Work Gloves...used in the crime?

Toltec

New Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
1,644
Reaction score
35
Website
www.
Has anyone read this part of the interrogation of John? Mr. Levin asks John if he had ever owned work gloves. I know this question was asked of John in a previous interrogation. Do these work gloves have any significance in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?


9 Q. (By Mr. Levin) While Mr. Kane is

10 looking for that on his computer, Mr. Ramsey,

11 I am interested, and this is concerning

12 events, obviously, that precede 1998, but it

13 is based on information developed after the

14 grand jury was convened. I am interested,

15 if you would, please tell us what types, if

16 any, work gloves you own, whether you kept

17 them in the house, on the plane, in the car,

18 it doesn't matter, but just identify them by

19 their location.

20 A. I don't remember that I owned any

21 work gloves. I don't normally wear work

22 gloves.

23 Q. So just to clarify, you are

24 saying that your recollection is that you did

25 not or you are just unsure because of the

0052

1 passage of time?

2 A. I don't remember. I mean, I

3 don't normally wear work gloves. I've had

4 work gloves from time to time, but I

5 don't -- I can't specifically remember that I

6 had any then or if I did what they were

7 like.

8 I had a pair here that were gray,

9 and I bought those at Home Depot, and God

10 knows where they are now. So they kind of

11 come and go.

12 Q. So it wasn't your routine habit

13 or practice to keep a pair of work gloves in

14 your cars if you needed to change a tire

15 or --

16 A. (Witness shook head negatively).

17 Q. -- or on your plane if you needed

18 to do something where you would kind of get

19 dirtied up?

20 A. No. I am not qualified to work

21 on my airplane, my former airplane
 
Has anyone read this part of the interrogation of John? Mr. Levin asks John if he had ever owned work gloves. I know this question was asked of John in a previous interrogation. Do these work gloves have any significance in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

9 Q. (By Mr. Levin) While Mr. Kane is

10 looking for that on his computer, Mr. Ramsey,

11 I am interested, and this is concerning

12 events, obviously, that precede 1998, but it

13 is based on information developed after the

14 grand jury was convened. I am interested,

15 if you would, please tell us what types, if

16 any, work gloves you own, whether you kept

17 them in the house, on the plane, in the car,

18 it doesn't matter, but just identify them by

19 their location.

20 A. I don't remember that I owned any

21 work gloves. I don't normally wear work

22 gloves.

23 Q. So just to clarify, you are

24 saying that your recollection is that you did

25 not or you are just unsure because of the

0052

1 passage of time?

2 A. I don't remember. I mean, I

3 don't normally wear work gloves. I've had

4 work gloves from time to time, but I

5 don't -- I can't specifically remember that I

6 had any then or if I did what they were

7 like.

8 I had a pair here that were gray,

9 and I bought those at Home Depot, and God

10 knows where they are now. So they kind of

11 come and go.

12 Q. So it wasn't your routine habit

13 or practice to keep a pair of work gloves in

14 your cars if you needed to change a tire

15 or --

16 A. (Witness shook head negatively).

17 Q. -- or on your plane if you needed

18 to do something where you would kind of get

19 dirtied up?

20 A. No. I am not qualified to work

21 on my airplane, my former airplane[/quote]

Toltec,
They probably do. Looks like some gloves were discovered and the investigators are indirectly wanting to eliminate the R's by asking directly, consider the size-12's, did the intruder bring these into the house etc.

.
 
It wouldn't surprise me to find work gloves at the house even if they didn't belong to JR. They had a gardener/landscaper, didn't they? They had workmen at the house sometimes.
 
snipped and BBM:

but it

13 is based on information developed after the

14 grand jury was convened.


