953 users online (204 members and 749 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 273
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Separating FACT from fiction

    Now that we know Websleuths attracts such a distinguished readership, I think it would be good to have a thread which will provide students of the case with a summary of "facts" which are not actually FACTS!

    Please note:- "not FACT" means that we do not know with absolute certainty that it is a fact. Some people may believe it to be fact, but that is their opinion only.

    There was foreign DNA in her panties which does not match the parents
    FACT.

    The DNA in her panties is the killer's
    Not-FACT. The DNA was degraded and early testing produced too few markers to identify anyone with 100% certainty. Later testing produced a few more markers enabling the sample to be entered into CODIS. The only official statement about the DNA which we have came from Tom Bennett last year when he said that the DNA might be the killer's but it might not. The sample was miniscule and could have been deposited at the time of manufacture if a worker had coughed or sneezed over the underwear.

    The DNA under her fingernails matches the DNA in her panties
    Not-FACT. The DNA under her fingernails had even fewer markers than the DNA in her panties and little has been spoken of it. Also, early reports suggested that the same nail clippers had been used for all of her fingernails and that cross contamination could have occured. There exists only one statement which says that the fingernail and panty DNA "match" - from Lou Smit when he made a documentary some years ago. However, Mr Smit made several statements at that time which we know to be erroneous and he has never repeated it - nor has any other official source.

    Also - if the fingernail and panty DNA matched, it would make a nonsense of Tom Bennett's statement about the DNA possibly coming from a cough or sneeze. If there was any possibility of that, how would such a miniscule amount of DNA find its way under her nails?

    She was sexually abused before her death
    Not FACT. Experts disagree about this.

    There were no footprints in the snow - therefore it was an inside job
    Unclear. The first policemen to arrive at the house observed that there were no footprints in the snow which was lying around the house. Photographs show very little snow and large patches where an intruder could avoid walking on snow but these photographs were taken hours after the first policeman's report - when the small covernig of snow could have long melted.

    This is worn out statement which is often used to try and discredit peolpe who believe in Ramsey guilt but it is rather a non-point.

    The bedsheets were not wet
    Not FACT. According to Steve Thomas' deposition, lab reports stated that the sheets had "traces of creatinine". Tiny amounts of creatinine are found in the urine of a healthy person. A bladderful of urine emtied on a sheet would therefore leave only traces of creatinine.

    Also, the sheets were poly-cotton and multi-coloured. They would have dried very quickly and urine stains would not have been easy to see from a photo. Steve Thomas also stated in his deposition that witnesses had told him the sheets smelled of urine.

    The Ramseys co-operated in every way
    Not FACT. The Ramseys were obligated to co-operate with giving physical evidence and they did. However, it was 4 months before they sat down with police and gave formal interviews and another 18 months before they gave second interviews. John Ramsey also declined to take a polygraph saying that he would be "insulted". When asked if she would take a polygraph, Patsy ramsey said she would take "ten of them".

    The Ramseys passed polygraphs
    FACT. However, they refused to take FBI polygraphs and the polygraphs which they took were self-sponsored. The first polygraphs they took were inconclusive and they changed polygrapher. When they passed later polygraphs with a different polygrapher, they announced it to the press.

    The Ramseys have been cleared by a Federal Judge
    Not FACT. In one of the many Ramsey libel cases (Ramseys v Wolf), Judge J Carnes stated that the evidence was more consistent with an intruder killing JonBenet than the parents. However, Judge Carnes was ruling on a libel case. She did not have access to the police files and worked only with outdated evidence supplied by the Ramseys. This judgement was not on a murder trial.

    The Ramseys have been cleared by the Boulder DA
    Not FACT. After Judge carne's ruling, Boulder DA Mary Lacey said that she agreed with her statement that the evidence pointed more to an intruder than the ramseys. She later qualified this by stating that the Ramseys were nevertheless not being excluded from the investigation.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30,910
    Enhanced 911 call

    Not fact

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Dr Robert Stratbucker was removed as a witness in the Wolf case
    Highly misleading. We do not know the circumstances of Dr Stratbucker's withdrawal. Here is the Counsel's statement:-

    12 MR. HOFFMAN: -- due to the

    13 testimony of the deposition today and to

    14 consider not only the witness but also the

    15 testimony from the witness and looking at it in

    16 relation to my theory of the case, I have

    17 decided at this point to withdraw Dr. Robert

    18 Stratbucker as an expert witness in this

    19 particular case with the understanding, of

    20 course, that this testimony, of course, can be

    21 sealed if counsel for the defense would like

    22 that and there will certainly be no either

    23 public reference to any of Dr. Stratbucker's

    24 theories to this Rule 26 report, to any of the

    25 things that he stated today, any conversations
    During this deposition, Lin Wood focused heavily on Dr Stratbucker's business relationship with Taser Corps (they hired him because of his expertise on stunguns). It is entirely possible that Dr Stratbucker withdrew himself.


