View Full Version : Another Odd Thing
Barbara
11-04-2003, 05:18 PM
Again, I won't quote, but when discussing the pageants, John made comments that perhaps Patsy liked JonBenet in the pageants as a child in case Patsy wasn't around to watch when she was in her teens and participating.
Okay, makes sense.
The pageant world was a natural for Patsy and her family and was obviously to be a way of life for JonBenet as well.
Thousands of dollars were spent on lessons, costumes, etc. Her hair was dyed blonde. A lot of work for a few Sunday afternoons.
Now what I find odd:
John says what he did above and then said that he and Patsy never talked about it (the pageants)
Am I the only one who finds this beyond odd?
gretchen
11-04-2003, 05:21 PM
I don't think John was really interested in the day to day activities of his children. I believe he let Patsy make the decisions regarding his children's activities.
Nothing wrong with that per se, but shouldn't he have shown some interest in what Burke and JonBenet were doing?
ajt400
11-04-2003, 05:21 PM
Maybe what he said was just meant as an assumption, not what she and John had talked about.
why_nutt
11-04-2003, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Barbara
Again, I won't quote, but when discussing the pageants, John made comments that perhaps Patsy liked JonBenet in the pageants as a child in case Patsy wasn't around to watch when she was in her teens and participating.
Okay, makes sense.
The pageant world was a natural for Patsy and her family and was obviously to be a way of life for JonBenet as well.
Thousands of dollars were spent on lessons, costumes, etc. Her hair was dyed blonde. A lot of work for a few Sunday afternoons.
Now what I find odd:
John says what he did above and then said that he and Patsy never talked about it (the pageants)
Am I the only one who finds this beyond odd?
John's quote about Patsy's putting of JonBenet in the pageants as a way of enjoying an activity Patsy may not have lived long enough to enjoy at a more appropriate age has struck me as revealing. Basically, it says that John thought Patsy was a liar, and that he thought she knew herself she was a liar. What is the evidence? That darn cure. Patsy has claimed that she knew from the moment of her healing ceremony that she was completely and utterly cured of cancer, no remission possible, no need to even complete the course of chemotherapy. But if Patsy believed she was cured of cancer, then she also had to believe that she had decades of life ahead of her in which to enjoy JonBenet as a simple and honest child before imposing the discipline of artificial childhood the pageants reward in their winners. So John has told the world that Patsy never really believed she was cured of cancer, that if she was honest with herself, she saw herself as having a deadline to beat before the cancer took her away from JonBenet's teen years. So much for that cure.
People make mention of Patsy's family being steeped in pageants as family tradition, but this is not true. Patsy's first pageant came when she was fifteen years old and tried to become a DeMolay Sweetheart. For goodness' sake, Patsy was old enough to bear a child before she stepped on a pageant stage, and Nedra was never in a pageant herself. JonBenet should at least have been given the right to achieve something approaching maturity, as Patsy was.
Originally posted by why_nutt
JonBenet should at least have been given the right to achieve something approaching maturity, as Patsy was. You mean that Patsy should have denied JonBenet her desire to participate in something she had seen and liked; if a few years later she had liked riding a pony, the should not have ever bought her a pony or given her riding lessons,,,, just what activities would meet with your approval?
ajt400
11-04-2003, 06:30 PM
Apparently, Toth, nothing meets with approval! If she had been a cheerleader, would people be arguing so? I don't condone pageants, altough I was in a few in high school (just the average Miss Eastside and such), but just because I don't agree with them, doesn't make them wrong. If you don't like them, don't put your child in them.
Yes, thats why I think this is mainly a campaign against the Ramseys rather than an investigation into a murder.
The personal views regarding pageant participation seem to carry such weight with few realizing that the investigator's veiws of kiddie pageants is meaningless.
The father's who sit through such things are bored out of their minds but as long as their daughters are happy they will fork over the modest entry fees and a few hours of their time.
It doesn't mean the investigator's personal views should carry such weight.
ajt400
11-04-2003, 06:43 PM
Exactly, just like parents will sit for 4 hours and listen to 8 year olds play on a piano....they are not very good at all, but if it makes your child smile, why not?
Also, something that has always bothered me. Why haven'y any of the photos taken of JonBenet actually looking like a child been published by anyone other than the Ramsey's? Of course it looks like the pageant world dominates you and your child when the only photos people can find in circulation are pageant photos!
That issue of 'photos' was addressed elsewhere. The family photoalbum was full of 'ordinary shots' and the networks wouldn't run an ordinary shot, its not going to get them ratings.
Its like that Calfornia newspaper that ran a photo of the "First Baby of the New Year" that they knew was of the second baby born because those parents were a young married couple and the first baby of the new year was born to a far less photogenic single mother with a history of having been on welfare. So the paper ran the photo that was 'better for them'.
Pageant photos sell well.
SisterSocks
11-04-2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Barbara
Again, I won't quote, but when discussing the pageants, John made comments that perhaps Patsy liked JonBenet in the pageants as a child in case Patsy wasn't around to watch when she was in her teens and participating.
Okay, makes sense.
The pageant world was a natural for Patsy and her family and was obviously to be a way of life for JonBenet as well.
Thousands of dollars were spent on lessons, costumes, etc. Her hair was dyed blonde. A lot of work for a few Sunday afternoons.
Now what I find odd:
John says what he did above and then said that he and Patsy never talked about it (the pageants)
Am I the only one who finds this beyond odd?
Hi Barb, good topic , thank you ...
:twocents:
This Pageant topic , brought back lots of memories about the Talent shows I was in from age 4 to 16, it was through my school and church I wore party dresses and played guitar and sang.
My mother and her best friend made my costumes. I had a singing coach starting at age 10-12. I played guitar by ear so didn't need training there...
I enjoyed these Talent competitions they were challenging, I learned everything that Pageants girls learned plus so much more.
I was pressing my mom for nu clothes I loved the praise I got from my school and church. (I can see where Patsy and Jon Benet loved the pageants ----I can see from the inside out...)
The talent fee was nomally 20 a show and you won money for your church or school needs. My dad was a minister, so it came fairly easy for me. I know my mother spent at least 1000 a year in the early 70s .She was a nurse. My last talent competition I won 2500 dollars for first place,and my mother spend 5000 that year... I married 2 days after the talent show. The End.
My husband started training our oldest son at 2 for soccer They lived and breathed it ... Son had a private trainer at 6. We EASILY 6 THOUSAND ON TRAINERS the first 5 years of his soccer experience. Pageants and Soccer different as night and day but the same money ... If your child is an all star like Son was--- you payed 200 dollars for tournaments one year ,sent him to camp 5 years 500 dollars a camp some in the same year. (gotta remember this was before oil fall out of the late eightys in Texas)
He was a happy youth... I wasn't much into the soccer thing I watched the games and gave out orange slices. Point being I wasn't into talking about what trainer said or that stuff. Like John wasn't into pageant talk yanno?
My youngest son was into baseball and football (showed no interest in Soccer):confused:
He never wanted the high life he just wanted to watch TV play video games like Burke Baby son grow to a very gentle and happy husband and father.
Any way Barbara, you always bring out the logical side of me and thought this post shows that pageants and talent and soccer are always going to be there . Little girls are play grown up, little boys going to kick a soccer ball, Parents are gona do everything to keep there child happy even when its not your thing .
SisterSocks
SisterSocks
11-04-2003, 08:55 PM
Bump for Barbara to read
ajt400
11-04-2003, 09:03 PM
That is so true...well said!
