Separating FACT from fiction

[WHITEFANG]

Originally Posted by DeeDee249

Yes, he may. But with the flashlight wiped down, we won't know, will we? Of course, FW would have no need to wipe the BATTERIES, would he?

I wonder if family support services cleaned the flashlight, too, as they walked around spraying and cleaning the house?

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by WHITEFANG

I wonder if family support services cleaned the flashlight, too, as they walked around spraying and cleaning the house?

Could very well have happened. They were seen wiping the kitchen counters down. But the batteries are still a problem because they'd have no reason to "clean" them". (I can't BELIEVE they wiped down a crime scene).

[anne11]

I'm a small (just me)foreign (i'm in france) faction hijacking the thread, (only briefly i promise) what do you folks think of PR cutting off JBR hair when she was sick of the fights to keep it tidy, i wouldn't do that to my girls- my last resort would be a hairdresser.

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by anne11

I'm a small (just me)foreign (i'm in france) faction hijacking the thread, (only briefly i promise) what do you folks think of PR cutting off JBR hair when she was sick of the fights to keep it tidy, i wouldn't do that to my girls- my last resort would be a hairdresser.

I don't recall reading anything about this. Patsy was VERY into JB's hair. Do you have a link you can post for this info?

[anne11]

Hi DeeDee, if you scroll down to spring 1994 http://www.acandyrose.com/s-jonbenet-timeline.htm.

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by anne11

Hi DeeDee, if you scroll down to spring 1994 http://www.acandyrose.com/s-jonbenet-timeline.htm.

If you read that interview, Patsy said that JB cut her hair herself when she was three. Patsy says "in jest" that is she got sick of JB arguing about having her hair done, she'd just cut it off. Then she says that JB cut her own hair when she was about 3. I wouldn't view that off-hand comment as much of anything. I don't see it as an abusive comment. I am sure many a mom has said that to a kid who fusses about having their hair fixed.

Thanks for posting the link.

[anne11]

I must have mis-read it, I'm mum of 2 girls with very long hair, they do fuss but it is part of 'identity' therefore, i just get on with it and use tons of detangler.

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by anne11

I must have mis-read it, I'm mum of 2 girls with very long hair, they do fuss but it is part of 'identity' therefore, i just get on with it and use tons of detangler.

Me, too. My daughter had waist- length straight hair (still does, and she is a mom herself). I always found it easy to care for- make a braid or ponytail or bun in hot weather, and use "No More Tangles" (Do they still make that?) .
I am sure Patsy would never have cut JB's hair- I think she may have even used falls and hairpieces for pageants because JB's hair always looked much fuller and longer in her pageant photos. Not that Patsy was the only one- most pageant moms use "tricks" like hairpieces, flippers (fake teeth to fill the gap when kids lose their two front teeth), false eyelashes, etc. Kinda sad, really. What does that say to these tots about their own natural beauty? Not beautiful enough, I guess. My daughter was a professional ballerina from age 8, and stage makeup was a part of her stage performances from her toddler days (classes started at age 2, professional classes at age 8) but it was simply a bit of bush, light lipgloss and nothing else.
The kids in those pageants today are far too heavily made up.

[Holdontoyourhat]

Multiple matching DNA deposits can be found among the evidence at the crime scene, and can be found in the context of the crime that was committed. The DNA belongs to a unique person who is a male and is neither a family member nor on the list of suspects already tested.

[claudicici]

I don't know where to put this but I found a curious comment PamP. made after John Carr was arrested...
http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/sha...es/2006/08/16/

"The news that a suspect was in custody was a long time coming, but she said, “I don’t think it’s ever too late to get a child killer off the street. It’s a shock when the day comes, you’re surrounded by all these feelings. Your mind spins, your heart races, there’s some sense of relief"

The choice of words is odd to me "it's a shock?" "SOME sense of relief?"
Wouldn't it only be a "shock" if you know the guy did not do it otherwise wouldn't it be a HUGE SENSE OF RELIEF?

