800 users online (71 members and 729 guests)  


Websleuths News

View Poll Results: HER FATE IS IN YOUR HANDS

Voters
87. You may not vote on this poll
  • GUILTY, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

    47 54.02%
  • NOT GUILTY

    40 45.98%

Page 1 of 37 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 554
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,070

    You, the jury

    ARE ASKED TO DECIDE, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND THE CHALLENGES PRESENTED HERE ON THIS ONE THREAD ALONE, WHETHER OR NOT PATSY RAMSEY MURDERED HER DAUGHTER, JONBENET. NO OTHER EVIDENCE MAY BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS POLL.

    BASED ONre goes:

    Quote:
    1) Fibers from the sweater Patsy Ramsey was known to have worn that night were found on the sticky side of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth, inside the blanket that JonBenet was wrapped up in, and were found inside the little box that Patsy Ramsey kept her art supplies in. She cannot account for this in a coherent way.


    How many other fibers match those fibers, besides those from her sweater?

    Quote:
    2) Patsy claimed that she saw the ransom letter on the spiral staircase and stepped over it before turning to see what it was. The police later conducted an experiment where they tried to recreate her story. None of the police officers could do it without falling. Again, her story makes no sense.


    Not one police officer in Boulder could step over a note, turn around and get it? Did Pat fall over, too?

    Quote:
    3) The police went over Patsy Ramsey's credit card records. The records said that she had made some purchases from McGuckin's in the weeks leading up to the killing. The prices on the items matched the prices of the tape and the cord.


    Matched which tape and cord? Pat signed the receipt? Who else charged items on her credit card?

    Quote:
    4) Burke Ramsey mentioned that whoever killed JonBenet took out a knife. At the time, that was not a publicly released fact.


    We rely on his mentioning?

    But a knife was involved. Burke Ramsey had a Swiss army knife, but he had a habit of whittling with it inside the house and leaving wood shavings all over, so Linda Hoffman-Pugh, the family housekeeper, took it away from him and put in a cabinet in the basement where he couldn't get to it. Only Burke, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, and Patsy knew where it was. The knife was not used as a weapon on JonBenet, but it was found near her body.


    How do you know Patsy knew where it was?

    Quote:
    5) JonBenet's body was treated tenderly after death, wrapped in a blanket like a papoose with her favorite nightgown inside with her.


    Evidence? Do you mean that this is evidence that the person who just smashed in her head, strangled her and threatened to decapitate her unless her parents forked over $118,000, was kind and nurturing?


    Quote:
    6) The garrote was used from behind so the killer could avoid eye contact, typical of someone who cares for the victim.


    Evidence? You mean that the killer intentionally tied her, face down, specifically to avoid eye contact?


    Quote:
    Quote:
    7) The autopsy report noted that JonBenet's wrists were tied with the same kind of cord that the ligature was made out of. It lists the length of cord between each wrist as 15-1/2 inches long. That's over a foot of space. Her arms were not tied together. They weren't tied behind her. The extra length wasn't attached to anything. There was over a foot of space between her arms! You're telling me that would have restrained her? Not only that, the cuffs on her wrists were so loose that they left no marks. One of them slipped right off of her arm when John Ramsey carried her up the stairs.


    Proof?

    Quote:
    8) JonBenet had tape on her mouth when she was found. I guess this was supposed to give the impression that she had been gagged, but again, whoever did it did a lousy job. For one thing, it was not tied around her head. It wasn't even a long strip. It was a small square of tape. Thomas, in his book, describes what the forensic technicians found on the tape. They discovered that it contained a perfect print of JonBenet's lips. She had not made any attempt to fight against it. It also had bloody mucous from JonBenet's nose under it. The logical conclusion is that it had been put on after JonBenet was dead.


    Evidence?

    Quote:
    9) The ransom note contains motives that conflict with the crime and with each other. Pedophiles don't leave ransom notes.


    ERGO, who did it?

    Quote:
    10) When Patsy Ramsey greeted police on the morning after Christmas, she had on the same red sweater and black pants that she had worn to the party the night before.


    Guilty of wearing outfit twice in a row?

    Quote:
    Her explanation has always been that since she wore them for only a short time, they were perfectly good to wear again. This does not jibe with what others have claimed. The family housekeeper, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, has claimed that the idea of wearing the same clothes twice in a row was repellent to Patsy. She had a full closet full of clothes and was described by her stepson, John Andrew Ramsey, as "flashy." Apparently, word reached her ears that the police were looking askance at this little fact, because she showed up to an interview wearing the same outfit she'd worn at a television appearance the day before. I forget specifically when this was, but Det. Thomas describes it in his own book. Her wearing the same clothes suggests she never went to sleep that night. Denver Post columnist Chuck Green wrote in December of 2006 that the investigators, having inspected her bedroom, felt "that her side of the Ramsey bed hadn't been slept in."


