Love is an all important, critical piece of this drama, too, no matter what anyone says, IMO. A stranger doesn't have the compelling emotional connection to overcome like a parent, like these parents. It can't be dismissed simply because it might interfere with one's objectivity. Love should present an enormous, ocean-size objection when we evaluate a crime like this.
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Members' Theories
- Thread starter JBRMod2
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
MURRIFLOWER
She knew or said she did. Another facet of the clues that reduces the number of suspects, if what you say is true.
No, I'll stop you here. The cord wasn't sourced to the house. The only way LHP would have known about it is if she was the one to buy it and remember, the killer took it with him.
She knew or said she did. Another facet of the clues that reduces the number of suspects, if what you say is true.
MurriFlower
What is the purpose of allowing P to be uncertain in this deposition? Is this part of the rx, to appear wishy-washy? Or did she go off rx here.
A. I am not so sure about that. I 2 think, I think it is able to be thrown in 3 the washing machine. 4 MR. KANE: I believe it was made 5 of acrylic, if that helps. 6 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 7 MR. WOOD: You all gotta decide, 8 he says wool, you say acrylic. 9 MR. LEVIN: It was acrylic. 10 MR. WOOD: It ought to say 1 dry-cleaning only on it, if it is, or if it 12 doesn't, sometimes it'll get washed. Do you 13 know for a fact, that is the key, do you 14 know whether you dry cleaned it or washed it 15 as you sit here today, Patsy? 16 THE WITNESS: No, I don't.
What is the purpose of allowing P to be uncertain in this deposition? Is this part of the rx, to appear wishy-washy? Or did she go off rx here.
You wouldn't think a 6yo's clothes would fit a 12yo.
It was Patsy's own sweater she lent to LHP's daughter, and a woman's sweater would fit a 12-year old reasonably well enough. Not known what the fiber of that sweater was- actually most ladies' sweaters I buy are either acrylic or heavy cotton knit. I never buy wool because it is so uncomfortable. But I don't think any one ever asked Patsy about the fiber of that particular sweater.
As far as Patsy's jacket- the fleece was acrylic. Most women have seen or owned a fabric of this type for cold weather. I myself had a similar-sounding fleece jacket from Talbots. You could wear it alone as a sweater or layer a thin shirt under it and wear it as a jacket. It was machine washable. The closest description would be a polarfleece, such as is old in Old Navy every winter.
MurriFlower
What is the purpose of allowing P to be uncertain in this deposition? Is this part of the rx, to appear wishy-washy? Or did she go off rx here.
Patsy was "allowed to be uncertain" about a lot of things. Part of the defense plan was no doubt to have the interviews take place so long after the crime that saying "I don't remember" would almost be a given.
But as far as Patsy's jacket - let me tell you something. Every woman knows what she has in her closet and we know exactly whether a garment should be washed or dry cleaned. Patsy saying she didn't know is Patsy's way of covering her a$$ as far as the fabric content. If the fibers were wool, she can say they weren't from her jacket because she washed her jacket. If the fibers were acrylic, she can say they weren't from her jacket because she dry cleaned the jacket. Bottom line- it WAS her jacket the fibers were tested against and found to match, regardless of what the jacket was made of. And regardless of how many of these jackets exist in the universe, planet, country, state and city of Boulder, THOSE jackets were not worn the day JB died and in the house she died in. But the one owned by Patsy meets both those criteria.
Love is an all important, critical piece of this drama, too, no matter what anyone says, IMO. A stranger doesn't have the compelling emotional connection to overcome like a parent, like these parents. It can't be dismissed simply because it might interfere with one's objectivity. Love should present an enormous, ocean-size objection when we evaluate a crime like this.
Or an enormous corroboration.
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
Patsy was "allowed to be uncertain" about a lot of things. Part of the defense plan was no doubt to have the interviews take place so long after the crime that saying "I don't remember" would almost be a given.
But as far as Patsy's jacket - let me tell you something. Every woman knows what she has in her closet and we know exactly whether a garment should be washed or dry cleaned. Patsy saying she didn't know is Patsy's way of covering her a$$ as far as the fabric content. If the fibers were wool, she can say they weren't from her jacket because she washed her jacket. If the fibers were acrylic, she can say they weren't from her jacket because she dry cleaned the jacket. Bottom line- it WAS her jacket the fibers were tested against and found to match, regardless of what the jacket was made of. And regardless of how many of these jackets exist in the universe, planet, country, state and city of Boulder, THOSE jackets were not worn the day JB died and in the house she died in. But the one owned by Patsy meets both those criteria.
