10-06-2006, 01:34 PM #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
forgive if this has been mentioned numerous times, but i am learning more about this case all the time, i found something about fibers particularly interesting:
In the course of the interview with Patsy Ramsey, prosecutors asserted that investigators had found:
- Fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape John Ramsey removed from his daughter's mouth when he says he discovered her body in the basement wine cellar that are "identical" to fibers in the red sweater-jacket Patsy was photographed wearing at a Christmas dinner at a friends' house the previous day.
- Fibers from the same type of jacket in the paint tray from which a brush was taken that was used to help fashion the ligature found around JonBenet's neck.
- Fibers from the same type of jacket "tied into" the ligature.
- Fibers from the same type of black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore to the Christmas dinner "in" the panties JonBenet was wearing when she found and in her "crotch area."
this evidence is damming in my opinion. i dont understand how people can believe an intruder killer JB. I always try to keep an open mind and dont like to accuse anyone, but to me it is clear.
It doesn't help the intruder theorists, however, that many of the list of clues Smit says point to an intruder fell by the wayside as the investigation proceeded:
- Forensic examiners said the pubic hair might not be a pubic hair, and in any event many Ramsey houseguests slept in JonBenet's bed when she wasn't home.
- The DNA under JonBenet's fingernails was old and degraded, according to the Rocky Mountain News, and didn't indicate she had struggled with anyone.
- The DNA in her panties wasn't from seminal fluid and was so flimsy, the News quoted a prosecutor as saying, that the manufacturer could have put it there.
- Dr. Spitz says that what appears to be stun gun marks aren't such marks.
- The palm print on the basement door turned out on further review to belong to Melinda Ramsey, one of John Ramsey's children from his first marriage, the News reported last year citing "a source close to the case
i have also heard the boot print in the celler in fact came from burke.
10-06-2006, 02:08 PM #2
The non-RDIs that I have spoken with insist the fiber evidence is either a lie and a ploy designed to trap the Ramseys (there's a huge conspiracy against them because people are jealous of them?), or the fibers ended up where they did because "they live there and of course their fibers would be found everywhere."
Hello! On the body of their dead daughter, who has been wiped down after a sexual assault? The fibers were there after she was wiped down! They could very well be there FROM the wiping. As for Patsy's fibers, there is no innocent reason as to why her fibers would be found in the paint tray, on the tape, and tied into the knot. Not to mention the Ramseys claim they did not wear those items of clothing (which were not their regular everyday clothes but dress clothes - seasonal, in Patsy's case) down in the basement.
I quoted Mary Lacy's comment that the DNA was antiquated and may not even relate to this case to someone who just acted like that meant nothing, and couldn't get past the idea that since it was non-Ramsey DNA then they couldn't possibly have been involved.
I don't know what made those marks on JonBenet that Smit said was a stun gun, but I'm sure it was not a stun gun. Coroner Meyer called them abrasions, not burns, and he would know the difference.
Smit's intruder theory has some big holes in it, and he knows it. I couldn't help but notice that he was more or less completely absent from the KarrWreck fiasco.
There were three palm prints on that door according to ST, and one was Melinda's while the two others belonged to Patsy. As for the pubic hair, ST also says it wasn't a pubic hair but an ancillary hair, like on your arm, and it was sourced back to Patsy. It is true that Patsy said many people had slept in JonBenet's room before.
Burke owned Hi-Tecs and that print could certainly have been from his shoes. It wasn't a full footprint but basically just the logo - that doesn't stop people from saying it was a size 10 print and therefore could not have come from Burke, who would have worn a smaller size. The logo is the same size on adult and child shoes.
It's like what I've heard a few people say here lately - there is more to back up the RDI theory that the IDI theory, and IDI theorists fall short when presenting conclusive evidence of any intruder. There just isn't any forensic evidence proving anyone other than a Ramsey was in that house that nght, and if there was, why did the Ramseys change their stories and hinder investigation all these years?
10-08-2006, 12:05 PM #3Former Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Detroit 'Burb
Ground We've Covered
We've discussed over and over there's no proof the Ramseys were the only ones in the house that night. And no proof intruders were either, except:
The snapshot of the open dictionary, placed clandestinely into the BPD evidence files, which dictionary wasn't there when the crime scene was processed, said by, I believe, ST. (If it was one of their own, would ST have been fired for spilling those beans, a whistle blower, if he hadn't quit first? Just a thought. )
And, I've heard in several police interviews on TV, the unidentified palm print or prints, the boot logo, which could have been put there using a long pole, since there's no evidence of anyone walking there, no "other shoe". Someone who was evidently thought it would be a good joke to play? I read in a book about devil worshippers mutilating cattle by using a cherry picker truck, so that they left no evidence footprints.
Also on TV about true crime, they frequently say skilled criminals don't need keys and don't leave evidence.
A little funny here, some girl said matter-of-factly, "I'm a criminal; that's what I do." As if crime's a legit profession. I think they were studying the psychology of criminals.
I've also read there were several obviously-planted items pointing to the residents, a baseball bat outdoors with a hair on it, a brick from the bsmt fireplace with, I believe, a hair on it, and something else, not the flashlight, that had a hair on it, a golf club, outdoors, and the suitcase that FW said he moved to its position under the window, and the snapshot of the dictionary, to name just a few that we've been over and over but we gotta keep the forum going until some day maybe a tie-breaker will come up to crack the great mystery case. Good thing all of us love mysteries.
As an FS, I have to give the IDI's, not talking to anyone in particular, credit where credit is due for never issuing any challenges, never talking down to anyone, sticking to case.
10-09-2006, 12:52 PM #4this evidence is damming in my opinion. i dont understand how people can believe an intruder killer JB.
Not to mention the Ramseys claim they did not wear those items of clothing (which were not their regular everyday clothes but dress clothes - seasonal, in Patsy's case) down in the basement.Hi, I'm SuperDave. I do BAD things to BAD people.
Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)