853 users online (145 members and 708 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 92
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053

    Why Patsy did not kill JonBenet

    Patsy didn't do it.

    Even though her coat fibers are in the knot of the ligature device found around JonBenet's neck, and on the sticky side of the black duct tape found on JonBenet's mouth, and she was deeply involved in the staging and is involved in the coverup, Patsy Ramsey did not kill JonBenet. Here's why:

    1. The foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear is from a male. Patsy is a female.

    2. The government's six handwriting examiners, the only ones who had all of the exemplars and the original note to study, all say Patsy didn't likely write the ransom note.

    3. Gelb's private lie-detector examinations concluded that Patsy did not kill JonBenet nor did she write the ransom note.

    4. The grand jury, with almost unlimited power to investigate anything and anyone it wanted, using its own hand-picked team of investigators, and after 13 months of investigating, was unable to come up with even one item of evidence that might indict Patsy Ramsey.

    The evidence is convincing that Patsy didn't do it, but it's also convincing that a Ramsey had to have been directly involved in the death of JonBenet. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been a need for the staging and the continuing coverup. So who are they covering for?

    JMO

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Patsy didn't do it.

    Even though her coat fibers are in the knot of the ligature device found around JonBenet's neck, and on the sticky side of the black duct tape found on JonBenet's mouth, and she was deeply involved in the staging and is involved in the coverup, Patsy Ramsey did not kill JonBenet. Here's why:

    1. The foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear is from a male. Patsy is a female.

    2. The government's six handwriting examiners, the only ones who had all of the exemplars and the original note to study, all say Patsy didn't likely write the ransom note.

    3. Gelb's private lie-detector examinations concluded that Patsy did not kill JonBenet nor did she write the ransom note.

    4. The grand jury, with almost unlimited power to investigate anything and anyone it wanted, using its own hand-picked team of investigators, and after 13 months of investigating, was unable to come up with even one item of evidence that might indict Patsy Ramsey.

    The evidence is convincing that Patsy didn't do it, but it's also convincing that a Ramsey had to have been directly involved in the death of JonBenet. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been a need for the staging and the continuing coverup. So who are they covering for?

    JMO
    1. That is not exculpatory evidence for Patsy. The DNA was not fresh, nor complete, and therefore could have been cross-contamination or secondary transfer.

    2. Bull cookies. The six examiners never said anything of the kind. BlueCrab, are we going to have to go through this AGAIN? I thought you got over that delusion a couple of months ago. Must I threaten to strangle you a second time?

    3. Gelb's private lie detector examination is worth as much as the bull cookies mentioned in #2. The Ramseys bought and paid for Gelb. They finally found an examiner who would let Patsy be tested with drugs in her system, and tested multiple times.

    4. Wrong. We don't know if the grand jury "was unable to come up with even one item of evidence that might indict Patsy Ramsey." We don't know what they came up with against ANYONE. They might have had several items of evidence, but not enough to convict. They might have recommended indictment, and Hunter chose not to indict because he wanted a plea bargain or nothing.


    IMO

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    Good grief.

    The "foreign DNA" didn't kill JonBenet any more than the jacket fibers did.

    I'm still waiting for you to provide the references to your claimed government (i.e non-Ramsey) handwriting expert quotes from the last several times you claimed it... lol.

    Re the polygraph:
    http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/polygraph/

    And which grand juror blabbed?
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Cherokee,

    Facts are facts, and even if you disagree with them because they don't fit your PDI theory, nothing you say can change them. They remain facts. For instance:

    It's a FACT there is foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear, and it's from a male.

    It's a FACT the CBI's six handwriting examiners, as a group, scored Patsy as a 4.0 to 4.5, with 5.0 meaning exclusion, close to excluding her as the possible writer of the ransom note. Numerous others who were tested by the CBI scored lower than Patsy.

    It's a FACT Gelb is one of the most respected polygraph examiners in the nation, and he excluded Patsy as the killer of JonBenet and as the writer of the ransom note.

    It's a FACT the powerful grand jury, with almost limitless powers and its own hand-picked investigative team, could not indict Patsy after a 13-month investigation.

    You and others can continue to spin your wheels and rant and rave about Patsy, but the facts won't change and will continue to prove Patsy likely didn't do it. Isn't it time to re-think your theories?

    Cherokee, please provide ONE credible item of evidence that Patsy killed JonBenet. You can't do it. Nobody can, because she didn't do it.

    JMO

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    1. The foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear is from a male. Patsy is a female.

    2. The government's six handwriting examiners, the only ones who had all of the exemplars and the original note to study, all say Patsy didn't likely write the ransom note.

    3. Gelb's private lie-detector examinations concluded that Patsy did not kill JonBenet nor did she write the ransom note.

    4. The grand jury, with almost unlimited power to investigate anything and anyone it wanted, using its own hand-picked team of investigators, and after 13 months of investigating, was unable to come up with even one item of evidence that might indict Patsy Ramsey.
    That's right BlueCrab, Facts are Facts - so let's stick to em:

    1. The foreign DNA is in all probability not even related to the crime. Not a single person has properly explained how someone could leave a PARTIAL DNA print at a crime scene. Unless of course your perp of choice was a genetic scientist. Dr. Lee and the experts from CellMark Labs have said "this is not a DNA case"--believe them.