    JonBenet was stungunned
    Not FACT. Even the people who believe in the stungun theory cannot produce a stungun which matches the marks on jonbenet's body and do not claim that any does. They say that the Air Taser is the "closest" and offer numerous other reasons why the marks do not match. In FACT, experts agree that the only way to definitively prove the use of a stungun would be to exhume the body and perform a tissue test. Even the "expert" who endorses the theory says "you cannot tell from a photo".

    The leading experts on stunguns (Dr Robert Stratbucker) says that he does not believe the marks were caused by a stungun.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    If something is unclear,than it is not a hard fact.So,it would be easier to just post hard facts,that we know of as today:

    FACT - Patsy Ramsey called 911 on the morning of Dec.26,1996,claiming she discovered her daughter gone,and there is a ransom note.

    FACT - Boulder police arrived,and after a cursory search outside the house,found no force entry,or footprints in the snow.

    FACT - Patsy,John and Burke were in the house from 10:00 pm until the following morning,when police were called.

    FACT - Two couples who were close friends were called by the Ramseys'to come to the house the morning of the 911 call.Rol Hoverstock(pastor),and Dr. Beuf (JonBenets' pediatrician),was also there.

    FACT - The call from the kidnappers never came.

    FACT - Burke Ramsey was taken from his bedroom,and taken to a neighbors house.

    FACT - John,after being asked by a detective to search the house,found the body of JonBenet in the basement,which he carried upstairs,and put her on the floor,just outside the basement door.

    FACT - John Ramsey was heard by one of the authorities,making a call for arrangements to leave Boulder Colorado,to go to Atlanta,Georgia.

    FACT - A few hours later,the Ramsey's were asked by the LE to leave the house.They stayed with various friends for a few days,until they ended up staying with the Stine family for several months,before leaving for Atlanta.

    FACT - The autopsy confirmed that JonBenet was choked and her hands were bound by the same cord,the cord also had a broken paintbrush attached to it. The autopsy also confirms that JB was bashed in the head.Abrasions were found in three separate areas on JB's body,which later Dr.Meyer said could be consistent with the marks of a stungun. Markings were on the palm of JB's hand,which Dr. Meyers' believes is a drawing of a heart done with a red pen.

    FACT - DNA found in JB's panties were tested to confirm it is not the DNA of a Ramsey male.

    There may be more,but that's all I can think of at this moment of HARD evidence,anything else is either inconclusive or disputed.
    Last edited by capps; 01-28-2006 at 08:19 PM. Reason: Clarification.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Patsy Ramsey wrote the note
    Not-Fact. Experts diagree on this. According to Steve Thomas under deposition, there were a number of suspects but Patsy was the only one who could not be eliminated as the writer AND who was positively known to be in the house that night. This suggests that there were other (non-family) suspects who could not be eliminated as the writer. We do not know who they were from any reliable source.

    There was semen on the body
    FALSE. A test done at the autopsy suggested that there might be semen on her legs but this turned out not to be semen.

    The Killer wore Hi-Tec boots
    Not FACT. A partial Hi-Tec bootprint found in the basement cannot be dated and may have been left there long before the murder.

    Burke Ramsey did not own Hi-Tec boots
    Not FACT. Burke Ramsey apparently said he did own a pair of Hi-Tec footwear and this was apparently corroborated by his friend. RST claim that both boys thought the investigators were asking about "high-tech" footwear. (Surely if the boys thought the investigators were asking about "high-tech" footwear, they would have asking "like what?") Readers can decide whether they think 10 year old boys are likely to assume "high-technology" instead of "Hi-Tec" in reference to footwear.

    An animal hair was found in JonBenet's hand
    Apparently FACT. There is no clarification regarding this animal hair from any credible source. Less than credible sources suggest it to be wolf or wolf dog hair.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    560

    Suggestion

    This thread is a good idea in light of Websleuths recent honor. Can I suggest that we keep discussion out of it and have posts recording facts and non facts only. We can start another thread for discussions or objections. If anyone has strong objections to another member's post on this thread, I'm sure we can work it out harmoniously.

    I will leave the thread as it is for a little while and then I'll try and clean it up. If anyone who has made a comment post already wants to edit their own post(s) -- feel free.