    What kind of evidence is "felt?"
    You trust "evidence" that was reported 10 years after the fact?

    Quote:
    11) Of all the examiners who studied the ransom note, not one could eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the author. Several highly-respected examiners, OTOH, said flat-out that she is the writer. Her own mother and sisters said it looked like her writing, as well.
    Quote:
    12) The cord around JonBenet's neck had a fair amount of slack in it between where it was tied to the cord and where it met her neck. To use it effectively, the person would have to pull the cord up over their head almost; or wrap it around their arm. Not a very practical job, on the whole. The autopsy photos present a grim and grisly image of JonBenet's neck squeezed into an hourglass from the strangulation. To the eye, it looks horrific. But the autopsy reveals that there were no marks on JonBenet's tongue or on the inside of her mouth that would indicate her to have fought her killer. The report also reveals that the larynx, the strap muscles of the neck and the hyoid bone


    Hyoid bone is not damaged, typically, with strangulation.


    Quote:
    were all undamaged. Also, the little girl's hair was tied into both the neck knot and the handle knot. This means that the garrote was made on her body, not prepared ahead of time.


    Who said?

    Quote:
    Quote:
    13) The vast majority of pathologists claim that JB's head was smashed long before any strangulation occurred. It makes no sense for an intruder to hang around to stage sexual assault and strangulation after that.
    "The vast majority of pathologists."


    Try that again. Vast majority of all pathologists in the U.S.

    Quote:
    14) JonBenet was most likely assaulted vaginally with the paintbrush handle, but the damage to her vagina was minimal. A true sexual predator would have done FAR more damage.


    ERGO, it was...? Therefore "all" sex predators must be eliminated as possible suspects? A sex pred did not do this period?

    Quote:
    15) The profilers claimed that the person who wrote the ransom note was either a female or a very genteel male, 35-45 years-old, who grew up and went to school in the American South in the 1960s and 1970s. The note contains several grammatical touches that are not common among younger writers, such as putting periods between the letters of acronyms, which Patsy was known to do. The note also contains phrases like "fat cat" and "use good Southern common sense," which were known to be spoken to John Ramsey by Nedra Paugh, Patsy's mother.


    Which profilers? All profilers?

    Quote:
    16) In 1997, a picture of JonBenet in the now-legendary Showgirl outfit turned up and it showed JonBenet with a huge, angry-looking bruise on her arm. In June 1998, a photo of Patsy and JonBenet was shown where Patsy could be seen holding JonBenet's arm so hard that her fingernails were digging into the arm.


    Which means, guilty of accidental murder and staged strangulation?

    Quote:
    17) No less than eight child abuse experts independently concluded that JonBenet had been abused sexually over a period of time. They pointed to specific issues like hymen damage, tissue erosion, and toughening, known as scarring. She also had severe bed-wetting and soiling problems, which are often a sign of an abused child.


    Do they conclude it was the work of Pat? Any CAE say she wasn't abused this way or they weren't certain?

    Quote:
    18) Fibers from the Israeli-made black shirt John Ramsey was wearing at Fleet White's party were found in a rather compromising area: JonBenet's underwear.


    Did Lee test other underwear for the presence of Israeli-made fibers like he tested samples of underwear for DNA from unknown males?

    Quote:
    19) JonBenet was redressed after she was killed. What intruder would CARE about that?


    Well, who?

    Quote:
    19) Pineapple was found inside JonBenet's small intestine at the autopsy. The average rate of digestion for pineapple is two hours. Now, the Ramseys have always said that JonBenet fell asleep in the car on the way home and remained asleep until she was killed, but she would have had to have eaten it sometime after they got home.


    They were wrong. ERGO, they did...?

    Quote:
    20) The Ramseys' stories are filled with inconsistencies. Most notably, about the heart drawn on JB's hand, Burke's voice on the 911 tape, and the ability to hear sounds within the house. The spiral iron staircase, for example, was horrendously noisy.


    Their inconsistencies regarding the heart are lies, and not due to others' misunderstandings, period? Not feasible that Burke woke up, unbeknownst to mom and dad, went downstairs and asked a question before Pat realized he was there? If they were good at changing their versions, why not extend their prowess a little further?
    Last edited by WHITEFANG; 06-10-2010 at 02:30 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Me the jury? OK.

    The evidence presented of PR's guilt (of murder) seems to be limited to alleged fibers allegedly found entwined in the cord and in JBR's hair.

    PR's testimony explaining 'how these fibers got there' are not really helpful to deciding her guilt, because PR isn't a fiber expert. I would need Exhibit A (jacket) Exhibit B (fiber from jacket) Exhibit C (fiber found in hair) Exhibit D (fiber from paint tray) and a renowned fiber expert to answer questions as to the nature of these exact fibers, how unique they are, how and when they may have been transferred, and how these fibers, on their own, are able to place the murder weapon in PR's hands or a motive in her mind. I would remind the expert that the alleged owner of the fibers lives there, this is her own daughter, and the clothes were from that busy day. I would then ask how much volume of this fiber could be expected to be on JBR naturally by the end of the day, had she not been murdered.

    If I'm left to my own accord, and fibers are the only forensic evidence that links PR to murder, I will doubt that the fibers exist or really match. I will doubt the conclusion that is drawn even if they do match. Fibers don't strangle people. Fibers aren't the murder weapon. PR didn't pick up fibers and strangle JBR with them. These fibers are fibers we already know and accept as belonging to the house and on JBR even if she were not murdered. At best, the only thing the fibers do is indicate that PR's jacket was in proximity to JBR, her hair, and the cord. This seems remarkable to those who are already convinced of PR's guilt, but if its the ONLY THING then there's way too much doubt as to how the fibers got there.

    Fibers from a clothing item owned by a parent found on their own child, from clothing they both wore that same day, isn't the type of evidence I would need to decide guilt on a matter of this seriousness. I would require more evidence of a nature that suggests PR had the opportunity, the motive, the means, and the will to murder her daughter the exact way she was murdered.

    Not guilty. Not enough of the right kind of evidence, that would suggest PR had the will, motive, means, and opportunity to murder her daughter and produce all of the evidence that was discovered.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    I am convinced now that the piece of tape didn't come from the R's home.
    Not because the roll is missing,some might argue that the R's got rid of it.
    But because the duct tape was torn at both ends(the roll wasn't new) and no prior application of that duct tape is found anywhere in their home,car.etc
    The rice is already cooked...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    So far (as of the time of this posting), it's 50-50.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Quote Originally Posted by WHITEFANG View Post


    Quote:
    11) Of all the examiners who studied the ransom note, not one could eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the author. Several highly-respected examiners, OTOH, said flat-out that she is the writer. Her own mother and sisters said it looked like her writing, as well.

    The 6 examiners said PR didn't write the note.Ironically, 4 of them were hired by the BPD.Those who stated she wrote it were hired for a CIVIL suit where any expert can say ANYTHING they want if it's in their client's best interest (Wolf in this case),that's why they're hired for.

    And re "it looks like" her handwriting.If you ask me,I think John's handwriting looks more like it than PR's. But we can't rely on "it looks like X's or Y's".
    The rice is already cooked...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Can someone pls explain why they voted guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?!If the stuff mentioned about is proof beyond a reasonable doubt I'll go kill myself right now cause I am wasting my time.
    The rice is already cooked...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    So far (as of the time of this posting), it's 50-50.
    Which is damned impressive considering this forum is about 80-20 RDI! It just means the rest of RDI haven't chimed in.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    Can someone pls explain why they voted guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?!If the stuff mentioned about is proof beyond a reasonable doubt I'll go kill myself right now cause I am wasting my time.
    RDI argument is so weak there's nothing BUT doubt.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Which is damned impressive considering this forum is about 80-20 RDI! It just means the rest of RDI haven't chimed in.
    Sadly,it shows a lot.It shows why people in general believe PDI ,it has nothing to do with the evidence.IMO
    The rice is already cooked...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    The existence of the fiber in the paint tote is doubted because I can't tell if the investigators were simply claiming there was a fiber case already built, in order to induce a confession from PR.

    I'm told that this type of interrogation is illegal by posters here, while I can clearly read that veteran FBI special agents simply 'discourage' it.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Me the jury? OK.

    The evidence presented of PR's guilt (of murder) seems to be limited to alleged fibers allegedly found entwined in the cord and in JBR's hair.
    Really? Because I distinctly remember posting 20 items.

    PR's testimony explaining 'how these fibers got there' are not really helpful to deciding her guilt, because PR isn't a fiber expert.
    That doesn't matter one lick, HOTYH. She knew she had the right to keep her mouth shut, and that any statement she made not under duress was admissable in a court of law. She made that statement of her own will and as such, has to abide by the consequences of it. And yes, it IS helpful, because it's a glaring inconsistency and not supported by any facts.

    I would need Exhibit A (jacket) Exhibit B (fiber from jacket) Exhibit C (fiber found in hair) Exhibit D (fiber from paint tray) and a renowned fiber expert to answer questions as to the nature of these exact fibers, how unique they are, how and when they may have been transferred, and how these fibers, on their own, are able to place the murder weapon in PR's hands or a motive in her mind.
    You'd probably get the first one.

    If I'm left to my own accord, and fibers are the only forensic evidence that links PR to murder,
    Oh, if only they were!

    I will doubt that the fibers exist or really match. I will doubt the conclusion that is drawn even if they do match. Fibers don't strangle people. Fibers aren't the murder weapon. PR didn't pick up fibers and strangle JBR with them.
    Yes, we know that.

    Fibers from a clothing item owned by a parent found on their own child, from clothing they both wore that same day, isn't the type of evidence I would need to decide guilt on a matter of this seriousness.
    That's my point! For the 100th time, it's not a question of "this one thing" or "that one thing;" it's the combination of EVERYTHING.

    Not guilty. Not enough of the right kind of evidence, that would suggest PR had the will, motive, means, and opportunity to murder her daughter and produce all of the evidence that was discovered.
    Just what would you consider the "right kind" of evidence, anyway?
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    The 6 examiners said PR didn't write the note.
    WRONG. They did NOT say that. That is a common (somewhat suspect) misinterpretation of what was actually said. If you read what they actually said--and keep in mind that some did more extensive analyses than others--the general appraisal was "she most likely wrote it. I just can't say so in court." Which is a fairly common occurrence since 1995 when Judge Matsch in the OKC bombing trial raised the bar a couple more notches and the standards became a lot tougher. The infighting among document examiners has also become more tense since then.

    Those who stated she wrote it were hired for a CIVIL suit where any expert can say ANYTHING they want if it's in their client's best interest (Wolf in this case),that's why they're hired for.
    Also not completely true. Gideon Epstein, Richard Williams and Larry Ziegler all reached their conclusions on their own before being hired by anyone.

    But we can't rely on "it looks like X's or Y's".
    That's funny, because that's the path Alex Hunter wanted to take: just forget the experts and show the jury the side-by-side comparison charts.

    Can someone pls explain why they voted guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?!
    I'm hoping they will. As for me, since I listed those items in the first place, that's why.

    If the stuff mentioned about is proof beyond a reasonable doubt I'll go kill myself right now cause I am wasting my time.
    Don't you think that's taking it too far?
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post

    That doesn't matter one lick, HOTYH. She knew she had the right to keep her mouth shut, and that any statement she made not under duress was admissable in a court of law. She made that statement of her own will and as such, has to abide by the consequences of it. And yes, it IS helpful, because it's a glaring inconsistency and not supported by any facts.

    Abide by what consequences? She neither confessed nor incriminated herself in any significant way. What ARE you talking about?



    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    You'd probably get the first one.
    I'll let you explain what you mean by this.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Which is damned impressive considering this forum is about 80-20 RDI! It just means the rest of RDI haven't chimed in.
    Given what I've read so far, maybe they're smart to stay out of it.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    The existence of the fiber in the paint tote is doubted because I can't tell if the investigators were simply claiming there was a fiber case already built, in order to induce a confession from PR.

    I'm told that this type of interrogation is illegal by posters here, while I can clearly read that veteran FBI special agents simply 'discourage' it.
    Well, then let me assuage your concerns, HOTYH. While you MAY have an argument against police interrogations, the people conducting the interview with PR are a different breed of animal. They're prosecutors, and as such, are forbidden by the CO Rules of Conduct from deliberately making false statements in order to produce a confession.

    Abide by what consequences?
    Just what I said: she had the right to keep her mouth shut. She made her statement of her own free will under no duress or coercion of any kind. That means that her statement(s) are admissable in court and could be used against her on the witness stand. And any prosecutor worth his/her salt would do exactly that. You can bet the house on that.

    She neither confessed nor incriminated herself in any significant way.
    Are you kidding? She gave an explanation that is directly at odds with the statements of her own husband in a book that they co-wrote TWO FULL YEARS earlier. You wouldn't call that incriminating herself in a major way? I sure would.

    I'll let you explain what you mean by this.
    Gladly! You said that you would need a fiber expert to explain, quote:

    how these fibers, on their own, are able to place the murder weapon in PR's hands or a motive in her mind.

    My answer was that the state's fiber expert would very likely explain how the fibers place the murder weapon in PR's hands. I can explain it now! Here goes:

    Because the fibers in question were not found on JB's clothing or body, it stands to reason that they wound up on the tape, in the knots, in the blanket in in the paint box because those items came into direct contact with PR's clothing during the course of the crime.
    Last edited by SuperDave; 06-10-2010 at 02:40 PM.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

Page 1 of 37 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Where will the jury come from?
    By Macushla in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 708
    Last Post: 05-09-2011, 01:06 PM
  2. Grand Jury indictment - Judge apologizes to the Jury
    By frenchvixen in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-24-2008, 01:56 AM