events, but it's also already been assumed that her leggins were pulled down, and then pulled back up, based on her being dressed in them when she went to bed, her being violated and then still being dressed in them after she was discovered.
They did not need the dna to show that, and it does not illustrate that any better than what was already known.

If transfer were not possible, they wouldn't have had to rule it out in the first place. They've checked the coroner's people and they've discounted the factory worker theory, but by all accounts it's a very small sample that was finally found.. a few small skin cells, so does that really rule out all possibiltiy of secondary/tertiary transfer, not by a factory worker, but by the person who did the actual murder?

"Now you've got in three more places exactly the same DNA on the clothing that demonstrate exactly what happened: her leggings and panties were pulled down, then pulled back up after she was violated," Haddon said. "It's enormously compelling evidence."
DA: New DNA evidence clears Ramseys in JonBenet murder : Updates : The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/09/new-dna-evidence-reportedly-clears-ramsey-family/)


I like that people are trying so hard to account for it because if they truly find NO INNOCENT EXPLANATION, then that will only reinforce their initial position. Or, it may disprove it. Either way, it's a win win situation. :cool:

But what does he mean by "three MORE places?" I'm confused, there, because I thought it was on the inside of the undies in one place and on the outside of the leggins in two places. (either side of the waist) Did Haddon misspeak or did I misread? Is there another spot? (other than the little bit under the fingernails?)

Haddon calling people losers isn't going to win any hearts and minds though. That's a ridiculous comment and doesn't become someone in a position of responsibility. :punch: :rolleyes: It even sounds a bit irrational, but it sounds like he's talking about the tabloids. They're enough to make anyone irrational.

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, whose department has been widely criticized for the way it handled the case, said that DNA samples from 200 people have been compared with the mystery DNA without a match. Investigators hope to find a match in a growing national database with more than 5 million offenders' DNA profiles.

They've checked all of their previous suspects, and that statement doesn't mention that there was anything inconclusive about the results. I had heard the number 200 earlier, mentioned by Jayelles, I believe, but which of the 200were inconclusive? (Will have to scroll back through the chaff to find those comments and reread them)

I'm glad they found this new evidence, and I look forward to hearing the truth whatever that may be, but, if they didn't find a match before, why would they find one now, which isn't a blind match to someone in a database, which Mary Lacy says will prove nothing by itself? What is different about the new dna that would justify retesting all those people if they could not match any of them to the sample they found previously? I do believe I'm missing something there.

Perhaps they should check people close to the family who aren't suspects, thereby enhancing their NO INNOCENT EXPLANATION statement. That sounds enormously expensive though. They'd have to get samples from every male at both parties for starters.

I know it's not something any one is likely to consider if they are set in their convictions, but hypothetically, what would people think if the dna matches someone who wasn't likely to have done this? It's a nagging thought due to their not having a match so far, and it narrows the field of remaining possibilities considerably, because a completely unknown person would be someone unfamiliar with the family and the residence. How would someone like that have written that note?

These are some of the questions I hope to see answers for. Not speculation but real proof.

[DAFFODIL]

Wow Daffy
I make some polite conversation with you and ask you a few questions, and instead of having any answers for them, you attack me.
I pity you for you must feel so insignificant in "real life" that you insult me here to feel big and clever.

And some posters call Patsy a Drama Queen!


Aw shill I was sympathising with you and even sent you a rose to hope you get better soon.I think it was you who threw the first insult calling me patronising but hey ho if it makes you feel better then go ahead.I was actually being sincere when I said I pitied you cos I do.:rose:

[Jayelles]

I agree with most of your post. However, I would like to address two points:-

It can not clear the Ramsey's any better than a Grand Jury did by refusing to indict them after 13 months of investigation. "Grand Juries usually do what prosecutors want," is what a criminal lawyer recently told me.


If there was insufficient evidence to indict anyone at the time of the Grand Jury, I don't see how that is necessarily "clearing" anyone. I think we are talking about two completely different things here.

They've checked all of their previous suspects, and that statement doesn't mention that there was anything inconclusive about the results. I had heard the number 200 earlier, mentioned by Jayelles, I believe, but which of the 200were inconclusive? (Will have to scroll back through the chaff to find those comments and reread them)


Some people are bandying this word "inconclusive" about and it puzzles me a lot. What does "inconclusive" mean in scientific terms and particularly with respect to a DNA test? I

f they have a partial match of DNA from the crime scene then surely someone is either a match to that partial match .... or not? (i.e. they are a match as far as the limitations of the partial profile allow). In which case it meas the test hasn't ruled them out but that since it's only a partial profile, it cannot rule them in 100% either? As far as I am aware, there is no-one in that category (and if there is then it's a disgrace if they haven't been more rigorously pursued and even more of a disgrace that John Mark karr was arrested!).

[cookiewench]

sounds like you been reading hodges and frances hodgens. Have you been reading any current material cookie? IMO


There really hasn't been anything published in years that isn't just a rehash of the other books. When something new comes out, I'll definitely be reading it.

Do you find it odd that Burke's fingerprints were the only ones found on that glass next to the pineapple?

My fingerprints would probably be found on every dish/glass in the house - because I'm the one who empties the dishwasher.

I highly doubt that Burke would empty the dishwasher.

[Athena]

No Athena, the DNA doesn't trump the pineapple evidence for the simple reason that there are umpteen possible explanations for DNA presence but only one for the pineapple. Plus DNA cannot be precisly dated/timed but the pineapple CAN be to an accuracy of an hour or so.

The pineapple remains the bugaboo. IMO, the simplest explanation for the presence of the pineapple is that JonBenet was awake when she returned home that night and that she ate it herself unbeknownst to her family. I think the Ramseys lied about her being fast asleep to avoid intensive questioning by the police. This seems all the more likely now that the intruder evidene is stronger because the alternative explanation is that she died almost as soon as she got home - i.e. around the same time as John Ramsey claimed that he and Burke were making a model.

The digestion time of the pineapple has to be explained. We cannot simply dismiss it because it's inconvenient. It's a FACT. The digestive tract contents of a murder victim are always crucial. No amount of name-calling will change that. Like Elvis said, the people who ask these crucial and unexplained questions aren't "BORG" or "RDI" or trying to slander the Ramseys. Questions need to be satisfactorily answered.

I'll tell you something else (and Lou Smit was the first one to put this forward). If they arrest an intruder - his defence is going to be that the Ramseys did it. So it is all the more important for them to be honest and truthful. I've never thought the Ramseys killed JonBenet, but I do think they are hiding "something" and that they haven't told all they know. It could be something as simple as lying about her being awake when she got home, but I think that any lies they are telling is muddying the evidence.

I have never been an advocate for the rate of disgestion with pineapple which I will explain in the next post.

Re: the timing of the DNA of when it was put there -- there is NO innocent explanation. The underwear WAS NEW and the DNA found was FLUID. Unless the same "factory" worker who packaged those underwear and spit in them touched the waistband ON BOTH SIDES to deposit his skin cells -- there is NO other explanation since the DNA matched. I'm surprised that you would even say this.

[Athena]

I don't understand where this 1-2 hour digestion rate comes from re: the pineapple. It had already passed through her stomach to her small intestines. In addition to that pineapple is considered a cleanser and does not pass through your system like other fruits do because it is an insoluble fiber:

From the autopsy report:
G.I. Tract: The esophagus is empty. It is lined by gray-white
mucosa. The stomach contains a small amount (8-11cc) of viscous
to green to tan colored thick mucous material without
particulate matter identified. The gastic mucosa is autolyzed
but contains no areas of hemorrhage or ulceration. The yellow to
light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may
represent fragments of pineapple. No hemorrhage is identified.
The remainder of the small intestine is unremarkable. The large
intestine contains soft green fecal material. The appendix is
present.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pineapple is an insoluble fiber and passes through the digestive system intact. That is why it would be difficult to say when JBR ate the pineapple or the time of death.

Fiber is a substance found only in plants, such as fruits, vegetables, and grains. The part of the plant fiber that you eat is called dietary fiber and is an important part of a healthy diet. Dietary fiber is made up of two main types--insoluble and soluble.
What is the difference between insoluble and soluble fiber?
Soluble fiber forms a gel when mixed with liquid, while insoluble fiber does not. Insoluble fiber passes through your digestive tract largely intact. Both types of fiber are important in the diet and provide benefits to the digestive system by helping to maintain regularity. Soluble fiber has some additional benefits to heart health.

http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg...0_ENU_HTML.htm

Examples of insoluble fiber ......

