2010.09.28 Levi P. Show: JonBenet Case Heats up! Tricia from WS weighs in

its always nice how RDI chooses to characterize these events as if its all factually known, put it in some ridiculous context, and then blame IDI as if we came up with it. Thats just too funny.

You're making yourself sick with YOUR OWN characterization, not mine, based on what you think you know but really don't. This is true because your sources are hearsay: the tabloids and books written clearly before all the facts were in.

I'm told by several not over-the-edge RDI that the DNA "could" belong to an intruder. DNA is very important evidence in any crime, therefore the opinions you cling to so much are largely obsolete because they were formed before important evidence was known.

I'm not blaming IDI as if they came up with all of this. I just don't understand how it can be believed that an intruder/kidnapper did all of the things that I listed. It appears that you won't believe that any of what I listed actually happened until you see a report on it, but several things did happen that we know are factual and not hearsay:
She was wrapped in a blanket.
She was wiped off and redressed.
The window grate was put back in place.
There was a bowl of pineapple and a glass from tea on the table and she did have pineapple in her at autopsy.
The pad was given to LE from the hall table.

Would you agree that we know these to be true and factual?

I am one of the RDI's that have said that there is a chance that there was an intruder. Until we find the killer then noone knows 100% who did it. You can't say 100% that it was IDI and I can't say 100% that it was RDI. The touch DNA cannot be dated, so until a match is made then noone has been excluded as far as I am concerned. You on the otherhand choose to believe that the DNA is 100% proof of IDI and refuse to take into consideration any things that we RDI just can't believe that an IDI would have done that night. Any proof offered is considered hearsay or not factual. Well, thats what I consider the DNA to be hearsay and not factual. Until a match is made then the touch DNA means nothing to me.
 
Thats not evidence of ownership. Do you understand the concept of ownership? Neither of the R's owned the tape or the cord.

How do you know neither of the R's owned the tape or cord? Do you understand the concept of speculation? You don't know what the Ramseys owned.

Use a little common sense, please. Just because someone says something does not make it true or a fact of evidence. Do you really believe people don't lie to LE all the time, especially ones who are hiding something? The Ramseys lied to LE so many times, assuming they told the truth about the critical evidence found on the body is wishful thinking. EPIC FAIL, hat.

Patsy Ramsey described duct tape down to the "gooey" texture in her 98 LE interview. You can see she had at least one box of cords and ribbons, as well as shelves of crafts items, in the basement crime scene photos. John Ramsey certainly knew what duct tape was, as he offered to lie about Fleet White having black duct tape.

Patsy Ramsey had been on stages her whole life, small and Miss America competition large. Guess what they use to indicate where the talent stops? Black duct tape--it won't show on camera. Guess what they use to secure long cables so people won't trip on them? Duct tape. Guess what beauty contestants have been using for ages to enhance their figures, so much so that you can get many different colors at any hardware store? Duct tape. Guess what you can see in photos of JonBenet hitting her marks on a pageant stage? Black markers.

Dream on, hat, because that's all you're doing. Not finding the rolls of tape or cord does not mean they were never there. It's not like a child that's missing, after all. They found her, right where the stager left her.
 
its always nice how RDI chooses to characterize these events as if its all factually known, put it in some ridiculous context, and then blame IDI as if we came up with it. Thats just too funny.

You're making yourself sick with YOUR OWN characterization, not mine, based on what you think you know but really don't. This is true because your sources are hearsay: the tabloids and books written clearly before all the facts were in.

I'm told by several not over-the-edge RDI that the DNA "could" belong to an intruder. DNA is very important evidence in any crime, therefore the opinions you cling to so much are largely obsolete because they were formed before important evidence was known.

You know you talk just like maimed, linguistically speaking.

So now you resort to "not over-the-edge RDI" for your proof there was an intruder? You are desperate.

Anyhow, if you think only the evidence fabricated by DNA Lacy and Intruder Smit is important--the DNA it took 10 years to find, it was so minute and such an undetectable quantity, and the non-existent stun gun marks--no wonder you're clueless about this case. You just want to throw out all the evidence that clearly leads to the Ramseys. How predictable of IDIs.