Britt
11-04-2003, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by why_nutt
People make mention of Patsy's family being steeped in pageants as family tradition, but this is not true. Patsy's first pageant came when she was fifteen years old and tried to become a DeMolay Sweetheart. For goodness' sake, Patsy was old enough to bear a child before she stepped on a pageant stage, and Nedra was never in a pageant herself. JonBenet should at least have been given the right to achieve something approaching maturity, as Patsy was.
Good observation, why_nutt.
It is so obvious (IMO) that Patsy was using JonBenét as an extension of Patsy. She was using her to achieve what she herself never did. Those photos in Dr. Hodges' book illustrate this perfectly. So did JB's comment (paraphrased) that her trophies were really her mother's. I think Patsy is sick (as in, mentally ill, personality disorder)... and John was uninvolved and clueless.
ayjey
11-05-2003, 09:04 AM
I think the pageants were a big part of Patsy's life at one time and she was happy that JonBenet wanted to participate in them too.
Patsy appears somewhat naive in certain subjects, I think this is one where she never imagined how people would react to the costumes she had JonBenet wear.
Nehemiah
11-05-2003, 10:10 AM
I wrote about the Southern pageantry mindset on another thread so I won't put it here. But I really don't see any difference in JB's participation in pageants than my own husband's interest of our sons in baseball and football. Maybe one could make a case and say that he was living vicariously in that way; in fact, most of the men I know here coach Little League, etc...and are very consumed with their sons/sports/hunting, etc... Male bonding activities, as I say.
Barbara
11-05-2003, 10:58 AM
Toth and AJT
This thread was not meant to deal with the pageants itself. We've been through the pageant aspect of this ad nauseum.
This thread was about the oddness that John and Patsy never spoke of it. As far as the modest entry fees, lets get real. The entry fees might have been modest, but again, you bring suspicion on the Ramseys by denying the FACT that thousands of dollars was spent on costumes, lessons for dance and song, travel, and dying a 6 year old's hair blond, etc. This was not for "a few Sunday afternoons".
Why in the world is the RST playing this down? Regardless of whether JBR wanted to or not, it WAS to be a way of life for her according to Patsy's family, etc.
Why, since this was obviously a BIG part of their lives, did John and Patsy never speak of it.
It defies the claims of the Ramsey supporters that they were such a close knit family and the family that had no issues, were warm and loving, etc.
Maybe there were no issues because they never spoke about them. Yeah, that must be it.
Why Nutt, again, right on
SisterSocks, thanks for the bump.
ajt400
11-05-2003, 11:09 AM
I don't think it is odd, of course my parents relationship was not what you would want in a marriage. My father knew I was in gymanstics and cheerleading and such, but he had no clue when the games were until my mom told him, he didn't kow what our costume was until the night of the perormances, he never knew which number we would dance to. I shrugged it off as just he wasn't interested in 'girl' things.
Nehemiah
11-05-2003, 12:58 PM
The oddity to me about it is the same oddity that one can read from their transcripts. They either did not communicate much, or they wanted people to believe that they didn't. I got the impression that they "lived" in their own separate "space" or bubble although married.
tipper
11-05-2003, 01:12 PM
What is it you think they should have discussed? Yousay the pageants but I'm interested in specifically what you think they should have talked about.
Jayelles
11-05-2003, 01:57 PM
I would guess that if Patsy sensed John's unspoken disapproval of the pageants, then she wouldn't want to "go there" :-)
Our Tootsie goes to ballet and I wouldn't generally discuss this with my Hubby unless she had done something clever or amusing - e.g. something that he might enjoy hearing about. I'm as well saving my breath about anything else anyway. If I was to bore him with the mundane details of the under-5's ballet class he would sit and make all the right noises, but it would be going in one ear and out the other....
If John Ramsey is anything like my husband, Patsy could have discussed the pageants with him thousands of times, and he just wouldn't remember it because he wasn't paying attention.
candy
11-05-2003, 05:03 PM
LOL Maxi! You're describing many guys. Too true! :D
The father's role at pageants, ballet, etc. is to show up for special events, not look bored and to beam with pride at the appropriate moments,,, it is not part of his role to listen to endless prattle about the stupid stuff.
Jayelles
11-05-2003, 06:27 PM
it is not part of his role to listen to endless prattle about the stupid stuff.
So you agree that it's a silly pastime?
Shylock
11-05-2003, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by tipper
What is it you think they should have discussed? Yousay the pageants but I'm interested in specifically what you think they should have talked about. Let's start with how to activate the alarm system!
LOL! - couldn't resist THAT one, Tip!
eliza
11-05-2003, 08:42 PM
I think we all can get carried away with our childrens activities, I know my son was into hockey and we did all the tournaments and training camps. I really don't see a problem with the pageant thing as I'm sure Patsy just started out wanting her daughter to enjoy something she experienced and enjoyed. I can understand how John might not get too involved seeing it was more of a girl thing. What I don't understand is why John didn"t get involved when the pageant thing seemed to get out of hand. He should have stepped in and had a talk with Patsy when she was coloring his daughters hair at such a young age and he should of had a fit at seeing his daughter doing such suggestive moves for such a little girl. This is when John should have been talking to Patsy.
Toltec
11-05-2003, 08:50 PM
I can understand patsy wanting JonBenet to enter pageants...she was a beautiful, charming little girl.
It's the pageant outfits and the suggestive dancing I find extremely offending. This was not taught by dance instructors but by Patsy and Pam. The outfits were designed by none other than Miss Pam.
No doubt in my mind that both Miss Patsy and Miss Pam decided that JonBenet would wow the crowd as a little Lolita....
ajt400
11-06-2003, 01:38 AM
Not particulary that it is a stupid past time, just that most men are not going to care if Wanda S. is to pushy making sure her daughter is up front, and "Who does she think she is?", or every endless detail of all the costumes, and a play y play of the talent rehearsal.
My boyfriend will make an awesome husband one day because he knows exactly when to nod and say "uh huh, sure you look nice"
What is a silly pastime to me may not be to you and vice versa!
:D :D :D :D
Originally posted by Toltec
It's the pageant outfits and the suggestive dancing I find extremely offending. Well, I doubt there was all that much difference between the various contestants.
tipper
11-06-2003, 10:01 AM
"It's the pageant outfits and the suggestive dancing I find extremely offending. "
But apparently the judges didn't.
JBR's get-ups were less trash and flash than many we've seen on tv specials about kiddie pageants. They were just expensive looking and eerily sophisticated for a little kid.
You can find more suggestive clothing in the Sears kids' dept. these days. And don't get me started on dance costumes I've seen! Think black vinyl crop tops and booty shorts on a 6-year-old who is shimmying with everything she doesn't have. The change it what is considered appropriate for children over the past 16 years is appalling! But I don't see men in the audiences, except a few beleagured dads with weekend visitation.
Eagle1
11-06-2003, 05:17 PM
Obviously they're just not telling us what all they talked about. It's supposed to be private. I really can't imagine John Ramsey saying Patsy may have killed JonBenet because.....anything. I thought maybe you meant the author of the new book.
Maybe JR doesn't pay any attention to prattle, even his own, and didn't realize he was saying out loud what was only a passing thought. So he did wonder about Patsy after all. At least for a short time. (Personally, I'm Intruder Theory.)
sissi
11-07-2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Toltec
It's the pageant outfits and the suggestive dancing I find extremely offending.
