Jayelles
New Member
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.
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.