A little warning about listening to maimed: she never met a faux clue she didn't love.
 
I lurk on the JBR threads and read frequently. I never post because of the intensity of the IDI/RDI posters who bite if you don't agree with them. It was inspirational to learn that Tricia has followed this case and pushed for justice (for years). I offer my respect and support for her intense persuit of justice.

Don't be afraid to post. Moderators will make sure you aren't personally attacked in response. Most people are real nice even if they disagree with you.
They may dispute facts but everyone here HAS A RIGHT to their opinions and that is never questioned.
 
No, just kidnappers looking for a blanket to conceal a small child. Duh.

I thought Lou Smit said the intruder tried to put her into the suitcase--and got duvet fibers in there all over her.

Exactly why wasn't that duvet sufficient to conceal a small child? Maybe he didn't like the color? Clashed with her clothes?

The blanket was hers. How would the intruder know that? Why would he reject the duvet and go looking for a blanket in a dryer?

Just silly.
 
To KoldKase
I followed your underwear link to your experiment. I am relieved as I thought what is wrong with that child's legs they are so red and pimply looking. Who would post such a photo. After I went to your bloomies link I had to laugh at myself.
 
If the "intruder" found a duvet in the suitcase, why would they need to look in the dryer for a blanket? Only someone who knew the blanket was in there. IDI understands that all this was done with the parents supposedly sleeping upstairs. Do you understand how long all this would take to accomplish? The pineapple, the assault, the bludgeoning, making the garrote, redressing, looking for a blanket, going to get a doll to put with her body, moving a metal grate while the family was home (entry and exit). Wiping off the flashlight AND batteries (this part just kills me). Etc, etc. This crime could have involved three floors of a 4-story house, JB's room/bathroom, the kitchen/dining area (where the pineapple, spoon. bowl and tissue box and flashlight were found) and the basement. All this while parents who may not have even been asleep are home. And a brother, too.
NO intruder who has just sexually assaulted and killed a child would feel the need to cover up the child's body and place dolls or a nightie near it. They would simply get out of there as fast as they could, especially considering the child screamed right before she was killed. Loud enough that it could wake the parents AND a neighbor (according to LE, who tested by screaming near the basement vent). From the time of that scream, there was a minute or two before being confronted with your victim's parents.

No one can prove the Rs DIDN'T own duct tape and nylon cord. Most houses do have these common things. It would be unusual if they did not. Just because the rest of the tape and cord were not found in the house doesn't mean the house did not have them. As mentioned, there was plenty of opportunity for these small items to be disposed of. JR took a walk, right? Drop'em down any storm drain, or in a neighborhood trash bin. The original panties, too. Small items. Easily concealed in a pocket or purse. I think we can safely say that police did not check every trash bin and storm drain in the neighborhood. They didn't even check the parents when they left the house!
 
To KoldKase
I followed your underwear link to your experiment. I am relieved as I thought what is wrong with that child's legs they are so red and pimply looking. Who would post such a photo. After I went to your bloomies link I had to laugh at myself.

It wasn't my experiment. A Scottish woman did it, after traveling to N.Y. at different times and purchasing the Bloomies on both occasions in different sizes to compare. She has a child who was a toddler when she thought of the idea, then as the child grew into the same size as JB at six, she took the measurements and made the dummy. I think it's brilliant. If LE had been nearly as diligent, they'd have known before 2000 how important this evidence is.

The Ramseys knew. They held onto the alleged package of size 12 Bloomies for five years until Wood turned it over. Had it not been found by one of their own PI's I doubt we ever would have heard of it. Guess the PI, allegedly a former cop, knew something about destroying evidence, so it ended up with Lin Wood, who finally turned it over once Lacy was fully in charge of the investigation--and Team Ramsey/Lou Smit/Ollie, when Lacy accepted their "help" on the case. Ha. Don't remember Lacy or Team Ramsey shouting from the news media the results of testing those bloomies and that package, either. Any DNA, "touch" or otherwise, there? Huh? Any fingerprints tested on that clear plastic package? Anyone?