[CathyR]

Originally Posted by Ames

I agree...I believe that John moved her, to where she could be found more easily. He had no idea that he was going to be asked to search the house. He saw that the police obviously weren't going to find her, and wanted to get it over with....so, he moved her out to the middle of the room, so she could be found faster. Funny how, when asked to search the house to see if anything was out of place...that he heads straight to the basement. She disappeared from HER ROOM....so, why didn't he search there first?

That could depend on which of the 4 personality type combinations he is. A more analytical person would have a "method" top to bottom , bottom to top. If he was closer to basement ( bottom) than her room he would logically start at basement. Remember they just asked him to survey his entire house for anything out of place. They weren't asking him to look for JB but for missing items, moved furniture, a hole in a wall who knows what just anything unusual.

If guilty I wouldn't go to basement for anything.
IMO- a guilty conscience and a mind bent on cover up wouldn't allow a person to go anywhere near the body until it was found by someone else.

The unusual odor Fleet noticed perks up my ears though. I suspect some chemical, something simple and likely to be in any household. Rubbing alcohol,while not as effective as bleach at destroying DNA it evaporates and is near odorless after it has evaporated. The smell of bleach lingers and screams CLEAN UP ON CRIME SCENE. Did Fleet ever describe what this odor was or what it reminded him of. If it was a "nursing home odor" we can attribute that to her bed wetting. Even if she didn't wet the bed the night before, she slept in a bed that had been wet in plenty of times.

I would look inside a freezer or fridge as kids have been known to get inside them to play. That doesn't raise my suspicion of family members.

Don't get me wrong here I haven't made up my mind who I think did it cause nothing very solid has been found yet.
The more I read here the more questions I have.
While I want this case to be solved I don't want to make accusations or theorize who did it, (a lot of people look good for this) without some solid proof. I'm sure people better trained for this and smarter than me haven't found that piece of the puzzle or someone would have been be arrested by now.
It is just so darn sad to see a murdered child not be able to get justice.

[CathyR]

Originally Posted by DeeDee249

If you read that interview, Patsy said that JB cut her hair herself when she was three. Patsy says "in jest" that is she got sick of JB arguing about having her hair done, she'd just cut it off. Then she says that JB cut her own hair when she was about 3. I wouldn't view that off-hand comment as much of anything. I don't see it as an abusive comment. I am sure many a mom has said that to a kid who fusses about having their hair fixed.

Thanks for posting the link.

I have a confession here. My daughter who is now 30 used to cut her hair, her brothers hair, her dolls, my little ponies, anything with hair. I threatened to SHAVE HER HEAD if she didn't stop after she gave the dog a reverse mohawk

I must have been a horrible mother but it worked, Thank God. I don't think I could have really done it.

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by CathyR

That could depend on which of the 4 personality type combinations he is. A more analytical person would have a "method" top to bottom , bottom to top. If he was closer to basement ( bottom) than her room he would logically start at basement. Remember they just asked him to survey his entire house for anything out of place. They weren't asking him to look for JB but for missing items, moved furniture, a hole in a wall who knows what just anything unusual.

If guilty I wouldn't go to basement for anything.
IMO- a guilty conscience and a mind bent on cover up wouldn't allow a person to go anywhere near the body until it was found by someone else.

The unusual odor Fleet noticed perks up my ears though. I suspect some chemical, something simple and likely to be in any household. Rubbing alcohol,while not as effective as bleach at destroying DNA it evaporates and is near odorless after it has evaporated. The smell of bleach lingers and screams CLEAN UP ON CRIME SCENE. Did Fleet ever describe what this odor was or what it reminded him of. If it was a "nursing home odor" we can attribute that to her bed wetting. Even if she didn't wet the bed the night before, she slept in a bed that had been wet in plenty of times.

I would look inside a freezer or fridge as kids have been known to get inside them to play. That doesn't raise my suspicion of family members.