Twelve months after JBR's death, they thought "oh, best get the clothes the parents were wearing that day" so we can then say there was fiber from them on the body. Oh, did you wash them? Or dry clean them? Have you worn them since? Pllleeeeaaassssseeeee!!!!
Twelve months after JBR's death, they thought "oh, best get the clothes the parents were wearing that day" so we can then say there was fiber from them on the body. Oh, did you wash them? Or dry clean them? Have you worn them since? Pllleeeeaaassssseeeee!!!!
Trouble is, they didn't just SAY the fibers were on the body. They WERE on the body. And paint tote.
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
Trouble is, they didn't just SAY the fibers were on the body. They WERE on the body. And paint tote.
Well, they said during an interview that there was a report that 'said' fibers from their clothes were found. The report itself hasn't been sighted by anyone on this forum nor by the investigaters that did the interviews. So, we have only evidence of four (4) fibers found on the tape that have been given in evidence and found to be 'consistent' with the fibers from the jacket PR wore (that they didn't ask for until 12 months later). Nothing on the tote or in the cord for that matter.
Patsy was "allowed to be uncertain" about a lot of things. Part of the defense plan was no doubt to have the interviews take place so long after the crime that saying "I don't remember" would almost be a given.
But as far as Patsy's jacket - let me tell you something. Every woman knows what she has in her closet and we know exactly whether a garment should be washed or dry cleaned.
Not Patsy, IMO. Her domestic help took care of those kinds of things.
Patsy saying she didn't know is Patsy's way of covering her a$$ as far as the fabric content.
Come on now.
If the fibers were wool, she can say they weren't from her jacket because she washed her jacket. If the fibers were acrylic, she can say they weren't from her jacket because she dry cleaned the jacket. Bottom line- it WAS her jacket the fibers were tested against and found to match, regardless of what the jacket was made of. And regardless of how many of these jackets exist in the universe, planet, country, state and city of Boulder, THOSE jackets were not worn the day JB died and in the house she died in. But the one owned by Patsy meets both those criteria.
A zillion other products, made of the same fibers, may have found their way to her hair or neck as her hair was caught in the garrote and dug into her little neck. Could have been from the intruder's scarf, or his sweater, or his wife's sweater.
Well- that is 4 fibers that DO match Patsy's jacket found in a place exclusive to the crime (should be even more telling to those who believe the tape wasn't from the home).
As far as the other places- I believe LE when they say these fibers were also found in the garrote knot and paint tote.
As far as the other places- I believe LE when they say these fibers were also found in the garrote knot and paint tote.
* Handwriting samples were given by John (December 26, 28, January 5, 1997); Patsy (December 28, January 4, 1997, February 28, April 12, May 20), and Burke (December 28).
* Police questioned them both on December 27 and John again on December 28. Officers were with the Ramseys 24 hours a day from 6 a.m. December 26, the day JonBenet's body was found, through 2 p.m. December 29, when the Ramseys left for the funeral in Atlanta.
* Police questioned Burke Ramsey on December 26. The conversation was tape-recorded without either parent present and without parental consent. A police psychologist interviewed Burke on January 6. Burke was interviewed again, over three days, in May 1998.
* After the Ramseys returned from JonBenet's funeral in Atlanta, their attorneys offered to make them available for a joint interview January 18, 1997. The police declined this offer and stated in writing that such an interview would not "be helpful" because "the time for interviewing John and Patsy as witnesses who could provide critical information that would be helpful in the initial stages of our investigation has passed."
* The police countered with an offer that the Ramseys come to the police station at 6 p.m. on a Friday night and subject themselves to an open-ended interrogation. That suggestion was rejected, in part because of the written statement above.
* Patsy and John gave hair and blood samples, as well as fingerprints, immediately when the police requested them; so did all other members of the family. In February 1997, both Patsy and John voluntarily gave pubic hair samples.
* Early in the investigation, the Ramseys offered to let the police search both of their houses, John's office, their cars and his airplane hangar, without a search warrant.
* On April 11, 1997, John and Patsy Ramsey, with their attorneys, met with Peter Hofstrom of the DA's office and Tom Wickman of the Boulder Police Department. This meeting was held at Mr. Hofstrom's and Detective Wickman's request. An apology was given for the way the family had been treated. The Ramseys were asked to give additional interviews and continue their previous cooperation. John accepted their apology and agreed to move forward. No conditions were placed on the manner in which the interviews would be conducted.
* On April 12, 1997, the Ramseys agreed to let authorities search their house again without a warrant; agreed to destructive testing of walls located at their home; agreed to identify Patsy Ramsey's prior writings; and agreed to make themselves available for separate interviews on April 23. The Ramseys also agreed to answer any questions put to them. On April 22, the Boulder police canceled the interviews.