Anyway, Jayelles thought of this and had the planning and patience to wait several years to complete it. (She really is a brilliant person.) I've been asked about the "red" legs before, some people thinking they look burned. It is repulsive in a "freakish doll" kind of way, but then, this case is nothing if not freakish. Jayelles said she used the red paint to show the proportions better and it was what she had on hand. I'm not sure blue or green or purple or yellow, etc., would have been any better, though. It's hard to imagine we have to go to these lengths to figure out what the DA and Team Ramsey have worked so hard to keep hidden.

I really hate this case.
 
I'm gonna take this bait and run with this one. No, I don't think that if IDI and there was some intruder in the house, he would have an overwhelming urge to investigate the contents of the Ramsey's dryer. I can't come up with a reason why a burglar, rapist, murderer, child molester would feel compelled to examine his victims' laundry. People don't wash blankets everyday. There was a far greater chance of finding a bunch of socks or blue jeans in there than his victim's favorite blanket. If he wanted a blanket and because he was so comfortable strolling about the Ramsey home, eating pineapple, writing ransom notes, going up and down staircases, he could have simply gotten one from the bedroom upstairs.

As an aside, because I think the likelihood of a burglar's checking my dryer, I have actually hidden valuables in amongst a dried load of towels in my dryer when I went away for a long weekend.
LOL.me too.I've even hid Christmas presents in there.
 
If the "intruder" found a duvet in the suitcase, why would they need to look in the dryer for a blanket? Only someone who knew the blanket was in there. IDI understands that all this was done with the parents supposedly sleeping upstairs. Do you understand how long all this would take to accomplish? The pineapple, the assault, the bludgeoning, making the garrote, redressing, looking for a blanket, going to get a doll to put with her body, moving a metal grate while the family was home (entry and exit). Wiping off the flashlight AND batteries (this part just kills me). Etc, etc. This crime could have involved three floors of a 4-story house, JB's room/bathroom, the kitchen/dining area (where the pineapple, spoon. bowl and tissue box and flashlight were found) and the basement. All this while parents who may not have even been asleep are home. And a brother, too.
NO intruder who has just sexually assaulted and killed a child would feel the need to cover up the child's body and place dolls or a nightie near it. They would simply get out of there as fast as they could, especially considering the child screamed right before she was killed. Loud enough that it could wake the parents AND a neighbor (according to LE, who tested by screaming near the basement vent). From the time of that scream, there was a minute or two before being confronted with your victim's parents.

No one can prove the Rs DIDN'T own duct tape and nylon cord. Most houses do have these common things. It would be unusual if they did not. Just because the rest of the tape and cord were not found in the house doesn't mean the house did not have them. As mentioned, there was plenty of opportunity for these small items to be disposed of. JR took a walk, right? Drop'em down any storm drain, or in a neighborhood trash bin. The original panties, too. Small items. Easily concealed in a pocket or purse. I think we can safely say that police did not check every trash bin and storm drain in the neighborhood. They didn't even check the parents when they left the house!

Don't forget searching the house for John's check stubs, samples of Patsy's handwriting, pad, pen, and composing the 2.5 page note, practicing, then final draft. That had to take a few minutes, even by IDI time.... :waitasec:
 
ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT


I MADE A MISTAKE. PLEASE TAKE NOTE


On Levi's show the other night I said Patsy's "hair" was entangled in the garrot.

It was not Patsy's hair but the fibers from her jacket.

I am so very sorry. It was an honest mistake and I hope that no one thinks any less of the evidence against the Ramseys because of my mistake.

No excuse from me. Please just accept my apology.

Tricia
 
ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT


I MADE A MISTAKE. PLEASE TAKE NOTE


On Levi's show the other night I said Patsy's "hair" was entangled in the garrot.

It was not Patsy's hair but the fibers from her jacket.

I am so very sorry. It was an honest mistake and I hope that no one thinks any less of the evidence against the Ramseys because of my mistake.