Pam designed the costumes,and Christine added the "bumps" to otherwise normally choreographed progams.
Patsy sent her to a normal dance class,where many little girls learned the same motions,the Griffins however,knew that the little extras would get the "trophy".
JMO
Blazeboy3
11-08-2003, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by Eagle1
Obviously they're just not telling us what all they talked about. It's supposed to be private. I really can't imagine John Ramsey saying Patsy may have killed JonBenet because.....anything.
Maybe JR doesn't pay any attention to prattle, even his own, and didn't realize he was saying out loud what was only a passing thought. So he did wonder about Patsy after all. At least for a short time. (Personally, I'm Intruder Theory.)I thought maybe you meant the author of the new book.
:cool: Author of new book???...!!!... he did (Davis-"An Evening with JonBenet") mention that one book failed to repeat a phrase printed in 1st copy:
p. 190: 26. "Schiller, p.583."It is interesting that Schiller removes this paragraph from the paperback version of his book.
...p.584 "Schiller"
Originally posted by sissi
Originally posted by Toltec
It's the pageant outfits and the suggestive dancing I find extremely offending.
Pam designed the costumes,and Christine added the "bumps" to otherwise normally choreographed progams.
Patsy sent her to a normal dance class,where many little girls learned the same motions,the Griffins however,knew that the little extras would get the "trophy".
JMO
OMG, those were barely bumps! I've seen hundreds and hundreds of little girls' dance routines, and JonBenet's was conservative, even with Christine's additions (if that's what they were). The "bumps" are just swinging her cowgirl skirt. I think that dance teacher's statement was just her attempt to make sure none of the JBR case stink rubbed off on her business. Boulder isn't in Saudi Arabia, for goodness sake!
Originally posted by Maxi
Boulder isn't in Saudi Arabia, for goodness sake! No, its not, however, many posters seem to hold such stark views on beauty pageants that I think more reasonable minds might be found in Saudi Arabia.
As investigators, these personally held views on kiddie pageants should have no role whatsoever.
Its as if you had a violent dislike and suspicion because they called an Episcopalian minister instead of a Rabbi. Your strongly held views should play no role in an investigation.
Shylock
11-09-2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Toth
As investigators, these personally held views on kiddie pageants should have no role whatsoever.
Toth, you will forever take the cake as the greatest hypocrite we know. Mention Santa Bill and you are the first one to point your finger and bash him because he occasionally wandered into a dirty magazine shop. Well if that makes him a suspect in YOUR mind, then parents who sleeze-up their child and prance her across a stage should be seated right next to Santa in your boat of suspecious behavior.
In The World According to Toth, "normal" people don't visit dirty book stores.
In the REAL world, "normal" people don't enter their little children in kiddie pageants.
----
JMHO
Imon128
11-09-2003, 06:19 PM
John Ramsey also professes JB's killer was a pedophile. I know that not all males at pageants ARE pedophiles, but by the same logic, not all males at pageants are NOT pedophiles.
LOL, John also said he as a sadistic masochist. Or was it a masochistic sadist?
According to DOI, John is looking for a sadistic masochist who has a big grudge against John, hates wealthy people, has contact with criminals, and who happens to be a pedophile. He would also need about four arms and a skinny body to climb through the basement window carrying the baseball bat, duct tape, stun gun, etc. This guy shouldn't be hard to spot!
Imon128
11-09-2003, 09:16 PM
Yeah, maxi, and the guy had one leg, too, since there was one footprint. Also, included in John's logic, this was an inside job. Goes to show what kind of folks the R's hang out with or have for family members, eh? LOL
>According to DOI, John is looking for a . . .
He is reflecting what various investigators and profilers have told him or his lawyers coordinating the investigation.
>sadistic masochist
(humor break)
Masochist says "beat me, beat me".
Sadist says "no".
>He would also need about four arms and a skinny body to climb
>through the basement window carrying the baseball bat, duct
The last time I saw a TV show featuring Lou Smit he did not have a skinny body. Nor did he have four arms.
Ah, but was Smit carrying a baseball bat, a stun gun, a bag of rope, duct tape, a flashlight, and, possibly, a pineapple?
Lou Smit's intruder demonstration was a hoot. Smit's butt dragged across the window sill, and he landed like a klutz.
gretchen
11-09-2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Maxi
Ah, but was Smit carrying a baseball bat, a stun gun, a bag of rope, duct tape, a flashlight, and, possibly, a pineapple?
Too funny Maxi!:D :D
Such items were probably in a bindle of some sort.
Landing like a klutz is not necessarily unlike the way the intruder landed.
sissi
11-09-2003, 10:23 PM
I don't think he landed,he went in a door,left by a door,he either had a key or waited in the garage until they left and entered through the door from the garage. I do believe Barnhill saw him,and if he for a second thought it was JAR,it should be noted for the police that the intruder was a slim young man. BTW where are this young man's ,he who crossed the lawn,footprints in the snow?
It would be nice if we had an efficient data system for dna crossmatching ,in the way we match fingerprints,a bank for all felons and offenders of any kind.
JMO
Landing like a klutz was part of the reason Smit's intruder skit was funny, and yes, Toth, maybe the intruder landed like a klutz too. One thing is an absolute certainty. There is no way that anyone, including an intruder, could have come through that window on the night of the murder without disturbing the spider web and the dust on the window sill.
Blazeboy3
11-10-2003, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by Ivy
Landing like a klutz was part of the reason Smit's intruder skit was funny, and yes, Toth, maybe the intruder landed like a klutz too. One thing is an absolute certainty. There is no way that anyone, including an intruder, could have come through that window on the night of the murder without disturbing the spider web and the dust on the window sill.
I agree...unless for some unknown reason...TIMING WAS OFF...???
WHY WOULD THIS BE (TIMING OFF???)???... IMHO...it's a trust- understanding thing---the MOM hired the homeless to do work... and IMHO the homeless got CARRIED AWAY w/IMAGINATION-EVIL!
Blazeboy3
11-10-2003, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by gretchen
Too funny Maxi!:D :D
DITTO!!!:o :eek: :p ;) :) :confused: :bigthumb: :dontknow: :nono:
Shylock
11-10-2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Ivy
Lou Smit's intruder demonstration was a hoot. Smit's butt dragged across the window sill, and he landed like a klutz. The crime scene photos prove that nobody went across that window sill on months. There are still "drop marks" from the last rainfall that can clearly be seen in the dirt.
Besides, the suitcase was on the INSIDE. That means "the intruder" went OUT the window, Nobody, not even Smit, has managed to crawl OUT that window.
ajt400
11-10-2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by sissi
BTW where are this young man's ,he who crossed the lawn,footprints in the snow?
JMO
The intruder, if there was one, could have easily gotten into the house without leaving footprints, there was not enough snow on the ground. Also, the walkways were clear of snow. Why would someone make tracks through a patch of snow when they could walk on the sidewalk?
This is one of the reasons I stopped listening to everything I heard in the media because they made such a big deal about the "no footprints in the snow" issue when it should not have been.....I then began to believe that they were going to print whatever they wanted without checking sources or relevance---because, hey, it's gonna sell copies, right?
ajt400
11-10-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Maxi
Ah, but was Smit carrying a baseball bat, a stun gun, a bag of rope, duct tape, a flashlight, and, possibly, a pineapple?