Don't get me wrong here I haven't made up my mind who I think did it cause nothing very solid has been found yet.
The more I read here the more questions I have.
While I want this case to be solved I don't want to make accusations or theorize who did it, (a lot of people look good for this) without some solid proof. I'm sure people better trained for this and smarter than me haven't found that piece of the puzzle or someone would have been be arrested by now.
It is just so darn sad to see a murdered child not be able to get justice.

Everything we post is only our opinion, as no one here (that we are aware of) knows the truth. If there were solid proof, we wouldn't need to be here, because the case would be solved. That is why it is NOT solved- because there is no solid proof. In the absence of that proof, obviously people have varying opinions on who the perp(s) are.
There are so many pieces of this puzzle, and many of them fit, but many do not, that in the absence of solid proof, it seems like solving it is hopeless.
There is a lot of information on this case that you would find helpful, and there are sites that have the information all in one place. It is difficult to get a good overview from the forum sites. I found watching the DVD of "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" was helpful at the beginning, and I also read the book.

That being said- a ransom note was left. Kids that hide in a freezer or fridge don't write ransom notes, especially one like that (I assume you have read it, it is available online). It is very suspicious that the father of a supposedly "kidnapped" child goes straight to a hidden basement room and "finds" her. Why wouldn't you check her room first? The detective told him to see if any of her things (clothes, toys) were missing and he goes to a hidden basement storage room first? That, to me, is suspicious.
Whenever a "missing" child turns out not to be missing, but found dead in her own home, the parents are always the first suspects. JB's parents were home when she was killed, and that makes them suspects for that reason as well. The FBI were on the scene at the very beginning, knowing nothing about JB or her family, and they told the police right away "you're going to be finding her body". They knew right away it was no kidnapping. They were right.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by CathyR

That could depend on which of the 4 personality type combinations he is. A more analytical person would have a "method" top to bottom , bottom to top. If he was closer to basement ( bottom) than her room he would logically start at basement. Remember they just asked him to survey his entire house for anything out of place. They weren't asking him to look for JB but for missing items, moved furniture, a hole in a wall who knows what just anything unusual.

If guilty I wouldn't go to basement for anything.
IMO- a guilty conscience and a mind bent on cover up wouldn't allow a person to go anywhere near the body until it was found by someone else.

The unusual odor Fleet noticed perks up my ears though. I suspect some chemical, something simple and likely to be in any household. Rubbing alcohol,while not as effective as bleach at destroying DNA it evaporates and is near odorless after it has evaporated. The smell of bleach lingers and screams CLEAN UP ON CRIME SCENE. Did Fleet ever describe what this odor was or what it reminded him of. If it was a "nursing home odor" we can attribute that to her bed wetting. Even if she didn't wet the bed the night before, she slept in a bed that had been wet in plenty of times.

I would look inside a freezer or fridge as kids have been known to get inside them to play. That doesn't raise my suspicion of family members.

Don't get me wrong here I haven't made up my mind who I think did it cause nothing very solid has been found yet.
The more I read here the more questions I have.
While I want this case to be solved I don't want to make accusations or theorize who did it, (a lot of people look good for this) without some solid proof. I'm sure people better trained for this and smarter than me haven't found that piece of the puzzle or someone would have been be arrested by now.
It is just so darn sad to see a murdered child not be able to get justice.

My point is...if JR was innocent, he would have checked her BEDROOM for clues first...since that is the last place they supposedly saw her alive. If your child were missing from their room, and that was the last place that you saw her...and you were asked to search the house for clues...where is the first place you would look? Don't know about you, but the first place that I would look, would be the last place I saw her...her bedroom. The WC door was latched, why in the world would he go down to the basement, and check behind that locked door for clues?? It makes no sense at all...unless he just wanted her found, and knew where to look. Which is precisely the case, IMO.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by DeeDee249

Everything we post is only our opinion, as no one here (that we are aware of) knows the truth. If there were solid proof, we wouldn't need to be here, because the case would be solved. That is why it is NOT solved- because there is no solid proof. In the absence of that proof, obviously people have varying opinions on who the perp(s) are.
There are so many pieces of this puzzle, and many of them fit, but many do not, that in the absence of solid proof, it seems like solving it is hopeless.
There is a lot of information on this case that you would find helpful, and there are sites that have the information all in one place. It is difficult to get a good overview from the forum sites. I found watching the DVD of "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" was helpful at the beginning, and I also read the book.