No excuse from me. Please just accept my apology.

Tricia

Oh puhleeze. You misspoke once in an avalanche of spot-on case evidence you addressed extemporaneously for 30 minutes in a live interview. You did better than all the lawyers, detectives, and Ramseys who have talked about this case in 14 years in live interviews--except Thomas, of course. ("I think you're good for it, Patsy." :heart:) My god, Nancy Grace's show on this topic by comparison didn't get one fact RIGHT! And there were half a dozen talking heads on that show, including one who wrote the case bible, Schiller!

You done GREAT by JonBenet, Tricia, and by us, as well. We're as proud as can be of you. Never let one small error overshadow your tremendous contributions. Or I'll be putting you in time out! :behindbar (Sorry, I love this smilie and have to stretch to get to use it. he he)
 
ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT


I MADE A MISTAKE. PLEASE TAKE NOTE


On Levi's show the other night I said Patsy's "hair" was entangled in the garrot.

It was not Patsy's hair but the fibers from her jacket.

I am so very sorry. It was an honest mistake and I hope that no one thinks any less of the evidence against the Ramseys because of my mistake.

No excuse from me. Please just accept my apology.

Tricia

Tricia,

No problem, there is so much evidence implicating the R's. You probably mixed up JonBenet's hair being entwined in the garrote with fibers from Patsy's jacket.

I hope that no one thinks any less of the evidence against the Ramseys
Some who look closer thinking they have found an anomaly might be surprised to find all the evidence linking the R's to the crime-scene?


.
 
There's absolutely no proof that the fibers in the garrotte were from Patsy's jacket. Her jacket was red and black--why would only red fibers be stuck in the garrotte? The only similarity is the fibers were red...that's it.
 
You may be HUMAN Tricia.

Many posters here have an impression of you as a SUPER BEING.

1. I use the above posted statements made by yourself as my proof that you are
in fact human.
2. The fact that you admitted or in legal terms CONFESSED that you were in
error, is not a punishable crime.
3. The fact that you did, and did it in big bold print, is applaudable and shows you are
a BIG PERSON who is willing to be responsible for their words and actions.

Thank You for the correction, we all know a lot of mis-information is out there no matter which case it is, and what fact it is, it must be accurate, verifiable, information or everyone is just wasting their time.
 
There's absolutely no proof that the fibers in the garrotte were from Patsy's jacket. Her jacket was red and black--why would only red fibers be stuck in the garrotte? The only similarity is the fibers were red...that's it.

Maikai,

Then there are the fibers from Patsy's jacket found on the underside of the duct-tape that was placed over JonBenet's mouth.

Then why would Patsy lie about the size-12's saying she had put them into JonBenet's panty drawer when none were found there at all, or even in the whole house?

Then there is the flashlight, wiped clean inside and out, did the intruder change the batteries so he could molest JonBenet prior to wiping her down and redressing her?

Maybe its a case for Columbo?


.
 
There's absolutely no proof that the fibers in the garrotte were from Patsy's jacket. Her jacket was red and black--why would only red fibers be stuck in the garrotte? The only similarity is the fibers were red...that's it.

No, the similarity is that they were red AND matched the fibers from her jacket. In a blend of fibers, some may shed more than others. Possibly the red fibers shed more. The very same type of "proof" that the fiber analysis matches the fibers found to Patsy's jacket is not only admissible in court, but often used in murder cases. For example, if fibers from a body match the fibers found in the trunk of a car that a suspect owns, that is pretty strong evidence to indicate the body was in the trunk of that car. Obviously, in any make and model, a suspect's car wasn't the ONLY car with that carpet, just like Patsy's jacket isn't the only one lie it in the world. BUT LE also factor in the proximity of the suspect's fibers to the victim. If suspect owned a particular jacket and was known to be at the location at the time the victim was killed and wearing the jacket at the time the victim was killed, and it can't be shown that any of the other people in the world were in Boulder that night wearing THEIR jacket in the R basement- well, I think the chances the fibers came from someone OTHER than PR's jacket is virtually ZERO.
 