This part interests me very much. I wonder who would have testified to the GJ about these work gloves? Also, could there have been work glove fibers on or around her body and this was testified to?It would be wonderful to get a glimpse of some of the evidence that we have never seen. I can't help but feel that all the answers are in that evidence and nobody in Boulder has the gumption to go up against the Ramsey dream team. FGS, have a little faith in the judicial system and present this case to a jury! Yes, I know it will never happen because it's almost 5 years too late now.
 
snipped and BBM:

but it

13 is based on information developed after the

14 grand jury was convened.


This part interests me very much. I wonder who would have testified to the GJ about these work gloves? Also, could there have been work glove fibers on or around her body and this was testified to?It would be wonderful to get a glimpse of some of the evidence that we have never seen. I can't help but feel that all the answers are in that evidence and nobody in Boulder has the gumption to go up against the Ramsey dream team. FGS, have a little faith in the judicial system and present this case to a jury! Yes, I know it will never happen because it's almost 5 years too late now.

joeskidbeck,
Well just as enlightening is:
grand jury was convened. I am interested,

15 if you would, please tell us what types, if

16 any, work gloves you own, whether you kept

17 them in the house, on the plane, in the car,

18 it doesn't matter, but just identify them by

19 their location.
This more or less confirms they have gloves that link with the crime-scene, note John is never asked basement, your den, maybe your bedroom etc, just general locations.

This might suggest third party assistance with the staging? Maybe the person who cleaned the flashlight decided to wear gloves but had already touched the flashlight.

It would make sense whomever carried JonBenet down to the basement should wear gloves, no point in taking forensic risks!


.
 
We know that Patsy had admitted to keeping latex gloves in the home for when she dyed her hair, so she would not have needed to use work gloves. I think you are right in that work gloves were found somewhere on the property and presented at the GJ. I'd be willing to bet they were brown as JR is pretty quick to point out that he once owned gray ones!
 
We know that Patsy had admitted to keeping latex gloves in the home for when she dyed her hair, so she would not have needed to use work gloves. I think you are right in that work gloves were found somewhere on the property and presented at the GJ. I'd be willing to bet they were brown as JR is pretty quick to point out that he once owned gray ones!

:great: size-12?


.
 
We know that Patsy had admitted to keeping latex gloves in the home for when she dyed her hair, so she would not have needed to use work gloves. I think you are right in that work gloves were found somewhere on the property and presented at the GJ. I'd be willing to bet they were brown as JR is pretty quick to point out that he once owned gray ones!



Beck, let us not forget the medical supplies they would still have had in the house, in the drawer, in JAR's room. I would bet the farm, latex gloves were part of those supplies.
 
snipped and BBM:

but it

13 is based on information developed after the

14 grand jury was convened.


This part interests me very much. I wonder who would have testified to the GJ about these work gloves? Also, could there have been work glove fibers on or around her body and this was testified to?It would be wonderful to get a glimpse of some of the evidence that we have never seen. I can't help but feel that all the answers are in that evidence and nobody in Boulder has the gumption to go up against the Ramsey dream team. FGS, have a little faith in the judicial system and present this case to a jury! Yes, I know it will never happen because it's almost 5 years too late now.


Weren't unsourced "tan/brown" cotton fibers found on the body? Some theories feel they may be from the tan cotton body of an Amercan Girl doll (specifically, the duct tape thay may have been on the back of the doll's neck). If LE has the work gloves, they also have the ability to test them against the tan/brown fibers. However, they do not have the doll. Those dolls do not come with the duct tape- the parent has to put the tape on the doll over the neck cord knot. If JB's doll had the tape, there would be glue residue on the back of the doll's neck. Could THIS be the reason the new doll was ordered: to replace the doll that had the tape put on? The new doll would have no such residue. But the adhesive on the back of the tape from JB's mouth could have been matches against the adhesive residue on the doll IF LE had the doll. Maybe LE asked for the doll (like they asked for the clothes the Rs were wearing that day). Maybe the new doll was intended to be substituted for the actual doll (like the Rs were thought to have substituted new or laundered clothes for the ones they were wearing that night.
 
DeeDee, I thought I remembered something about tan/brown fibers. Maybe they think the killer was wearing tan or brown gloves while handling the duct tape. I wish Boulder LE would read here. Then maybe they could solve this case!
 
DeeDee, I thought I remembered something about tan/brown fibers. Maybe they think the killer was wearing tan or brown gloves while handling the duct tape. I wish Boulder LE would read here. Then maybe they could solve this case!

Maybe they do read here. Hope so. Unless they dislike reading the catalog of incompetence that defined this case.
 
Weren't unsourced "tan/brown" cotton fibers found on the body? Some theories feel they may be from the tan cotton body of an Amercan Girl doll (specifically, the duct tape thay may have been on the back of the doll's neck). If LE has the work gloves, they also have the ability to test them against the tan/brown fibers. However, they do not have the doll. Those dolls do not come with the duct tape- the parent has to put the tape on the doll over the neck cord knot. If JB's doll had the tape, there would be glue residue on the back of the doll's neck. Could THIS be the reason the new doll was ordered: to replace the doll that had the tape put on? The new doll would have no such residue. But the adhesive on the back of the tape from JB's mouth could have been matches against the adhesive residue on the doll IF LE had the doll. Maybe LE asked for the doll (like they asked for the clothes the Rs were wearing that day). Maybe the new doll was intended to be substituted for the actual doll (like the Rs were thought to have substituted new or laundered clothes for the ones they were wearing that night.

DeeDee249,
Yes you could be correct. What you suggest is cogent and consistent.

Also here is an interesting link with the color brown is:
Patsy's Atlanta 2000 Interview, excerpt
1 Q. Did you own gardening gloves?
2 A. I don't think so, no.
3 Q. Do you recall ever seeing in your
4 house brown kind of work gloves, cotton?
5 A. Brown cotton? John had -- I
6 don't remember brown work gloves.
7 Q. Can you picture what I am talking
8 about?

...

1 question was, do you recall ever seeing in
2 your house brown kind of work gloves, cotton,
3 and you went brown cotton, and you said John
4 had, and you said I don't remember brown.
5 All I want to do is put it in the context
6 of what she said. Do you remember saying
7 that?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 MR. WOOD: Now, Mr. Kane, go
10 right ahead.
11 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Now that you've
12 had time to think about it for a minute,
13 what did John have?
14 A. What kind of gloves did he have?
15 Q. What were you about to say? You
16 said John had.
17 A. John had ski gloves.
18 Q. (By Mr. Levin) In addition to
19 his ski gloves, Mrs. Ramsey, do you recall
20 John having any kind of work gloves that he
21 might have kept in the car if he had to
22 change a tire or anything like that?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Just for clarification, for the
25 record, when you say no, does that mean no,
0183
1 you don't recall whether he did or didn't or
2 no, he did not own any work gloves?
3 A. I don't recall that he did. You
4 will have to ask him if he did.
5 Q. Fair enough. Thank you.
6 Mr. Morrissey?
7 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) What color
8 were the ski gloves that you were thinking
9 about?
10 A. It seems to me like they were
11 black. I can't be sure, but I think they
12 were black. They were the puffy kind.
So if they do not have the gloves but simply the fibers then it may be a line of questioning they are pursuing, thinking the person who placed the tape over JonBenet's lips was wearing gloves?


.
 
DeeDee249,
Yes you could be correct. What you suggest is cogent and consistent.

Also here is an interesting link with the color brown is:
Patsy's Atlanta 2000 Interview, excerpt

So if they do not have the gloves but simply the fibers then it may be a line of questioning they are pursuing, thinking the person who placed the tape over JonBenet's lips was wearing gloves?


.

That just really gets to me....why LE would give Patsy an opportunity to think of something to make up.

She was ready to say John had some work gloves...but then she was cut off. This type of questioning is just totalally inflaming.
 
That just really gets to me....why LE would give Patsy an opportunity to think of something to make up.

She was ready to say John had some work gloves...but then she was cut off. This type of questioning is just totalally inflaming.