That being said- a ransom note was left. Kids that hide in a freezer or fridge don't write ransom notes, especially one like that (I assume you have read it, it is available online). It is very suspicious that the father of a supposedly "kidnapped" child goes straight to a hidden basement room and "finds" her. Why wouldn't you check her room first? The detective told him to see if any of her things (clothes, toys) were missing and he goes to a hidden basement storage room first? That, to me, is suspicious.
Whenever a "missing" child turns out not to be missing, but found dead in her own home, the parents are always the first suspects. JB's parents were home when she was killed, and that makes them suspects for that reason as well. The FBI were on the scene at the very beginning, knowing nothing about JB or her family, and they told the police right away "you're going to be finding her body". They knew right away it was no kidnapping. They were right.

Yes, and John himself said that he thought it was "an inside job", and that a woman had written the RN. He ...to me...was giving a clue right there...he thinks that a woman wrote the note, and that it was an inside job. Patsy was a woman...and she was most definately inside.

[CathyR]

Sorry I thought JR was asked to search the house for anything out of place not just see if any of JB's stuff is missing. I guess it is common for kidnappers to remove stuff belonging to the victim child, a favorite blanket or stuffed animal cause it keeps them reassured and quiet.

I'm no expert but the handwriting does look somewhat feminine. It is "pretty" with lots of curves and embellishments.

I hope police departments investigate kidnappings differently now. At the first visit when no one knows anything yet, I mean what better time to collect evidence, without the need for a search warrant, is there. No parent even a guilty one would object to that. If they did they would look even more guilty. Since police would in essence have consent to search and damming evidence couldn't be thrown out later as consent was given.



Why the police would ask them to help search without an officer with them is stupid. In any kidnapping case untrained people might destroy clues without intention, like finding her favorite stuffed animal somewhere then picking it up and hugging it close. An officer present would prevent them from touching anything.
I saw a program on this case once that showed Patsy throwing herself on floor at JB feet and picking her up and holding her sobbing. That really should not have been allowed to happen. In addition to that Police should have had Patsy strip down right then and remove her clothing as transfer just occurred, same as JR who carried her upstairs.

I am angry at the death of a child but angrier at the FBI and Boulder police for botching the investigation.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by CathyR

Sorry I thought JR was asked to search the house for anything out of place not just see if any of JB's stuff is missing. I guess it is common for kidnappers to remove stuff belonging to the victim child, a favorite blanket or stuffed animal cause it keeps them reassured and quiet.

I'm no expert but the handwriting does look somewhat feminine. It is "pretty" with lots of curves and embellishments.

I hope police departments investigate kidnappings differently now. At the first visit when no one knows anything yet, I mean what better time to collect evidence, without the need for a search warrant, is there. No parent even a guilty one would object to that. If they did they would look even more guilty. Since police would in essence have consent to search and damming evidence couldn't be thrown out later as consent was given.



Why the police would ask them to help search without an officer with them is stupid. In any kidnapping case untrained people might destroy clues without intention, like finding her favorite stuffed animal somewhere then picking it up and hugging it close. An officer present would prevent them from touching anything.
I saw a program on this case once that showed Patsy throwing herself on floor at JB feet and picking her up and holding her sobbing. That really should not have been allowed to happen. In addition to that Police should have had Patsy strip down right then and remove her clothing as transfer just occurred, same as JR who carried her upstairs.