No, the similarity is that they were red AND matched the fibers from her jacket. In a blend of fibers, some may shed more than others. Possibly the red fibers shed more. The very same type of "proof" that the fiber analysis matches the fibers found to Patsy's jacket is not only admissible in court, but often used in murder cases. For example, if fibers from a body match the fibers found in the trunk of a car that a suspect owns, that is pretty strong evidence to indicate the body was in the trunk of that car. Obviously, in any make and model, a suspect's car wasn't the ONLY car with that carpet, just like Patsy's jacket isn't the only one lie it in the world. BUT LE also factor in the proximity of the suspect's fibers to the victim. If suspect owned a particular jacket and was known to be at the location at the time the victim was killed and wearing the jacket at the time the victim was killed, and it can't be shown that any of the other people in the world were in Boulder that night wearing THEIR jacket in the R basement- well, I think the chances the fibers came from someone OTHER than PR's jacket is virtually ZERO.

DeeDee249,

Good stuff, can I also add Patsy denying visiting the basement that night, not realizing all the fiber evidence would contradict her statement.


.
 
DeeDee249,

Good stuff, can I also add Patsy denying visiting the basement that night, not realizing all the fiber evidence would contradict her statement.


.

Yep- that's a good one, too. I feel the parents were blindsided by certain evidence that they simply did not expect. One was the pineapple found in her digestive tract. I a sure they never expected that; never thought that an innocent bedtime snack could come back to show they lied about JB being awake. I am also sure they never even thought about fibers from their clothing being found in incriminating places. After having said JB was asleep, and after having said she never wore that jacket in the basement, it must have been a shock to hear that evidence indicated otherwise.
 
There's absolutely no proof that the fibers in the garrotte were from Patsy's jacket. Her jacket was red and black--why would only red fibers be stuck in the garrotte? The only similarity is the fibers were red...that's it.

Fibers are unique in more ways than color.

I get that you don't want to believe this, nor that John's shirt fibers were found on the child's genitals, but we have credible sources who stated in interviews with the Ramseys, conducted by the DA's Office twice, in 1998 and 2000, and released in video and transcripts by none other than Team Ramsey, wherein these fibers are stated to have been identified through forensic testing as being consistent with the clothes the Ramseys wore the night JB was murdered.

Lawyers do not have the legal or ethical leeway to lie to suspects and their lawyers. It's written in their Code of Ethics. They're not employed by the police dept. to interview suspects and lie to them; they're not detectives with detective salaries. They aren't allowed to misrepresent evidence to other lawyers of opposing counsel. You can find the Colorado Code of Ethics online and read it for yourself.

Since the BDA set up, conducted, and had lawyers participating in the '98 and 2000 interviews, especially in a videotaped, seriously lawyered, extremely watched, infamous murder case, it's a safe bet no one was lying to the Ramseys and their lawyers in those.

You may not want to believe that, but it's the truth. No lawyer is going to risk a legal career comprised of a very expensive, long, and difficult education, years of training and experience, and a lucrative future just to try to fool the Ramseys over evidence that's documented. Especially not with the Ramsey's highly successful and competent lawyers sitting there watching every move--on videotape. It would be professional suicide.

I never heard anyone in LE dispute that those fibers are consistent with Patsy's clothing. The usual argument is that she lived there, the fibers got there through transference. That's a far better argument than the fibers were never even tested by the CBI except for color.

Fibers are usually tested for various elements. A few: fiber content--wool, poly, cotton, etc.; size--some fibers are thicker than others, some have different lenths according to the textile; and texture--kinky, straight, curled, etc. This is not new technology, either. They were using electron microscopes to test evidence before 1996. I know because I had a friend who did this professionally.

So I can't imagine why the CBI would forget to test for other elements than color. Perhaps you have a source for your info?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
199
Guests online
2,115
Total visitors
2,314

Forum statistics

Threads
589,952
Messages
17,928,118
Members
228,014
Latest member
Back2theGardenAgain
Back
Top