    2. NONE of the handwriting experts were able to rule Patsy out as the author of the ransom note. None could positively identify her, because the note is written in disguised handwriting. Speckin said it best when he said he couldn't identify her as the author, but the chance someone else wrote it is ZERO.

    3. Gelb is a moron who has given lie detector tests and passed people that claim they were abducted by space ships. Gelb also calls himself "Doctor" because he went out to a diploma print shop and purchased a PHD certificate--he's a FRAUD in all sense of the word.
    To top that off, his buddy Baxter who scored the Ramsey's test writes books about how house plants talk to him through his personal lie detector.
    Oh, and let's not forget that the Ramseys refused to take a lie detector test that required they also take a drug test right before it.

    4.YOU and everyone else has NO idea what the Grand Jury did and did not do. They very well might have come up with a TON of evidence that points to Patsy. There are many reasons why they might have passed on indicting Patsy. One of which might be that they insisted that John and Burke be cleared before hand to eliminate that defense strategy--and that could never happen. A Grand Jury isn't going to stand three suspects in front of a criminal jury and say, "Take your pick!"

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Cherokee,

    Facts are facts, and even if you disagree with them because they don't fit your PDI theory, nothing you say can change them. They remain facts. For instance:

    It's a FACT there is foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear, and it's from a male.

    It's a FACT the CBI's six handwriting examiners, as a group, scored Patsy as a 4.0 to 4.5, with 5.0 meaning exclusion, close to excluding her as the possible writer of the ransom note. Numerous others who were tested by the CBI scored lower than Patsy.

    It's a FACT Gelb is one of the most respected polygraph examiners in the nation, and he excluded Patsy as the killer of JonBenet and as the writer of the ransom note.

    It's a FACT the powerful grand jury, with almost limitless powers and its own hand-picked investigative team, could not indict Patsy after a 13-month investigation.

    You and others can continue to spin your wheels and rant and rave about Patsy, but the facts won't change and will continue to prove Patsy likely didn't do it. Isn't it time to re-think your theories?

    Cherokee, please provide ONE credible item of evidence that Patsy killed JonBenet. You can't do it. Nobody can, because she didn't do it.

    JMO
    Temper, temper, BlueCrab. My goodness, we're in a little snit tonight. I don't believe I am the one ranting and raving.

    First, you put words in my mouth, and then accuse me of trying to change the facts. You're wrong on both counts. Get another dog to kick.

    It is not my PDI theory. I have repeatedly stated on this forum I know Patsy wrote the ransom note. Beyond that, I have entertained all sorts of theories ... including your precious BDI. PDI makes the most sense to me in light of the evidence we know at this moment. But I do not hold it sacred.

    1. I did not dispute your "fact" that the partial DNA was found in JonBenet's underwear, nor dispute the "fact" it was male. I simply stated why it is irrelevent to your premise. JonBenet could have had underwear full of cross-contamination and secondary transfer male & female DNA ... AND THAT FACT WOULD NOT EXCLUDE PATSY from strangling or hitting JonBenet.

    2. It is not a "fact" the government's six handwriting examiners all said "Patsy didn't likely write the ransom note." We have gone round this mullberry bush before. I have posted sources, ad infinitum ... Shylock has posted sources, Britt has posted sources, Ivy has posted sources, and you ignore them. We discussed all this months ago.

    3. It is not a "fact" that Gelb is "one of the most respected polygraph examiners in the nation." Shylock has already posted his lack of credentials unless you want to talk to aliens and plants.

    4. It is not a "fact" that the grand jury COULD NOT indict Patsy. That is imaginative extrapolation on your part. The FACT is ... we don't know what conclusions the grand jury came to.

    And don't tell me what I can't do ... because I can do it.

    ONE credible item of evidence that Patsy killed JonBenet is her jacket fibers found ENTWINED in the ligature.


    Furthermore, I have NEVER spun my wheels. I'm against it.


    IMO

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    514
    Bluecrab - You cannot have it both ways. You claim Gelb "passing" Patsy in the polygraphs is a proof she didn't kill JonBenet or write the note because he asked if she did and she said "no."
    Well he ALSO asked her if she "knew" who killed JonBenet and she said "no."
    Yet you claim that she was deeply involved in staging and covering the crime for someone (Burke) who did kill JonBenet. Therefore she DID "know" who killed her and the polygraph result is false.

    You can't have it both ways. Either she was truthful in ALL the questions - not just select ones that blend nicely with your theory - or she wasn't and Gelb is an imposter and the polygraphs he gave (which the Ramseys paid for)
    are junk.

    I go with the latter.
    This post is my opinion.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    I won't ignore the foreign DNA. If they ever find a match to it, I want to hear what the defence for it is. It is bizarre that it is degraded, but it is also bizarre that it is there. I want to know whose it is and how it got there.