    I have stuck the thread so that our illustrious readers can find it quickly.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Fact: A deliberate and sustained force was required to create the deep furrow around JBR's neck. This can only be reasonably construed as deadly force. This is supported by evidence, including local hemorrhaging that would not have occurred if she was already dead.

    Fact: The strangulation was not staged. JBR was strangled.

    Fact: Hitting over the head with a blunt instrument is common in murder and attempted murder, including some infamous ones.

    Fact: JBR's fractured skull is most likely attributed to the use of additional deadly force, since its already been established that deadly force was being used.

    Fact: JBR was most likely hit over the head with a blunt instrument.

    Fact: The cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBenet_Ramsey).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    FACT - Patsy Ramseys' sister Pam Paugh,was allowed to enter the Ramseys' active crimescene home,to collect items for John and Patsy.Pam was allowed to wear a police uniform,for the purpose of not attracting attention.

    FACT - John and Patsy initiated an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" program,the day after JonBenet's burial,to claim their innocence. "We did not kill JonBenet."

    FACT - A Grand Jury was ajourned.The siblings of JonBenet,Burke,John Andrew,Melinda,and many friends and case players were called to testify.John and Patsy were never called.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    It is being stated elsewhere that John Ramsey was cleared because he had no motive, no history and because he didn't match the DNA. This is FALSE.

    People are not cleared becasue they have no motive and no history. Any decent detective will tell you that motive is not always apparent (or even present) and that no-one gets a "pass" because they haven't offended before. The prisons are full of first time offenders!

    As the official statement from Tom Bennet is that the DNA might not be the killers, it seems unlikely that anyone is "cleared" on DNA.

    Although it is clear Keenan leans heavily toward the intruder theory, she said she is not ruling out anything until proven otherwise.
    http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/st...il03.asp?ID=34

    From the Ramsey press conference following their "passing" of a polygraph (8/29/2000):

    UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT: Did Beckner indicate to you that he is finished interrogating you and your wife?
    JOHN RAMSEY: No, he -- he said, you know, "Until we catch the killer, we're never finished with anybody." He told me that no one has been cleared in this investigation.
    http://websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-34418



    (IMO, the only people who will be "cleared" in the Ramsey case are those with cast iron alibis.)
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by deandaniellws
    The FACTS differ depending on which EXPERT you CHOOSE to believe.

    I think this thread is very well done and I disagree. In the case where Experts disagree the "FACT" is that experts disagree and the additional "FACT" is how many and which experts fall on different sides of an analysis.
    IMHO


  11. #11

    Was there a urine stain somewhere on the basement carpet?

    JonBenet's longjohn's were stained with urine which I think is a fact. I think it is a fact also that the stain was fairly extensive indicating that there might have been an overflow onto wherever she was sitting, standing, lying. I read once that there was a urine stain on the basement carpet but can't remember where the stain was said to have been or where I read it. Please, did anyone else read this and do they remember where?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,807

    Talking Polygraph

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Now that we know Websleuths attracts such a distinguished readership, I think it would be good to have a thread which will provide students of the case with a summary of "facts" which are not actually FACTS!

    Please note:- "not FACT" means that we do not know with absolute certainty that it is a fact. Some people may believe it to be fact, but that is their opinion only.

    There was foreign DNA in her panties which does not match the parents
    FACT.

    The DNA in her panties is the killer's
    Not-FACT. The DNA was degraded and early testing produced too few markers to identify anyone with 100% certainty. Later testing produced a few more markers enabling the sample to be entered into CODIS. The only official statement about the DNA which we have came from Tom Bennett last year when he said that the DNA might be the killer's but it might not. The sample was miniscule and could have been deposited at the time of manufacture if a worker had coughed or sneezed over the underwear.

    The DNA under her fingernails matches the DNA in her panties
    Not-FACT. The DNA under her fingernails had even fewer markers than the DNA in her panties and little has been spoken of it. Also, early reports suggested that the same nail clippers had been used for all of her fingernails and that cross contamination could have occured. There exists only one statement which says that the fingernail and panty DNA "match" - from Lou Smit when he made a documentary some years ago. However, Mr Smit made several statements at that time which we know to be erroneous and he has never repeated it - nor has any other official source.

    Also - if the fingernail and panty DNA matched, it would make a nonsense of Tom Bennett's statement about the DNA possibly coming from a cough or sneeze. If there was any possibility of that, how would such a miniscule amount of DNA find its way under her nails?

    She was sexually abused before her death
    Not FACT. Experts disagree about this.

    There were no footprints in the snow - therefore it was an inside job
    Unclear. The first policemen to arrive at the house observed that there were no footprints in the snow which was lying around the house. Photographs show very little snow and large patches where an intruder could avoid walking on snow but these photographs were taken hours after the first policeman's report - when the small covernig of snow could have long melted.