* The Ramseys agreed to be interrogated by the Boulder police and district attorney's office on April 30, 1997. These interviews lasted two hours (John) and six hours (Patsy).
* They were interrogated by the district attorney's office for three full days each in June 1998. No additional interviews were requested.
* They signed more than 100 releases for information requested by the police, ranging from medical records to credit card records and even videotape rental records. The Ramseys provided all evidence and information requested by the police.
* Burke Ramsey, John Andrew Ramsey and Melinda Ramsey Long all were subpoenaed and testified before the grand jury.
* John and Patsy Ramsey offered to testify before the grand jury, but were never subpoenaed. The Ramseys asked to meet with the governor and his advisory council. The request went unanswered.
* Police questioned them both on December 27 and John again on December 28. Officers were with the Ramseys 24 hours a day from 6 a.m. December 26, the day JonBenet's body was found, through 2 p.m. December 29, when the Ramseys left for the funeral in Atlanta.
* Police questioned Burke Ramsey on December 26. The conversation was tape-recorded without either parent present and without parental consent. A police psychologist interviewed Burke on January 6. Burke was interviewed again, over three days, in May 1998.
* After the Ramseys returned from JonBenet's funeral in Atlanta, their attorneys offered to make them available for a joint interview January 18, 1997. The police declined this offer and stated in writing that such an interview would not "be helpful" because "the time for interviewing John and Patsy as witnesses who could provide critical information that would be helpful in the initial stages of our investigation has passed."
* The police countered with an offer that the Ramseys come to the police station at 6 p.m. on a Friday night and subject themselves to an open-ended interrogation. That suggestion was rejected, in part because of the written statement above.
* Patsy and John gave hair and blood samples, as well as fingerprints, immediately when the police requested them; so did all other members of the family. In February 1997, both Patsy and John voluntarily gave pubic hair samples.
* Early in the investigation, the Ramseys offered to let the police search both of their houses, John's office, their cars and his airplane hangar, without a search warrant.
* On April 11, 1997, John and Patsy Ramsey, with their attorneys, met with Peter Hofstrom of the DA's office and Tom Wickman of the Boulder Police Department. This meeting was held at Mr. Hofstrom's and Detective Wickman's request. An apology was given for the way the family had been treated. The Ramseys were asked to give additional interviews and continue their previous cooperation. John accepted their apology and agreed to move forward. No conditions were placed on the manner in which the interviews would be conducted.
* On April 12, 1997, the Ramseys agreed to let authorities search their house again without a warrant; agreed to destructive testing of walls located at their home; agreed to identify Patsy Ramsey's prior writings; and agreed to make themselves available for separate interviews on April 23. The Ramseys also agreed to answer any questions put to them. On April 22, the Boulder police canceled the interviews.
* The Ramseys agreed to be interrogated by the Boulder police and district attorney's office on April 30, 1997. These interviews lasted two hours (John) and six hours (Patsy).
* They were interrogated by the district attorney's office for three full days each in June 1998. No additional interviews were requested.
* They signed more than 100 releases for information requested by the police, ranging from medical records to credit card records and even videotape rental records. The Ramseys provided all evidence and information requested by the police.
* Burke Ramsey, John Andrew Ramsey and Melinda Ramsey Long all were subpoenaed and testified before the grand jury.
* John and Patsy Ramsey offered to testify before the grand jury, but were never subpoenaed. The Ramseys asked to meet with the governor and his advisory council. The request went unanswered.
Or not.
Either way, I think it bears examination.
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
Well- that is 4 fibers that DO match Patsy's jacket found in a place exclusive to the crime (should be even more telling to those who believe the tape wasn't from the home).
As far as the other places- I believe LE when they say these fibers were also found in the garrote knot and paint tote.
You know, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if she gave them a different sweater to the one she was wearing that day, just to see what would happen! Like Fang says, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference, they would still have been found guilty LOL.
You know, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if she gave them a different sweater to the one she was wearing that day, just to see what would happen! Like Fang says, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference, they would still have been found guilty LOL.
I don't think so, I really don't. The defense would always have the right to examine the evidence. Suffice it to say that whatever jacket she gave them was a match, and so was worn during the time the crime occurred. Photos prove what she was wearing that day, and investigators would have known if this was a different jacket. If it was the IDENTICAL, but different, jacket, there is simply no reason for Patsy to have done this, with the exception of her having destroyed the original. As was said, her jacket was not the only jacket in existence like it, but the chances of ANOTHER identical jacket having been worn by an intruder (especially a SFF or military one, as you seem to favor) in the same place and on the same day a Patsy is not in the realm of a reasonable person's possibility.