Whole wheat flour, whole wheat bread, whole wheat cereal
Wheat bran
Whole grains, whole grain breads, whole grain cereals
Granola
Meusli
Seeds
Nuts
Popcorn
Beans and lentils (mashed or pureed they're much safer)
Berries (blueberries, strawberries, blackberries, cranberries, etc.)
Grapes and raisins
Cherries
Pineapple

http://www.helpforibs.com/diet/fiber2.asp

[trt]

I have never been an advocate for the rate of disgestion with pineapple which I will explain in the next post.

Re: the timing of the DNA of when it was put there -- there is NO innocent explanation. The underwear WAS NEW and the DNA found was FLUID. Unless the same "factory" worker who packaged those underwear and spit in them touched the waistband ON BOTH SIDES to deposit his skin cells -- there is NO other explanation since the DNA matched. I'm surprised that you would even say this.

Hi Athena!! So this is where you hang out? I have to say that I disagree with you regarding the DNA. Several experts have stated that they don't know what form the DNA on the panties was in and that it *could* be fluid, not not guaranteed. I got really involved in this case after the JMK incident and was a fence-sitter leaning towards the Ramseys. I'll say that this new evidence is a bit of a puzzle, because while it does not completely exonerate the Ramseys IMO, it does have to be explained and I do agree that an *innocent* explanation just doesn't fit right now.

As for the pineapple, if the pineapple was in her small intestine, it had been partially digested, regardless of whether or not it was in tact. The whole process of digesting pineapple is said to take up to 3 hours which would mean that we could guess that it took half that time(or a little more than half) to get from the stomach to the small intestine(since that is where most of the digestion occurs).

JMO

[Athena]

Hi Athena!! So this is where you hang out? I have to say that I disagree with you regarding the DNA. Several experts have stated that they don't know what form the DNA on the panties was in and that it *could* be fluid, not not guaranteed. I got really involved in this case after the JMK incident and was a fence-sitter leaning towards the Ramseys. I'll say that this new evidence is a bit of a puzzle, because while it does not completely exonerate the Ramseys IMO, it does have to be explained and I do agree that an *innocent* explanation just doesn't fit right now.

As for the pineapple, if the pineapple was in her small intestine, it had been partially digested, regardless of whether or not it was in tact. The whole process of digesting pineapple is said to take up to 3 hours which would mean that we could guess that it took half that time(or a little more than half) to get from the stomach to the small intestine(since that is where most of the digestion occurs).

JMO

Hey you -- :)

I understand it was in the process of digestion, but only fragments were found. If pineapple remains intact couldn't there just have been fragments remaining?

The DNA/biological material in the blood spot in the underwear was definitely fluid. I recall Tom Bennett saying this as well who is directly involved in the case in Boulder. Too many talking heads have been involved and I have heard so much erroneous information being put forth forth by them I barely listen. There has been a positive match between the DNA in her underwear and the skin cells on the longjohns. I'll see if I can find the article again re: Bennett.

I would love to see what Barry Scheck says as he usually only speaks about the science which is why I have the utmost respect for him.

[Athena]

Written before the new DNA found

Christine Reid, Camera Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
It may seem like the JonBenet Ramsey case is close to being solved because of a weekend media blitz on the subject, but the man handling the investigation said there`s been no breakthrough in the 8-year-old case.

Contrary to what was reported on a "48 Hours" special that aired Saturday night on CBS, DNA evidence found in JonBenet`s underwear doesn`t necessarily belong to the killer, Boulder County District Attorney`s Office investigator Tom Bennett said Monday. The office took over the Ramsey case two years ago and entered the DNA evidence into a national database for the first time earlier this year.

"The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze. ... You can`t just jump to conclusion it`s positive proof that will trace back to the killer."

Bennett -- a retired police detective with more than 30 years on the job -- said nobody from CBS or "48 Hours" contacted him about the special. Instead, private investigators once hired by the girl`s parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, offered their theories on the DNA and possible suspects.

"I would simply say this is dated news," Bennett said. "It is not indicative of any breakthrough because it`s not a breakthrough."

Six-year-old JonBenet was found beaten and strangled in her parents` Boulder basement on Dec. 26, 1996. A grand jury investigation ended with no indictments, and no arrests have been made.

District Attorney Mary Keenan has kept silent about the case`s progress since Boulder police handed over the investigation in December 2002. She said she expects news coverage of the unsolved case to ramp up every year around this time because of the anniversary of JonBenet`s death.

"It`s just natural it will be the topic of conversation," Keenan said. "We don`t pay too much attention to it."

She didn`t catch the "48 Hours" special, or a documentary by University of Colorado professor Michael Tracey that makes similar claims and aired in England six months ago.

But what Keenan`s office can`t ignore is the plethora of phone calls, faxes and letters typically sparked by the attention.

Bennett was hired in June 2003 solely to head the Ramsey investigation, but he was promoted to the office`s lead investigator in January and now manages three other investigators and two volunteers working on other cases. The Ramsey case still occupies about a third of his work time, he said, but he guesses the next two weeks of his job will be nothing but Ramsey because of the rekindled interest.

"It opens an avenue of people who have an unusual interest in the case and are not mentally stable," Bennett said.

He has had some people call him more than 10 times a day for weeks to offer their opinion on who is guilty.

"Typically they`re rambling, disjointed, meaningless statements," Bennett said. "I`ve never worked a case that generated this much interest long after the fact, or immediately after the fact."

Another resource drain is the numerous civil suits filed in connection with JonBenet`s killing, Keenan said.

"That`s the part that drives us crazy," Keenan said.

Evidence from the District Attorney`s Office is subpoenaed in each of those cases, but Keenan said her office has to be careful about what it provides because the investigation is ongoing.

On Monday, a federal judge in Denver heard arguments on why one such case should be thrown out.

Fox News Network is being sued by the Ramseys over a story that aired Dec. 27, 2002, for the six-year anniversary of JonBenet`s slaying. In the story, reporter Carol McKinley said there has "never been any evidence to link an intruder to her brutal murder."

Keenan said she`ll wait and see if the judge sides with Fox and tosses the case, which would get her office off the hook to produce the paperwork.

Contact Camera Staff Writer Christine Reid at (303) 473-1355 or reidc@dailycamera.com.

http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/count...925946,00.html

[Jayelles]

I have never been an advocate for the rate of disgestion with pineapple which I will explain in the next post.

Re: the timing of the DNA of when it was put there -- there is NO innocent explanation. The underwear WAS NEW and the DNA found was FLUID. Unless the same "factory" worker who packaged those underwear and spit in them touched the waistband ON BOTH SIDES to deposit his skin cells -- there is NO other explanation since the DNA matched. I'm surprised that you would even say this.


Whilst digestion may not be an exact science, most experts can agree to a limited time frame during which she ate pineapple. That is more exact timing that this DNA IMO. Whilst I agree its presence on both her longjohns and her underwear would rule out its deposit BEFORE the evening of 25th, it does not rule out its deposit afterwards. There have already been suggestions that staff in Meyer's department weren't entirely scrupulous in their handling of the corpse (using same nail clipper for example).

If the Touch DNA testing has yielded results from her longjohns, perhaps it will also do so on the garotte or the ransom note or the duct tape.

What puzzles me is why this apparently gloveless killer left no touch DNA on anything else. The lack of fingerprints suggested he WAS wearing gloves yet this longjohn DNA suggests otherwise. This latest evidence only creates more questions.

I do wish Mary Lacy would put her money where her mouth is and say that it clears everyone. If she is THAT confident about it, she wouldn't hesitate - surely?

[shill]

Do you find it odd that Burke's fingerprints were the only ones found on that glass next to the pineapple?

Yes I do, especially when RDI say Patsy fed JonBenet the pineapple. How come Burke's prints are on the glass but not Patsy's?

[cookiewench]

How come Burke's prints are on the glass but not Patsy's?

There should be two people's fingerprints on the glass: whoever unloaded the dishwasher's, and whoever used the glass afterwards.

Since 9-year-olds aren't usually the ones to empty the dishwasher (and since Patsy would have brought this up if that were the case, when his fingerprints were said to be on it), I found this to be odd.

[Athena]

Whilst digestion may not be an exact science, most experts can agree to a limited time frame during which she ate pineapple. That is more exact timing that this DNA IMO. Whilst I agree its presence on both her longjohns and her underwear would rule out its deposit BEFORE the evening of 25th, it does not rule out its deposit afterwards. There have already been suggestions that staff in Meyer's department weren't entirely scrupulous in their handling of the corpse (using same nail clipper for example).

If the Touch DNA testing has yielded results from her longjohns, perhaps it will also do so on the garotte or the ransom note or the duct tape.

What puzzles me is why this apparently gloveless killer left no touch DNA on anything else. The lack of fingerprints suggested he WAS wearing gloves yet this longjohn DNA suggests otherwise. This latest evidence only creates more questions.

I do wish Mary Lacy would put her money where her mouth is and say that it clears everyone. If she is THAT confident about it, she wouldn't hesitate - surely?

Just speculation but I believe it is possible the perp removed his gloves to touch JBRs bare skin not realizing he would be leaving DNA on the longjohns. There was also a partial print that Trujillo lifted from the body but never heard any more about that have you?

[shill]

There should be two people's fingerprints on the glass: whoever unloaded the dishwasher's, and whoever used the glass afterwards.

So why weren't there two sets of prints on the glass?

[shill]

What puzzles me is why this apparently gloveless killer left no touch DNA on anything else. The lack of fingerprints suggested he WAS wearing gloves yet this longjohn DNA suggests otherwise. This latest evidence only creates more questions.
I'm sure this puzzles a lot of RDI.

First you have to accept that this was at least a sex crime by an intruder.

Now at some point he pulls down her pajamas and underwear and she is naked, and yet you're puzzled he would pull his gloves off and touch her?

He wore gloves to not leave trace evidence, and when he did leave a trace, he knew to wipe it clean, which explains the wiping down of JonBenet.

Why would he fondle her with gloves on? He wouldn't.

He did not expect microscopic DNA science to come of age and bight him in the rear.

The crime scene makes simple sense when you accept a male intruder as the perpetrator.

The crime scene does not make sense when you try and make it fit a Ramsey doing it, unless you say they staged everything to make it look like a male intruder was the perpetrator.

[Jayelles]

On the General Discussion thread at Sycamore, Aussiesheila posted this:-

Apparently there is a videotape of this that has been shown to the general public. While I have not seen it myself one very helpful poster described what she saw to me. If I recall correctly she said that Patsy curled up into almost a fetal postion during the NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE parts of the answer. That is indicative of a profound emotional 'swamping' occuring.

Louisedelamr subsequently attributed this to me, saying:-

I think it was Jayelles who said something about Patsy's response. I don't recall that it was quite as dramatic as your recollection but since the video isn't available I'll withhold judgment.

It just goes to show how things get distorted on the forums and I'd rather not have such a wild misrepresentation of the truth attributed to me. What I actually posted was this:-

All I can say is that many commented on Patsy's change of demeanour when she was asked about abuse in her family. I would say her demeanour changed. She became almost childlike. The quality of the video was poor so it wasn't possible to see her face properly, but her voice changed noticeably.

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1074886&highlight=childlike#post1074886

The change in Patsy's voice is reflected in the transcript where it describes her response as

(NO AUDIBLE
25 RESPONSE).


I made no observation about her body language and indeed pointed out that I couldn't see her face due to the poor quality of the video.

Hopefully posters who read at Sycamore will read this and take note of the importance of NOT relying on posters' vague recollections!

[trt]

I'm sure this puzzles a lot of RDI.

First you have to accept that this was at least a sex crime by an intruder.

Now at some point he pulls down her pajamas and underwear and she is naked, and yet you're puzzled he would pull his gloves off and touch her?

He wore gloves to not leave trace evidence, and when he did leave a trace, he knew to wipe it clean, which explains the wiping down of JonBenet.

Why would he fondle her with gloves on? He wouldn't.

He did not expect microscopic DNA science to come of age and bight him in the rear.

The crime scene makes simple sense when you accept a male intruder as the perpetrator.

The crime scene does not make sense when you try and make it fit a Ramsey doing it, unless you say they staged everything to make it look like a male intruder was the perpetrator.

Whether you feel the Ramseys did it or an Intruder did it, IMO, there is really nothing in this case that makes *simple* sense. If it was an intruder, we have to still wonder (among other things) why this intruder would not bring any materials to carry out the plan that he/she set out to accomplish while in the house. Why mostly everything used came from the house and how, if the killer planned this, he/she knew that everything he/she needed would be readily available in the Ramsey home(right down to a pen and paper to write a ransom note on).

Or, if the intruder was so careful as to not leave prints or DNA anywhere else(assumed by the small amounts of DNA that are being found on JonBenet that have not been found anywhere else in the crime scene), why would he/she get careless and take the gloves off BEFORE removing the longjohns? Why not remove the longjohns with the gloves and THEN proceed with whatever he/she wanted to do.

[Jayelles]

Whether you feel the Ramseys did it or an Intruder did it, IMO, there is really nothing in this case that makes *simple* sense. If it was an intruder, we have to still wonder (among other things) why this intruder would not bring any materials to carry out the plan that he/she set out to accomplish while in the house. Why mostly everything used came from the house and how, if the killer planned this, he/she knew that everything he/she needed would be readily available in the Ramsey home(right down to a pen and paper to write a ransom note on).

Or, if the intruder was so careful as to not leave prints or DNA anywhere else(assumed by the small amounts of DNA that are being found on JonBenet that have not been found anywhere else in the crime scene), why would he/she get careless and take the gloves off BEFORE removing the longjohns? Why not remove the longjohns with the gloves and THEN proceed with whatever he/she wanted to do.

Good questions. Fits with my theory of a jealous rage killing - perhaps fantacised about but not necessarily planned.

[andU]

There really hasn't been anything published in years that isn't just a rehash of the other books. When something new comes out, I'll definitely be reading it.

Do you find it odd that Burke's fingerprints were the only ones found on that glass next to the pineapple?

My fingerprints would probably be found on every dish/glass in the house - because I'm the one who empties the dishwasher.

I highly doubt that Burke would empty the dishwasher.

Maybe he had to or chose to get a glass from the dishwasher opposed to getting one from the cabinet?

[trt]

Maybe he had to or chose to get a glass from the dishwasher opposed to getting one from the cabinet?



Hmmm, that's definitely a possibility. Does anyone know if the dishwasher was clear or was that even something considered while looking for clues?

[cookiewench]

I don't believe this was a sex crime.


Perhaps Patsy some someone's DNA under her nails when she pulled off the longjohns, wiped Jonbenet's crotch area and then changed her panties.

After she lost control and slammed her daughter's head against the sink or tub, she put on some gloves to stage the scene.

She must have had a drawer full of cotton gloves. All "ladies" do.

[shill]

Or, if the intruder was so careful as to not leave prints or DNA anywhere else(assumed by the small amounts of DNA that are being found on JonBenet that have not been found anywhere else in the crime scene), why would he/she get careless and take the gloves off BEFORE removing the longjohns? Why not remove the longjohns with the gloves and THEN proceed with whatever he/she wanted to do.
It's a he, they know that from the DNA.

Maybe he did remove the longjohns with his gloves.
But after that, he took off his gloves to touch her and in all his excitement just pulled the llongjohns back up with out gloves on.

[trt]

It's a he, they know that from the DNA.

Maybe he did remove the longjohns with his gloves.
But after that, he took off his gloves to touch her and in all his excitement just pulled the llongjohns back up with out gloves on.

You are correct, the DNA does implicate a male. I am not convinced that a male was the one that killed JonBenet, though, which is why I made the distinction that I did. But that is a very real possibility, although it still doesn't fit (IMO), the way that the killer was very careful not to leave much DNA or other forensic evidence around the crime scene. Doing something that careless would surely mean that other careless mistakes were made, which would/should mean that more DNA/forensic evidence on this mysterious male would/should be found. JMO

[shill]

I don't believe this was a sex crime.


Perhaps Patsy some someone's DNA under her nails when she pulled off the longjohns, wiped Jonbenet's crotch area and then changed her panties.That's just not possible.
The blood spot DNA is not the same source of DNA as the touch DNA.
What you are claiming is just not scientifically possible.
You need to except the reality of the evidence so you can make accurate assessments of the evidence.
And the evidence is pretty stacked towards a sex crime happening.

After she lost control and slammed her daughter's head against the sink or tub, she put on some gloves to stage the scene.So it looks like you're sticking to that sad old story no matter what evidence is presented. I'm not surprised at all.

Patsy's character history and friend's references have never fit the description of the enraged psychopath you have described.

So why did Patsy take off the gloves at some point as your theory would have to allege, to account for the DNA transfer of both saliva and skin DNA form under Patsies nails?

She must have had a drawer full of cotton gloves. All "ladies" do.Really, why do all ladies have these gloves? I have never heard of this before.
I have white cotton gloves, but that's so I don't get fingerprints on film negatives.