Who the hell said anything about a baseball bat? Also, would this not be so difficult if the intruder had a bag? Would that not be the logical thing to do?
Originally posted by ajt400
Who the hell said anything about a baseball bat? Also, would this not be so difficult if the intruder had a bag? Would that not be the logical thing to do?
"Smit told Newsweek he believes the intruder used the baseball bat to beat JonBenét.
The longtime detective also believes Jon Benét was strangled before she was hit with the bat."
http://63.147.65.175/news/jon031300.htm
ajt400
11-10-2003, 04:03 PM
Okay, fair enough, but Smit also said a stun-gun was used. Most on this forum say that is not true, some have even called him names (but I notice that this is no concern to anyone, but I am attacking an author because he can't answer some questions--probably because they made too much sense for him) How can you use one thing he says and take it as the truth, but say another is just apart of his crazy head?
Doesn't work that way...
Because the picture borders on the absurd.
BTW, I don't think Smit is crazy and never have said he was. I'm sure there is truth as well as conjecture in what he says. I think he's reaching too hard to include every item that appears to exonerate the Ramseys, tho.
Why would a kidnapper or murderer climb through a smallish window carrying something as bulky as a baseball bat to incapacitate or kill a little girl? That is, unless he had a peculiar penchant for baseball bats. That makes me think of Pasta Jay.
Sack or no sack, the intruder came through the window without disturbing the dust on the window sill. How'd he do that? Smit couldn't, though it was funny watching him try.
sissi, okay, so the intruder approached the house without leaving any footprints in the patches of snow, and he left without leaving any either. Okay, fine. But he didn't disturb the spider web outside the basement window when he entered, and he left no trace of his presence in the house either. None. Not a print, not a hair, not a fiber. Nothing.
Incredible.
ajt400
11-10-2003, 04:57 PM
What about the DNA that is unidentified? That is just shrugged off as "oh, it came from a factory, or she must have been digging in dirt, that's where the DNA came from" If your DNA is found in a murdered childs panties, son't you think you have explaining to do?
I think some people reach too hard to implicate the Ramsey's....
Tha's the thing about this case, you get one question answered and 4 more pop up in it's place. That is from both sides, parents or intruder...And I seriously thought that the snow thing was taken care of awhile ack, Ivy. There was not enough snow for prints. And why would someone walk through snow when they could walk on a walkway that was bare?
Imon128
11-10-2003, 05:18 PM
What some people shrug off, others find a very viable option.
Jayelles
11-10-2003, 05:22 PM
Experts have stated that the DNA under her fingernails and in her underwear could be contamination. Yes, DNA can degrade under certain environmental conditions, but it is unlikely that these were present.in this case (extreme heat etc).
If JonBenet had scratched her killer, the DNA profile would almost certainly have been complete.
ajt400
11-10-2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Jayelles
Experts have stated that the DNA under her fingernails and in her underwear could be contamination. Yes, DNA can degrade under certain environmental conditions, but it is unlikely that these were present.in this case (extreme heat etc).
If JonBenet had scratched her killer, the DNA profile would almost certainly have been complete.
So which point are you going with here? The fact that this could not be contaminated or the fact that the DNA should be there. So then in essence, it's just as easy to say her parents DNA should be present under her nails, too?
ajt400
11-10-2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Imon128
What some people shrug off, others find a very viable option.
I just think DNA should be explained beyond, "Oh well, it came from a factory." It just seems to be shrugged off because it doesn't fit the Ramsey Did It profile.
Imon128
11-10-2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by ajt400
I just think DNA should be explained beyond, "Oh well, it came from a factory." It just seems to be shrugged off because it doesn't fit the Ramsey Did It profile.
Not all DNA can be explained at any crime site, IMO. I don't see that DNA in JB's case has been shrugged off at all. And particularly for the sole reason that it didn't fit a RDI profile. The BPD and all other investigators in this case surely have exhausted themselves checking out all pertinent info, on BOTH sides for BOTH reasons. JMO, though. :)
ajt400
11-10-2003, 06:33 PM
True, good point, do you think there will ever be a resolution to this case?
Just curious, was the DNA ever tested, or just said to be contaminated or inconclusive?
Shylock
11-10-2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by ajt400
Just curious, was the DNA ever tested, or just said to be contaminated or inconclusive? The "mystery" DNA was not "contaminated", it might be "contamination". The experts have said it may not be related at all to the case and is actually a by-product of the testing procedure called "studder effect" That means the mystery DNA might not even exist to begin with.
They also tested fresh underwear right out of the package and found it to contain DNA from the factory. If the panties she was wearing came from an overseas garment factory the DNA probably belongs to Sum Yung Gai.
tipper
11-11-2003, 12:22 AM
I believe that's stutter effect :)
Scheck said it could well be just "noise".
SisterSocks
11-11-2003, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by Imon128
John Ramsey also professes JB's killer was a pedophile. I know that not all males at pageants ARE pedophiles, but by the same logic, not all males at pageants are NOT pedophiles.
Hi Imon I am so happy to see you back :)
WE GOTTA BE FRIENDS CUZ I MISS YOU =)
Socks
Given the rather small attendance at most of the pageant events and the fact that they were largely family and friends of contestants I think it unlikely that a pedophile was amongst them; its much more likely that some 'down and out' type on his way to a free meal at the Aquinas Youth Hall saw something he liked.
SisterSocks
11-11-2003, 09:29 PM
Bahahahahaha Shy good one =)
sissi
11-11-2003, 10:43 PM
Toth,you really do think it was a homeless type. I can see this,especially with a friendly little girl who wasn't watched very carefully,he may have had time and conversation with her,and in the light of Elizabeth Smart,it doesn't seem to require much exposure to become a victim. It could be,I have been a bit brainwashed by the media,seeing and hearing that the "home touches" had to be either family or close friend,someone who really KNEW the Ramseys. Since most of what we hear is garbage,if we dismiss the crap about psalms,dictionaries,bonus amounts,etc. and see the crime more simply,a man entering a home,writing a note,and killing a child, it could very well just be a wandering alley man. Many of the homeless are not as "harmless" as we like to think,they often suffer from substance abuse and/or mental illness. It's just such a confusing picture with all of the Boulder eccentrics playing a part,it's almost just too nuts to believe one child had so many "nuts" in her life.
It's easy to make a case for any one of the knowns to be the killer,and that is sad and crazy. Lord,this family was naive ,almost childlike in their trust of people. I hope if Keenan has a suspect she can find him ,transients are difficult to locate,if not impossible.
IMO JMO
Contributing to the 'down and out type on his way to a free meal' is the utter absurdity of writing a note that says anything much less a note that talks about a ransom for a person already dead. Throw in the odd amount, the paltry amount, the fanciful topics in the note... it appears as if it well might be someone who lives in a fantasy world, perhaps aided by drugs or prior drug use.
I can't see that any business enemies actually exist. I just don't think anyone in their social group, even the weirdo McSantas, have sufficient motive for something like this.
Britt
11-11-2003, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by sissi
Toth,you really do think it was a homeless type. I can see this,especially with a friendly little girl who wasn't watched very carefully...
Whoa, sissi. Are you saying JonBenét's parents were something other than perfect, attentive parents?
Originally posted by Toth
I can't see that any business enemies actually exist. I just don't think anyone in their social group, even the weirdo McSantas, have sufficient motive for something like this.
Exactly right, Toth! None of them do.
The only people with motive to commit and cover up this crime are the incestuous, child abusing perverts John and Patsy Ramsey. Allegedly, of course.
Originally posted by Toth
...the utter absurdity of writing a note that says anything, much less a note that talks about a ransom for a person already dead.
Toth, the note makes sense in this context: Initially, at the time Patsy penned the note, the Ramseys may have planned to remove JonBenet's body from the house and put it someplace where it would be easily found by searchers. For any of a number of reasons, they decided not to do that. However, regardless of whether they removed her body or left it in the house, they had to have evidence of an intruder to show the police to keep from becoming suspects themselves. That is why the note was a must. Without it there would be no "evidence" of an intruder.
Cherokee
11-11-2003, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by sissi
Toth,you really do think it was a homeless type. I can see this,especially with a friendly little girl who wasn't watched very carefully,he may have had time and conversation with her,and in the light of Elizabeth Smart,it doesn't seem to require much exposure to become a victim.
But sissi, there is the really big question of how did a "homeless type" get Patsy to write the ransom note for him?
You can't compare Elizabeth's kidnapping with what happened to JonBenet. Mitchell didn't leave a three page ransom note in Lois Smart's handwriting.
It can't be explained away, and there is sealed evidence the public does not know. That evidence is the reason the Ramseys never got out from under the umbrella.
Why did the FBI bow out of the investigation? Because they told Boulder LE that there was no outside perp for them to discover. The FBI told LE all evidence led back to the Ramseys.
But there was already too much water under that bridge with contaminated evidence, and the Ramseys not being questioned immediately after JonBenet's death. So the case will never be prosecuted. The best we can hope for is continued leaking of evidence until we finally know the truth.
My opinion.
Britt
11-11-2003, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Ivy
Initially, at the time Patsy penned the note, the Ramseys may have planned to remove JonBenet's body from the house and put it someplace where it would be easily found by searchers. For any of a number of reasons, they decided not to do that. However, regardless of whether they removed her body or left it in the house, they had to have evidence of an intruder to show the police to keep from becoming suspects themselves. That is why the note was a must. Without it there would be no "evidence" of an intruder.
Exactly, Ivy.
Also, there were two stagers here. Two cooks in the kitchen. Maybe Patsy, who wrote the note, planned to get the body out of the house... but John pointed out how risky that was, how there would be evidence (car engine, tire tracks, etc.)... better to hide the body in the basement:
It has to be an inside job. It has to be somebody that knows the family. Nobody knows about the wine cellar in the basement. John Ramsey 12/26/96 (per Spade's notes).
Burke reported hearing loud voices during the night -- probably the two stagers arguing about how to stage.
If it were an intruder, he would've disposed of the incriminating note along with any leftover cord and duct tape, probably right before he wiped his prints off the maglite he left on the kitchen counter.
Britt
11-12-2003, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Cherokee
But sissi, there is the really big question of how did a "homeless type" get Patsy to write the ransom note for him?
:bigthumb:
Imon128
11-12-2003, 12:04 AM
He probably told her she'd get to be on TV if she did...LOL!
Burke slept soundly through the night and heard nothing.
Patsy did not write the note and most experts are 'close' to the point of formally excluding her but not at that point.
Britt, yes, you are absolutely right--he would have. Heck, the intruder was so careful to leave no evidence that he apparently even wiped his prints off the flashlight batteries!
The Ramseys managed to dispose of the roll of tape (if the mouth tape came from a roll and not from the back of a picture, etc.) as well as the remainder of the cord (if there was any leftover), and they could easily have disposed of the note too. In fact, it would have been very easy to dispose of the note. But they NEEDED the note, even though, as Toth pointed out, it "talks about a ransom for a person already dead." The note was the only "proof" of an intruder the Ramseys could offer.
I'm a BDIer, but I am quite sure he wasn't involved in the staging. I can imagine John and Patsy arguing about how to do it and Burke hearing them from his bedroom. Whether he killed JonBenet or not, he must have been terrified. Regardless of which one of the Ramseys is actually the killer, I know without a doubt that John and Patsy staged the coverup.
aside from such obvious questions as to why on earth should they stage any sort of coverup, why would they have bought a brand new roll of duct tape, put some of it on a picture and then removed it from the picture and thrown the duct tape away in the middle of the night? Did they throw the duct tape away on the same automobile trip to the local 7-11 that they took to get some dna?
sissi
11-12-2003, 12:32 AM
but......britt..explain david westerfield...the elizabeth smart abductor..polly class' killer...
Toth, the obvious answer as to why the Ramseys would stage a coverup is that one of them killed JonBenet.
If the duct tape John took from JonBenet's mouth came from a new roll, the remainder could have been removed in Patsy's purse (none of the Ramseys was searched before leaving the house on the 26th) or maybe Pam Paugh removed it hidden in something. Paugh may not have even known it was. If the tape was "used" tape as Henry Lee hinted it was on LKL the other night, it may have been peeled off the back of a picture or something and then put on JonBenet's mouth.
I don't think the Ramseys "got" DNA from anywhere. The "foreign" DNA from the panties, if it actually came from another person, was probably "noise" from the factory that manufactured them. The DNA under JonBenet's fingernails doesn't match the DNA in her panties, and is degraded, so it's probably "noise" from somwhere else, or else it's stutter caused from the DNA amplification process.
Britt
11-12-2003, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by Toth
Burke slept soundly through the night and heard nothing.
Like he "slept soundly" through the 911 call? Okay, I'll buy that. He slept as soundly during the night as he did during the 911 call. :p
Patsy did not write the note and most experts are 'close' to the point of formally excluding her but not at that point.
In other words, her own experts couldn't even exclude her. It's pretty pathetic when your own hired experts can't manage to remove you from suspicion.
Originally posted by sissi
but......britt..explain david westerfield...the elizabeth smart abductor..polly class' killer...
No "ransom" note.
No body in the house.
Not comparable.
Oh yeah, and not staged.
why_nutt
11-12-2003, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Toth
aside from such obvious questions as to why on earth should they stage any sort of coverup, why would they have bought a brand new roll of duct tape, put some of it on a picture and then removed it from the picture and thrown the duct tape away in the middle of the night? Did they throw the duct tape away on the same automobile trip to the local 7-11 that they took to get some dna?
Patsy routinely created many large-scale projects for JonBenet's and Burke's schools (she was in the middle of creating one for Burke's science fair project, due in January of 1997). As part of those projects in the Thanksgiving/Christmas timeframe, Patsy could have had many reasons to find black tape suitable in construction. Nobody has come forward to say High Peaks or Martin Park, or the children's atrium at St. John's Episcopal, for that matter, where Patsy helped decorate, were examined for the presence of black tape on signs or props or set pieces. The thought occurs that neither has the car JonBenet rode on during the Boulder Christmas parade been examined. Tape may have been used to attach signs or other decorations to that car. There is no particular reason to scorn the notion that the piece of tape on JonBenet's mouth was the last piece possible to take off the cardboard roll without causing cardboard to tear off.
Blazeboy3
11-12-2003, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by Blazeboy3
:cool: Author of new book???...!!!... he did (Davis-"An Evening with JonBenet") mention that one book failed to repeat a phrase printed in 1st copy:
p. 190: 26. "Schiller, p.583."It is interesting that Schiller removes this paragraph from the paperback version of his book.