Before you point out that there is always a possibility that some murderous, foreign military person did wear the same thing that day, as it was festive enough for the holiday, let me say that the chances of such a person also happening to be in the R home at the same time Patsy was also wearing the same thing sounds pretty silly, doesn't it?
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
I don't think so, I really don't. The defense would always have the right to examine the evidence. Suffice it to say that whatever jacket she gave them was a match, and so was worn during the time the crime occurred. Photos prove what she was wearing that day, and investigators would have known if this was a different jacket. If it was the IDENTICAL, but different, jacket, there is simply no reason for Patsy to have done this, with the exception of her having destroyed the original. As was said, her jacket was not the only jacket in existence like it, but the chances of ANOTHER identical jacket having been worn by an intruder (especially a SFF or military one, as you seem to favor) in the same place and on the same day a Patsy is not in the realm of a reasonable person's possibility.
Before you point out that there is always a possibility that some murderous, foreign military person did wear the same thing that day, as it was festive enough for the holiday, let me say that the chances of such a person also happening to be in the R home at the same time Patsy was also wearing the same thing sounds pretty silly, doesn't it?
Just re-reading the interview and the section about the jacket/coat/sweater, I don't think the LE had the faintest idea which jacket she wore that day and if the one she gave them was the correct one. Think of this for a minute, it's 12 months later when they ask for it. You have several red/grey/black jacket/coat/sweaters in your closet. You chose the one you think was the one you were wearing that day and give it to the investigators. They find fibers 'consistent' with that jacket at the crime scene and on the body. It goes to court. The defence asks the LE to establish if that was the jacket/coat/sweater she was wearing that day. They say, "well, that's what she told us". LOL. What a joke. So she says, "oh, I made a mistake, that was PW's jacket I gave them by mistake, they are so much alike and I must have brought it home from her house by accident". Poof!! No more fiber evidence.
Just re-reading the interview and the section about the jacket/coat/sweater, I don't think the LE had the faintest idea which jacket she wore that day and if the one she gave them was the correct one. Think of this for a minute, it's 12 months later when they ask for it. You have several red/grey/black jacket/coat/sweaters in your closet. You chose the one you think was the one you were wearing that day and give it to the investigators. They find fibers 'consistent' with that jacket at the crime scene and on the body. It goes to court. The defence asks the LE to establish if that was the jacket/coat/sweater she was wearing that day. They say, "well, that's what she told us". LOL. What a joke. So she says, "oh, I made a mistake, that was PW's jacket I gave them by mistake, they are so much alike and I must have brought it home from her house by accident". Poof!! No more fiber evidence.
Exactly the kind of fellas I would want to take my poly. You?
How many BPD does it take to .....? Where's Our Gang's Spanky and Alfalfa, Clouseau, Agent Smart when you need them?
These boys didn't even attempt a chain of custody? How could they? Why didn't their lawyers tell Pat to clean out and burn the contents of her closet, since they were nothing but conniving thugs? Why didn't they stage a towering inferno to consume their house, if their survival instincts led them to kill their child in the first place? That they would turn over "evidence" that could show they were present, even involved directly, during her murder, voluntarily, when they could avoid doing so simply and without raising suspicion, proves? they're guilty? I guess.
Just re-reading the interview and the section about the jacket/coat/sweater, I don't think the LE had the faintest idea which jacket she wore that day and if the one she gave them was the correct one. Think of this for a minute, it's 12 months later when they ask for it. You have several red/grey/black jacket/coat/sweaters in your closet. You chose the one you think was the one you were wearing that day and give it to the investigators. They find fibers 'consistent' with that jacket at the crime scene and on the body. It goes to court. The defence asks the LE to establish if that was the jacket/coat/sweater she was wearing that day. They say, "well, that's what she told us". LOL. What a joke. So she says, "oh, I made a mistake, that was PW's jacket I gave them by mistake, they are so much alike and I must have brought it home from her house by accident". Poof!! No more fiber evidence.
Except PW didn't have the SAME jacket. She had a similar one, which PW has not mentioned not being able to find or having been lent to Patsy. Besides, there is no need for Patsy to guess which jacket she wore. There are photos to show it.
Except PW didn't have the SAME jacket. She had a similar one, which PW has not mentioned not being able to find or having been lent to Patsy. Besides, there is no need for Patsy to guess which jacket she wore. There are photos to show it.
She could have destroyed it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
DNASolves
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 167
- Guests online
- 3,940
- Total visitors
- 4,107
Totals may include hidden visitors.