    This is worn out statement which is often used to try and discredit peolpe who believe in Ramsey guilt but it is rather a non-point.

    The bedsheets were not wet
    Not FACT. According to Steve Thomas' deposition, lab reports stated that the sheets had "traces of creatinine". Tiny amounts of creatinine are found in the urine of a healthy person. A bladderful of urine emtied on a sheet would therefore leave only traces of creatinine.

    Also, the sheets were poly-cotton and multi-coloured. They would have dried very quickly and urine stains would not have been easy to see from a photo. Steve Thomas also stated in his deposition that witnesses had told him the sheets smelled of urine.

    The Ramseys co-operated in every way
    Not FACT. The Ramseys were obligated to co-operate with giving physical evidence and they did. However, it was 4 months before they sat down with police and gave formal interviews and another 18 months before they gave second interviews. John Ramsey also declined to take a polygraph saying that he would be "insulted". When asked if she would take a polygraph, Patsy ramsey said she would take "ten of them".

    The Ramseys passed polygraphs
    FACT. However, they refused to take FBI polygraphs and the polygraphs which they took were self-sponsored. The first polygraphs they took were inconclusive and they changed polygrapher. When they passed later polygraphs with a different polygrapher, they announced it to the press.

    The Ramseys have been cleared by a Federal Judge
    Not FACT. In one of the many Ramsey libel cases (Ramseys v Wolf), Judge J Carnes stated that the evidence was more consistent with an intruder killing JonBenet than the parents. However, Judge Carnes was ruling on a libel case. She did not have access to the police files and worked only with outdated evidence supplied by the Ramseys. This judgement was not on a murder trial.

    The Ramseys have been cleared by the Boulder DA
    Not FACT. After Judge carne's ruling, Boulder DA Mary Lacey said that she agreed with her statement that the evidence pointed more to an intruder than the ramseys. She later qualified this by stating that the Ramseys were nevertheless not being excluded from the investigation.
    Jayelle,

    I believe that Patsy failed her first Polygraph.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Solace
    Jayelle,

    I believe that Patsy failed her first Polygraph.
    yeah, but since the "expert" was hired by them, he can only say "inconclusive."

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Solace
    Jayelle,

    I believe that Patsy failed her first Polygraph.
    Brief history of Ramsey polygraphs as we know it:-

    Ramseys are asked by police to take polygraphs. Patsy says she'll take "ten of them". John Ramseys says "I'd be insulted". In the end, they refuse to take any polygraph which was administered by the FBI. Source - Ramsey police interviews.

    Some three and a half years later, the Ramseys take their own privately administered polygraphs. This is what we know:-

    Ramseys approached polygrapher Gene Parker. He insists on a drugs test as part of his polygraph procedure. Ramseys went elsewhere.

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...63&postcount=1

    Ramseys took polygraphs with Gerry Toriello. Polygraphs were inconclusive. Ramseys went elsewhere.
    http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/...0/25arams.html

    Ramseys took polygraphs with Ed Gelb. Ramseys passed polygraph and announced this to the world.

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../24/se.02.html

    If the Ramseys actually *failed* polygraphs, we don't know about it for certain. Inconclusive is not the same as a fail. Inconclusive means the polygrapher cannot say pass or fail.

    http://www.stopolygraph.com/polygraph/nf_faq.htm

    For the record - jameson claimed that the inconclusive polygraph was due to polygrapher error. She would not reveal her "sources". We now know that this is completely false - a fact that even jameson has acknowledged.

    24 . "thread cleared out"
    Posted by jameson on Nov-17-01 at 00:07 AM (EST)

    I am traveling, but, as usual, I have my laptop and do check in.
    The flames were deleted.

    The posts containing misinformation were deleted (The truth is that the Ramseys failed NO polygraphs. They took one before Gelb administered one to them - and it was considered non-conclusive because of an error on the part of the polygrapher.
    The moral of this is .........
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    If the Ramseys actually *failed* polygraphs, we don't know about it for certain. Inconclusive is not the same as a fail. Inconclusive means the polygrapher cannot say pass or fail.
    He can't say it because he's bound by the same confidentiality agreement as a lawyer.

Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Separating FACT from fiction
    By Floh in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-04-2006, 11:57 AM
  2. Separating FACT from fiction - Discussion
    By sissi in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-02-2006, 06:15 PM
  3. Fact or Fiction?
    By Barbara in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 08-19-2004, 01:38 PM
  4. Fact or Fiction
    By terralee in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-31-2004, 11:10 PM