    One thing which I thihnk is exculpatory for Patsy is the fact that when asked if she would take a polygraph, she said she would take "ten of them". I also just cannot envisage her killing the child who gave her the reason to live.
    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    753

    At the risk of being edited for flaming

    Keep on goin' BC, the bend ain't too far off, soon you'll be roundin' it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by K777angel
    Bluecrab - You cannot have it both ways. You claim Gelb "passing" Patsy in the polygraphs is a proof she didn't kill JonBenet or write the note because he asked if she did and she said "no."
    Well he ALSO asked her if she "knew" who killed JonBenet and she said "no."
    Yet you claim that she was deeply involved in staging and covering the crime for someone (Burke) who did kill JonBenet. Therefore she DID "know" who killed her and the polygraph result is false.

    You can't have it both ways. Either she was truthful in ALL the questions - not just select ones that blend nicely with your theory - or she wasn't and Gelb is an imposter and the polygraphs he gave (which the Ramseys paid for)
    are junk.

    I go with the latter.

    Angel,

    First of all, I'd like to remind you that no other professional challenged Ed Gelb's and Cleve Backster's polygraph results. Gelb and Backster are the top polygraph experts in the country. But please carefully read the questions Gelb asked Patsy -- paying particular attention to the "for sure" clauses.

    Series 1:

    1. Did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet?

    2. Regarding JonBenet, did you inflict any of the injuries that caused her death?

    3. Were those injuries that resulted in JonBenet's death inflicted by you?

    Series 2.

    1. Do you know for sure who killed JonBenet?

    2. Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her?

    3. Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenet?

    Series 3.

    1. Did you write the ransom note that was found in your house?

    2. Regarding that ransom note, did you write it?

    3. Is that your handwriting on the ransom note found in your house?


    Patsy answered "NO" to all of the questions without showing deception.

    The test was considered valid by the experts. However, it's obvious the words "for sure" normally wouldn't be needed but were included for a specific reason. It appears the wording was designed to properly clear Patsy, because she didn't kill JonBenet nor did she write the ransom note, but at the same time the wording of the questions shielded Burke.

    The polygraph exam did not clear Burke. That's because it appears Burke denies, even to his parents, that he did it. Yet they know there was a fifth person in the house who had been invited in by Burke. Thus Patsy doesn't know "for sure" which one of the kids did it. And that's the only way Patsy could have passed the lie-detector test without showing deception. There was no other reason to have included the clause "for sure" in the questions.

    JMO


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    The test was considered valid by the experts.
    What experts? I've never heard any "expert" state their approval of Patsy's test.

    1. Patsy had to be tested multiple times before she could pass. Therefore, she was unable to answer "NO" to all of the questions "without showing deception" during those tests. So, which of the several tests she took are valid? The first one? The second one? The last one?

    2. It is known that psychopaths, and some sociopaths, who are guilty of a crime can pass a polygraph test with flying colors because (to put it simply) they do not have a "conscience." They can lie and never raise a polygraph needle because they do not have normal, functioning, guilt responses. In this same way, a subject may "rationalize" and dismiss the guilt of their crime. Passing a polygraph does not mean absence of guilt.

    3. It is also well known that polygraphs must be administered to a subject who is completely free of drugs which alter the body's response to stimuli. Patsy was taking tranquilizers which are nervous system depressants. They mute the body's response to stimuli. They alter polygraph results because they interfere with the body's normal responses. The Ramseys would not take a polygraph until they found Gelb who would administer the test to Patsy in a drugged state.

    One passed test adminstered by one gullible Gelb does not mean a thing.

    Let Patsy (in a drug free state) take her "ten polygraphs" by ten different impartial FBI and LE examiners, and then we might have results that are valid.


    IMO

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee
    The Ramseys would not take a polygraph until they found Gelb who would administer the test to Patsy in a drugged state.
    Exactly Cherokee, and let us remind BlueCrab that Patsy was unable to pass a polygraph test administered by Jerry Toriello just prior to the Gelb test.

    Think about it BC, why do you think they went out and hired Gelb instead of just taking the test again with Toriello?--Not too hard to figure out, is it...LOL

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    3. Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenet?

    Patsy answered "NO" to all of the questions without showing deception.
    K777angel is correct.

    Even if Patsy didn't know "for sure," she would know it was one or the other and hence would be concealing his identity.
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Thus Patsy doesn't know "for sure" which one of the kids did it... There was no other reason to have included the clause "for sure" in the questions.
    Please. There could have been several reasons: depending on what happened and who did what staging, she may not have known for sure if she killed JB or if John did it or if it was the cord or the shirt collar or the maglite or the wall she threw JB against to crack her skull, in which case she could probably rationalize blaming JB herself.
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    One thing which I thihnk is exculpatory for Patsy is the fact that when asked if she would take a polygraph, she said she would take "ten of them".
    Uh huh and if anyone actually hauled out the machine and hooked it up, her next line of dialogue would've been: "Oh gosh, silly me, I forgot... my lawyer won't let me!" The Ramseys perfected the art of pretending to cooperate without really doing so.
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast