Separating FACT from fiction

[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.

[Linda7NJ]

Enhanced 911 call

Not fact

[Jayelles]

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.

[capps]

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.

[Jayelles]

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.

[RAMP]

Originally Posted by capps

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

This is not a hard fact. IF, and only if, the sample was not mixed, then the sample was a male, and not a Ramsey.

If the sample was mixed, and we have no way of knowing whether it was or not, then all bets are off.

(This may have already been covered. I'm catching up.)

[aussiesheila]

As far as I know the only individuals whose DNA has been compared with the DNA found on the panties are:

JR
BMcR
FW
MP
JMK

Does anyone one know if the following people have had their DNA compared?

JB?
GM?
DP?
CG?
CW?

[JBRMod2]

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.

[Holdontoyourhat]

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).

[vlpate]

Originally Posted by Linda7NJ

Enhanced 911 call

Not fact

The 911 call was enhanced.

[Solace]

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.

[SuperDave]

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."

[Jayelles]

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 .........

[SuperDave]

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.

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

He can't say it because he's bound by the same confidentiality agreement as a lawyer.

Jerry Toriello isn't a lawyer (at least I'm sure he isn't).

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

He can't say it because he's bound by the same confidentiality agreement as a lawyer.

No confidentiality agreement necessary with polygraphers.
If Patsy had failed the polygraph he was at liberty to say so.

[SuperDave]

Except, Jayelles and Seeker, he was hired by their lawyer.

[starpatch]

Jayelles,
You did a great job. Thanks.

[roving_ranger]

I have been lurking for some time and have read through many threads and posts, but I have not been able to find a listing of the major players and their relationships. I can figure out most initials, but there are a few that just can't determine who they are or what part they play. Rather than starting a new thread, I thought I would ask it here. Does anyone know of a listing of all people involved and there relationships to the case?
Thanks!

[Nuisanceposter]

Yeah, here's the first page that lists people closest to the Rs. If you scroll down and go to the other pages linked at the bottom, you can see who the lawyers are, the law enforcement, etc - it explains everyone.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...imer1_fam.html

[SherriRN]

Hi. This is an excellent thread. Have been away for awhile but am glad to see people are focusing on fact vs. non-fact or fiction.

If I recall correctly, I believe that the evidence of previous sexual activity was possible but not stated as fact. The information in the autopsy that was released was suggestive but inconclusive, again if I remember correctly. I once did an in depth review of the autopsy and translated it in to layman's terms, but I don't have it handy at the moment.

[aspidistra]

Originally Posted by SherriRN

Hi. This is an excellent thread. Have been away for awhile but am glad to see people are focusing on fact vs. non-fact or fiction.

If I recall correctly, I believe that the evidence of previous sexual activity was possible but not stated as fact. The information in the autopsy that was released was suggestive but inconclusive, again if I remember correctly. I once did an in depth review of the autopsy and translated it in to layman's terms, but I don't have it handy at the moment.

The experts and the armchair sleuths are divided on whether the word "chronic" means abuse prior to the evening of the 25th or not. Her pediatrician testified that he had seen no sign of abuse. It must boil down to what the writer of the autopsy meant by his term "chronic". Laymen think it means longstanding. It might not mean that in the autopsy report. It's been argued back and forth on TV and on the internet so there are several places to find these debates (and books). I haven't seen any one central place where all interpretations can be found but there may be one.

[luvl8829]

[anne11]

I read that the basement was too warm and that a window was often left open to cool it off, even in winter. The higher temprature would advance decay and bad odeur (sp?).

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by anne11

I read that the basement was too warm and that a window was often left open to cool it off, even in winter. The higher temprature would advance decay and bad odeur (sp?).

Yes, but in this case it wasn't so warm that it would be a factor. The window that was left open was in the room where the boiler/furnace was, and it was that room which got too warm; I think the wineceller was cooler. There WAS an "odor of decay" on JBR when she was brought up, according to Det. Arndt.
She had been dead about 12 hours at that point, according to the autopsy, as suggested by the stage of rigor mortis apparent. After death, the bacteria already present in the intestines causes that part of the body to begin to decompose first. There will be a definite greenish color to the abdomen visible over that area if the body has begun that stage of decomposition, and in warmer surroundings that should have begun after 12 hours, especially since there was another 7-8 hours in the living room exposed at room temperature before she went to the morgue. There was no mention of her abdomen being discolored, but the autopsy mentions "soft green fecal material" in the lower digestive tract. I base my opinion about the temperature of the wineceller on the fact that there was no mention of discoloration of the abdomen. The coroner arrived around 8pm, after that she was taken to the morgue and the refrigeration would delay further decomposition.