...p.584 "Schiller"
OK, AGAIN, WHAT'S THIS/IT MEAN (HELLO:?):Davis-"An Evening with JonBenet" latest book///...
http://www.fetchbook.info/search_1413411088/tab_editions.html
p. 190: 26.: "Schiller, p.583."It is interesting that Schiller removes this paragraph from the paperback version of his book."
p132:26 "Lest we remain vexed by that question, Lawrence Schiller toward the end of a book scrupulous in its effort to avoid conclusions about anything, even the most mundance matters, assures us that we can be sure of one thing: "NEITHER PATSY NOR JOHN EVER ASKED THE OTHER IF HE OR SHE WAS THE MURDERER...!!!"
HELLO...major clue(don't ya think?)?
But there were only 32 days for the tape to be manufactured, sold, used once on some unknown item, then removed from that item and then re-used on JonBenet?
Jayelles
11-12-2003, 04:37 AM
It would seem that it happened nevertheless. It has always been a theory which explained why the rest of the roll wasn't found.
Blazeboy3
11-12-2003, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Blazeboy3
OK, AGAIN, WHAT'S THIS/IT MEAN (HELLO:?):Davis-"An Evening with JonBenet" latest book///...
http://www.fetchbook.info/search_1413411088/tab_editions.html
p. 190: 26.: "Schiller, p.583."It is interesting that Schiller removes this paragraph from the paperback version of his book."
p132:26 "Lest we remain vexed by that question, Lawrence Schiller toward the end of a book scrupulous in its effort to avoid conclusions about anything, even the most mundance matters, assures us that we can be sure of one thing: "NEITHER PATSY NOR JOHN EVER ASKED THE OTHER IF HE OR SHE WAS THE MURDERER...!!!"
HELLO...major clue ABOVE ... (don't ya think?)?
ANYONE READ HERE???; or is this just one of those things WE IGNORE!!!???
"NEITHER PATSY NOR JOHN EVER ASKED THE OTHER IF HE OR SHE WAS THE MURDERER...!!!"
AND YOUR THOUGHT...POST IS???!!!... SWEET JESUS...I CAN'T BE THAT FAR GONE RIGHT...HELLO???!!! ...
Neither Patsy nor John ever asked the other if they were actually a Martian either.
Shylock
11-12-2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Toth
aside from such obvious questions as to why on earth should they stage any sort of coverup Why? To keep Burke from being tormented the rest of his life as the boy who killed his sister.
You only have to look at yourself to realize the staging worked perfectly, didn't it!
sissi
11-12-2003, 10:26 AM
I was reading something about gaffer's tape,it is preferred over others because it leaves no residue behind. I question,who would own black duct tape, logically it would seem, photographers would choose it for light blocking action, I didn't know it was the choice for set directors, to me an interesting side note .
http://www.exposure.co.uk/eejit/gaffer/
ajt400
11-12-2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Britt
[b]
In other words, her own experts couldn't even exclude her. It's pretty pathetic when your own hired experts can't manage to remove you from suspicion.
Even if her experts excluded her, you guys would say then that they were just paid off......so they are really in a no win situation, huh?
ajt400
11-12-2003, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Shylock
Why? To keep Burke from being tormented the rest of his life as the boy who killed his sister.
You only have to look at yourself to realize the staging worked perfectly, didn't it!
But Burke really isn't out of the limelight now though, is he? Obviously their staging didn't work, or their wouldn't even be a forum on this case! (Or so many for that matter) If it had really worked, they would have just mourned and moved back to Atl quietly, without any other publicity....
Imon128
11-12-2003, 11:34 AM
I do believe they staged to keep themselves from having to have their "dirty laundry" exposed and thus their society position and their desire to maintain it.
ajt400
11-12-2003, 11:44 AM
Well, they did a real crappy job of that, didn't they? All of they "dirty laundry" you speak of is all hearsay and has not been proven yet. (Yes, maybe there is evidence of sexual molestation, that doesn't prove it was the parents)
Imon128
11-12-2003, 11:49 AM
They had limited time and circumstance. They did the best they could, under the circumstances, and so far, this bright couple have been a notch above the rest. JMO, though.
ajt400
11-12-2003, 11:59 AM
That's funny how you say that like they were trying out for cheerleading or something......
Imon128
11-12-2003, 12:05 PM
Could be. Both need, in a huge way for whatever reasons, to win and look good to somebody for something. I'd say it's more like liars trying to preserve their image and social standing, but whatever works, I guess. :-)
ajt400
11-12-2003, 12:07 PM
But don't you think if they had time to write a 3 page ransom note disguising handwriting, they would have time to tie up all loose ends? Also, their were 2 of them, that seems like it would make it a little easier on both??
Show Me
11-13-2003, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by ajt400
Even if her experts excluded her, you guys would say then that they were just paid off......so they are really in a no win situation, huh?
BUT Patsy's own PAID experts couldn't exclude her!
That is the point!!!!!!
Originally posted by Imon128
and thus their society position and their desire to maintain it. Versus the becoming the most hated couple in America and being bankrupted by legal fees and unable to find employment in a managerial position.
Imon128
11-13-2003, 10:29 AM
They gambled, they lost. Life goes on. They KNEW this was an option as well...the other side of the coin was a sure thing. At least, for them, they didn't have to address their dirty secret. Guess they have to just suck it up and go on. :p
The Ramseys are bankrupt?
Imon128
11-13-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Ivy
The Ramseys are bankrupt?
LOL, Ivy. They sure live the good life for a bankrupt couple, eh?
ajt400
11-13-2003, 11:20 AM
There are different levels of bankrupcy---TLC filed for bankrupcy even though the album they had released in 1994 was one of the biggest that year.
I haven't heard anywhere that the Ramseys have filed bankruptcy, either peronally or professionally. I think Toth meant it as more of an expression for having lost much of their fortune rather than being legally bankrupt.
Originally posted by Toth
Versus the becoming the most hated couple in America and being bankrupted by legal fees and unable to find employment in a managerial position.
On edit: Okay, Okay... 'virtually bankrupted'. All those legal fees add up. Think of how many trips on that Disney Red Boat they could have taken instead of making some Denver law firm even richer.
Toltec
11-13-2003, 05:25 PM
Doctor Henry Lee suggested that the piece of duct tape was used???
Aunt Pam did remove one picture from the house on 26 December. Did Patsy remove the tape from that picture? It is possible. Steve Thomas noted that the picture of JonBenet on her bedroom wall had black duct tape...but was not a match for the one found taped to her mouth.
Duct tape came from one of Patsy's paintings.
Cord came from the home....used up.
Paintbrush came from the home.
Fibers came from the home.
Notepad came from the home.
Pen came from the home.
Flashlight came from the home.
Swiss Army knife came from the home.
Paring knife came from the home.
Pineapple came from the home.
Gregg McCrary said that if the evidence came from the home...then you have to look in the home.
IMO the DNA is moot. JonBenet more than likely used the toilet at Pasta Jay's Christmas Eve and more than likely brushed her skin or her panties against the toilet bowl. JonBenet did not bathe Christmas day and Patsy does not remember if JonBenet washed up before going to the Whites. In Patsy's own words..."If she can get away with not washing her hands...."
Kathleen
12-13-2003, 11:55 PM
I was watching TV today and found a show about little girl beauty pageants, called "Painted Babies" or something similar. I only caught about the last 20 minutes of it. The parts I saw were of little girls of about age 5 or 6, and I was amazed at the costumes..They were almost identical in style to the ones we have seen over and over of Jon Bennet! There was the Dressy, formal attire with the hair piled high on the head, the WESTERN attire with boots and singing, even one where some of the girls wore the beaded or sequined choker..They were in what I took to be swimsuits, and they danced and sang their little hearts out! I mean they really strutted their stuff, too! Shoulder shaking, hip shaking, singing the old Brenda Lee song..SWEET NOTHIN'S! The mom's and families (mostly women) in the audience lip synched and moved along with the children, as they had taught them the routines, I guess. The children were gorgeous with all the makeup, and the mom's loved it when their child won, cried if they didn't. I think this show was made in about 1996, if I remember correctly. What I am getting at is this...It looks like Patsy and JB followed the pageant life very much like all the others and if this is true, ALL the little girls were made to be TOO GROWN UP for their ages..and this was not just odd behavior by the Ramsey family. Kathleen
Blazeboy3
12-14-2003, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by Kathleen
What I am getting at is this...It looks like Patsy and JB followed the pageant life very much like all the others and if this is true, ALL the little girls were made to be TOO GROWN UP for their ages..and this was not just odd behavior by the Ramsey family. Kathleen
So now what...where is this going(your thoughts)...why would Patsy want JPR to "all grown up"...was it because Patsy was sick and needed replacement?.:rolleyes: :cool: :mad: :eek: :confused:
Kathleen
12-14-2003, 05:30 AM
Just saying that it seems to be a common thread in the beauty pageant world, and that Patsy and Jon Bennet were acting no differently there than any of the other families, and that there was nothing "sinister" in Patsy's participation in these pageants. Kathleen
Imon128
12-14-2003, 05:38 AM
In fairness to Patsy, I guess in her mind, she was excited about pageants. Some people don't like kiddie beauty pageants for some other reasons, one could be that the kiddie beauty pageants might set up a precedence that looks make you a winner. There must have been some problem with the extent to which Patsy was taking her 'interest' since some of her friends were going to talk to her, after Christmas, about the 'mega JonBenet thing'. I have a feeling it was connected to pageants, dunno.
Blazeboy3
12-14-2003, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by Imon128
In fairness to Patsy, I guess in her mind, she was excited about pageants. Some people don't like kiddie beauty pageants for some other reasons, one could be that the kiddie beauty pageants might set up a precedence that looks make you a winner. There must have been some problem with the extent to which Patsy was taking her 'interest' since some of her friends were going to talk to her, after Christmas, about the 'mega JonBenet thing'. I have a feeling it was connected to pageants, dunno.
It's not like that here (midwest/Nebraska) so I'm blind to that --can't walk in those shoe...but Miss/Mrs Patsy was aware (not blind-educated in this situation/page)... so Patsy was not dumb ... so what went wrong .... regarding JonBenet in 1996?
:dontknow: :confused: :dontknow: :confused:
ajt400
12-16-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Blazeboy3
So now what...where is this going(your thoughts)...why would Patsy want JPR to "all grown up"...was it because Patsy was sick and needed replacement?.:rolleyes: :cool: :mad: :eek: :confused:
Many parents in our society give their children mixed signals. "Do this, act more grown up,"; "Do that--act less mature,"
Get what I mean?
Toltec
12-17-2003, 05:50 PM
Thank you for the picture WhyNutt...
See the drawer that is partially open? Was that where the spoons were kept???
SisterSocks
12-21-2003, 03:14 PM
I watched a show called Painted Babies that was shot in 1995 one complete year before JB died. I was surprised that one of the Fathers really pressed the child alittle to hard . Any one else see this show it was on Trio last weekend.
Socks
Sis, that show has been on a number of times, and it's always interesting to watch. Which father did you mean when you said he pushed a little?
Blazeboy3
12-22-2003, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by Maxi
LOL, John also said he as a sadistic masochist. Or was it a masochistic sadist?
According to DOI, John is looking for a sadistic masochist who has a big grudge against John, hates wealthy people, has contact with criminals, and who happens to be a pedophile. He would also need about four arms and a skinny body to climb through the basement window carrying the baseball bat, duct tape, stun gun, etc. This guy shouldn't be hard to spot!
Where oh where did John-boy get this info:Let's not forget the "300-POUND" info stated by John...where did this come from...???
http://cbn.org/scottross/interviews/the_jonbenet_ramsey_case_part1.asp
JOHN: JonBenet was brutally murdered. She was strangled. The blow to her head would have brought down a 300-pound man. Patsy loved JonBenet as much as I did. That is insane. It’s just insane.
PATSY: You should hear this man at 2:30 – 3:00 in morning get up. There is no question, you are not there at those hours, I am.
...AND OH WHERE OH WHERE DID PATSY GET THE INFO SHE STATED ABOVE???
JESUS......ARE'NT THEY A "PAIR?"?
:D :o :cool: :rolleyes: :eek: :mad: :confused: :nono:
Patsy was referring to John Ramsey being noisy when he gets up.
A lawyer who specializes in refuting child abuse allegations said that the 300 lb. man description was often used by prosecutors trying to prove an injury was caused by a blow to the head. In more than one case, she said she had proved that the injury was actually caused by a short fall with propulsion.
MsBee
12-23-2003, 04:00 AM
http://cbn.org/scottross/interviews/the_jonbenet_ramsey_case_part1.asp
There are some very disturbing double speaks in that interview made by the Ramsey's. They are trying to sock it to us in the name of the lord and John knows squat about the Bible. Patsy didn't even hop in with anything Bibley when John didn't know the liars. Interesting.
Also he HAD three daughters. Two are dead. He does not mention the one living. She is dead to him, too? Why? Has she estranged herself from him? Why? Hinky meter reading a little too high?
The God of the Universe? John didn't reference being judged by a god, the interviewer did.
Where are the profilier types to analyse that intereview?
Blazeboy3
12-23-2003, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by Maxi
Patsy was referring to John Ramsey being noisy when he gets up.
A lawyer who specializes in refuting child abuse allegations said that the 300 lb. man description was often used by prosecutors trying to prove an injury was caused by a blow to the head. In more than one case, she said she had proved that the injury was actually caused by a short fall with propulsion.
Wasn't John saying this 300lb info before prosecutors were involved?...I think so! ... did have to look-up the word "propulsion" and it had 3 listings (noun)...which one do you refer to? LOL
Main Entry: propulsion(1)noun
Pronunciation: pr&-'p&l-sh&n
Function: noun Etymology: Latin propellere to propelDate: 1626
1 : the action or process of propelling
2 : something that propels
Main Entry: jet propulsion(2)noun
Function: nounDate: 1867
: propulsion of a body produced by the forwardly directed forces of the reaction resulting from the rearward discharge of a jet of fluid; especially : propulsion of an airplane by jet engines
Main Entry: self-pro·pul·sion(3)noun
Pronunciation: -'p&l-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: circa 1934
: propulsion by one's own power
by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy
:christmas :christmas
SisterSocks
12-23-2003, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by Maxi
Sis, that show has been on a number of times, and it's always interesting to watch. Which father did you mean when you said he pushed a little?
I can't remember the name Maxi, but he had dark hair and his Wife was a former model.
K777angel
12-23-2003, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Toth
Bulletin: DNA evidence from female victims of rape or rape/murder will no longer be accepted unless it can be shown that the female was not in the habit of using a toilet.
What do you think? That other victims don't use toilets and therefore dna taken from them is valid, but JonBenet did use a toilet and therefore dna evidence is invalid?
How dumb do you think we are Toth? Rape victims have SEMEN with tons of DNA to type.
JonBenet had - at best - a MINUTE trace of some DNA. Most likely either transfer at the factory where her undies were made or stutter in the testing etc. In other words: NOT related to the crime.
There is NO comparison of what you proposed to compare.
Originally posted by K777angel
>How dumb do you think we are Toth?
I don't think you really want me to answer that question.
> Rape victims have SEMEN with tons of DNA to type.
Not always. Some rapists use condoms or other means to avoid forensic evidence. Many think the paintbrush or gloved finger was used to avoid forensic evidence.
> Most likely transfer at the factory where her undies were made
A Caucasian male at a Vietnamese garment factory??
Did this caucasian male who is several thousand miles away also sneeze into JonBenet's fingernails at the time he sneezed while working at the factory? I refer you to the first question you asked if your response is that he sneezed while in the Vietnamese factory and it carried all the way to Boulder, Colorado.
Jayelles
12-24-2003, 04:50 AM
Toth - please post the proof that the degraded DNA in her underwear matched the degraded DNA in her fingernails. Don't you think that if they did, that the Ramseys would have been CLEARED. They haven't been cleared. Judge Carnes made a statement which was based on her review of some outdated evidence (all that was available to her in a civil libel case and it did NOT include the police file with the previous 4 years worth of forensic testing).
Mary Keenan also made a carefully worded statement at a time when she really wanted to a) avoid a lawsuit and b) obtain the Ramseys' trust and co-operation. She was also cvery areful to state that although they would be looking at the intruder theory, the Ramseys would NOT be excluded from the investigation. Bottom line - 7 years on, officially, the Ramseys are still potential suspects.
Dr Henry Lee is a distinguished expert. I believe that if there was the slightest chance that the DNA in the fingernails and underwear of a murder victim belonged to her killer then he would not have been so dismissive of it. This guy makes his living out of being *good*. Why would he unnecessarily risk his reputation in such a high-profile case? If he was dismissive of that particular DNA, it was with good reason. I really believe that. I believe Dr Henry Lee much more than I would believe you or ******* or Lin Wood on this particular matter.
Shylock
12-24-2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Toth
A Caucasian male at a Vietnamese garment factory??
Did this caucasian male who is several thousand miles away also sneeze into JonBenet's fingernails at the time he sneezed while working at the factory? Toth, please stop posting lies concocted by the swamp skank on this forum. If you want to propagate that bull chit keep repeating it over there where hopefully some fool who doesn't know better will wander in and read it.
THERE IS NO RACE IDENTIFICATION WITH THE DNA - NO WAY OF TELLING IF THE DONOR WAS CAUCASIAN. ASIAN, OR ANY OTHER RACE!
That misinformation was created by Jammysux over on the Swamp who claimed someone asked hir that question in an email. Only the biggest idiots on hir forum took it as being a case fact.
why_nutt
12-24-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Shylock
Toth, please stop posting lies concocted by the swamp skank on this forum. If you want to propagate that bull chit keep repeating it over there where hopefully some fool who doesn't know better will wander in and read it.
THERE IS NO RACE IDENTIFICATION WITH THE DNA - NO WAY OF TELLING IF THE DONOR WAS CAUCASIAN. ASIAN, OR ANY OTHER RACE!
That misinformation was created by Jammysux over on the Swamp who claimed someone asked hir that question in an email. Only the biggest idiots on hir forum took it as being a case fact.
Yes, let us shout it out loud.
The DNA found at the crime scene has not been identified as Caucasian.
The hair found at the crime scene has been identified as Caucasian.
The DNA and the hair have not been matched to each other through mitochondrial testing.
The CBI summary report says that IF the minor component of DNA found on JonBenet came from one person, members of the Ramsey family are excluded, but the CBI has not excluded the Ramseys as contributors of the DNA IF the minor component comes from more than one person.
Young boys are involved in the production of clothing.
http://www.feminist.org/other/sweatshops/sweatnyc.html
On the 9th floor we found more children who were working. Two young boys were standing next to a towering pile of sleeves, turning them right side out, one by one. The boys were eight and ten years old. Women, our guides told us, are encouraged by managers to bring their children into work with them. The managers will always find something for them to do.
Originally posted by Shylock
THERE IS NO RACE IDENTIFICATION WITH THE DNA - NO WAY OF TELLING IF THE DONOR WAS CAUCASIAN. ASIAN, OR ANY OTHER RACE! May I suggest you learn a bit more about dna before making such posts.
Originally posted by why_nutt
Yes, let us shout it out loud.
Young boys are involved in the production of clothing. Oh, so you think one of those young boys in the Vietnamese factory sneezed and got some dna under JonBenet's fingernails while she was in Boulder, Colorado?
why_nutt
12-24-2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Toth
Oh, so you think one of those young boys in the Vietnamese factory sneezed and got some dna under JonBenet's fingernails while she was in Boulder, Colorado?
I know there is such a thing as secondary transfer, and tertiary transfer, and that only one allele found under a nail, matching one of three found in the underwear, no more counts as a match of singular identity than the concept that if I have brown eyes, and you have brown eyes, we must be the same person because our eye colors match.
I recommend the reading of this link:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/dna_info/dna/JA_DNA_SuppSub_1.html
The best known 'rule' of forensic mathematics is the one which is used to generate match odds at ever increasing orders of magnitude as more genetic loci are tested - the product rule.
In simple form it states that if one allele occurs with frequency f1 in the target population while another occurs with frequency f2 the chances of finding both in a randomly selected member of that population is f1 * f2. (e.g. the frequency of FES allele 12 in the European population is 0.23 (23%) while the frequency of FES allele 13 is 0.05 (5%) - so the chance of a randomly selected European of having a 12/13 FES profile is 0.23*0.05 = 0.0115 (1.15%) or 1 in 87).
Shylock
12-24-2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Toth
May I suggest you learn a bit more about dna before making such posts. Trust me, I know more about DNA then you ever will. Notice how my post referred to "THE DNA", that being specific to the Ramsey case, not DNA science in general. You seem to have a hard time telling the two apart, Toth. Obviously a bit more learning about the specifics of this case is required on YOUR part.
------------------
Keep the Swamp gas in the Swamp where it belongs!
hollyjokers
12-28-2003, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Maxi
JBR's get-ups were less trash and flash than many we've seen on tv specials about kiddie pageants. They were just expensive looking and eerily sophisticated for a little kid.
You can find more suggestive clothing in the Sears kids' dept. these days. And don't get me started on dance costumes I've seen! Think black vinyl crop tops and booty shorts on a 6-year-old who is shimmying with everything she doesn't have. The change it what is considered appropriate for children over the past 16 years is appalling! But I don't see men in the audiences, except a few beleagured dads with weekend visitation.
Thank you!!! 6 year olds shimmying doesn't make me half as uncomfortable as beginning-to-develop 11-12 year olds in cheap spandex dance costumes with no support.
Anyone who was offended by Jon-Benet's pageant videos has not been to a dance recital in the recent past, I can tell you that. Another mom & myself went to see a friend of our daughters' group & were totally educated. I consider myself to be kind of a hip mom, but I wasn't prepared for that kind of thing. I was relieved my daughter had not been inclined to go into that. I enjoy cheerleading, but even a lot of the all-star programs are going with the sexy uniforms & risque moves.
I thought JBR's costumes were darling. It's easy to see why she was a winner & that she loved being on stage.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.