Believe me, my blood pressure skyrockets every time I read those interviews. Not only because of the Rs answers, but because of the way LE drops the ball on nearly EVERY important line of questioning.
 
this thread reminds me of something I've been thinking about lately.
I never thought she was assaulted with that paintbrush,her injuries are consistent with digital penetration.the paintbrush would have caused way much more damage AND different kinds of injuries.
so IMO it was transfer,whoever broke/touched it ,touched JB afterwards.
but this would mean she was touched down there AFTER the paintbrush was broken.
how does this fit in the timeline,it's so confusing.again.
cause she was alive when hurt down there.what was that person who did it doing with the paintbrush BEFORE.
 
Madeliene, you just made an excellent point. I too have always wondered about the damage to her "privates". Wonder if someone broke the paintbrush with the intention of stabbing her with it? Also wonder what the end of the paintbrush handle looks like. Could this be the object that made the unidentified marks (the ones IDI attribute to a stun gun)? It could be that the killer just couldn't stab JonBenet and then decided on strangulation. Also, could the damage to her privates have been made with a work-gloved finger? Just spitballing here, there are so many questionable areas in this case.
 
Reading PMPT....came upon this last night:


Spitz examined the four slides of tissue taken from JonBenet's vaginal area and discussed with Weinheimer (detective) and Faure (coroners investigator) what the coroner had observed about the head injury, strangulation, and vaginal cavity. After reviewing the slides, Spitz repeated his opinion: the injury to JonBenet's vagina had happened either at or immediately prior to her death - not earlier.
 
Reading PMPT....came upon this last night:


Spitz examined the four slides of tissue taken from JonBenet's vaginal area and discussed with Weinheimer (detective) and Faure (coroners investigator) what the coroner had observed about the head injury, strangulation, and vaginal cavity. After reviewing the slides, Spitz repeated his opinion: the injury to JonBenet's vagina had happened either at or immediately prior to her death - not earlier.

How in the world could they not see what is so obvious to the rest of us? I am really starting to think they did see every bit of it and LE was absolutely powerless against the DA's office. Now that there is a new DA he needs to prosecute someone for the cover-up of this crime!
 
Madeliene, you just made an excellent point. I too have always wondered about the damage to her "privates". Wonder if someone broke the paintbrush with the intention of stabbing her with it? Also wonder what the end of the paintbrush handle looks like. Could this be the object that made the unidentified marks (the ones IDI attribute to a stun gun)? It could be that the killer just couldn't stab JonBenet and then decided on strangulation. Also, could the damage to her privates have been made with a work-gloved finger? Just spitballing here, there are so many questionable areas in this case.



Beck,

Its my opinion, that who ever broke the paint brush, was trying to hide the fact, that it was a paint brush.
 
How in the world could they not see what is so obvious to the rest of us? I am really starting to think they did see every bit of it and LE was absolutely powerless against the DA's office. Now that there is a new DA he needs to prosecute someone for the cover-up of this crime!

it's like S.Singular said,they were afraid (DA) to go down that road....anything that had to do with JB being assaulted.....they didn't wanna investigate ANYTHING that had to do with this,not pedo rings,not people close to JB.it's like it didn't happen.

WHY.

now it's fact that she was assaulted that night and it's possible that it happened before.
murder and molestation,just a coincidence??how dumb are they??

I will never get it!they just closed their eyes and pretended it didn't happen.like the Ramseys.

i told you,this is just my opinion but something stinks IMO re the way ST handled this and told JR you can't know,you weren't there.why did he give him the pass after a panel of docs told him she was previously abused??????????????????????????????maybe ST and JR had a deal,pin it on the wife.not so sure this didn't happen,it doesn't make any sense why the men in the family were given the pass if we deal with prior abuse!!!
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
205
Guests online
2,323
Total visitors
2,528

Forum statistics

Threads
589,955
Messages
17,928,238
Members
228,016
Latest member
ignoreme123
Back
Top