I am angry at the death of a child but an

grier at the FBI and Boulder police for botching the investigation.

You are correct...they did ask him to search for anything out of place...or clues.

[DeeDee249]

There were so many mistakes made just with poor JB's body that it is no wonder the case still isn't solved. First, Officer French (the first one on the scene) stood right in front of the wineceller door, just inside was JB's body, at that time still untouched by anyone but the person(s) who put her there. Yet, he couldn't figure out how to open the door, and that altered the investigation forever, right from the start.
Then, JR and FW both touched the body (FW touched her foot) and JC carried her upstairs, holding her upright around the waist (his touch DNA HAD to have been on those longjohns, and here again is a perfect example for how the strange male DNA got on JB- from JR's own hands to JB's panties, where JR's shirt fibers from a shirt he wore that day were found, to her longjohn waistband and panty waistband).
Then, Det. Arndt moved her body from the foyer (where she was placed by JR first) to the rug under the Christmas tree.
Then, JR was allowed to throw an afghan over her.
Then, Det. Arndt threw a sweatshirt over her.
Then, Patsy was allowed to throw herself on top of the COVERED body, she did not pick her up and hold her in her arms.
Then, the coroner did not perform two very important tests that would have helped determine the time of death.
Yes, that poor baby was mishandled as badly after her death as she was before.

[CathyR]

Help me out SD

I have heard some of the disputes about the fibers found. Mainly the ones from Patsy's sweater, the one she wore twice, was found under the duct tape covering her mouth, and also in the cord knots. Fiber tests are kinda hard to prove as analysis of just the fiber alone cannot be considered anything but similar in color and structure. Dye analysis however is more precise and the chemical comp. of dyes due vary from one manufacture to another.
Example : you have a sweater that has similar fibers to the carpet on your floor, an expert can't really say by just looking at them on a micro scale that they came from the EXACT same source only that they are similar. When the dye make up is looked at then they can say no this fiber doesn't have enough of this chemical to be from the same source. Or the chemical make up of these dyes is exactly the same.

Was the fiber evidence tested further for the dye composition.

[MurriFlower]

Originally Posted by CathyR

Help me out SD

I have heard some of the disputes about the fibers found. Mainly the ones from Patsy's sweater, the one she wore twice, was found under the duct tape covering her mouth, and also in the cord knots. Fiber tests are kinda hard to prove as analysis of just the fiber alone cannot be considered anything but similar in color and structure. Dye analysis however is more precise and the chemical comp. of dyes due vary from one manufacture to another.
Example : you have a sweater that has similar fibers to the carpet on your floor, an expert can't really say by just looking at them on a micro scale that they came from the EXACT same source only that they are similar. When the dye make up is looked at then they can say no this fiber doesn't have enough of this chemical to be from the same source. Or the chemical make up of these dyes is exactly the same.

Was the fiber evidence tested further for the dye composition.

You are right. The fibers have always been disputed here. This is because we have no actual evidence of what fibers were found, nor how they were tested. Evidence presented in the Wolv -v- Ramsey case showed many unsourced fibers plus four red acrylic fibers consistent with PR's red/black/grey jacket. ST, in his deposition, stated that only four fibers were found to his knowledge. We have no evidence if they were tested for dye, in fact, aside from this presented in Court, we have no evidence of fibers full stop. The dispute on this forum arose because during an interview, LE suggested to PR and JR that fibers from their clothes were found in suspicious areas in the crime scene. The Rs lawyer asked BPD to 'show and tell' as it were, but they declined. So we are left wondering if there was in fact any fiber evidence or if it was just an interview tactic to try to trap them into implicating themselves.

[DeeDee249]

The R lawyers had every right to decline. In this country, the defense is never given full disclosure of evidence until an indictment is made and a trial scheduled. Then, the prosecution must show their "hand". Not before. This is usually the time when the defense may ask for a plea bargain after seeing the evidence against their client.
The R lawyers asked, knowing full well it would be refused.

[MurriFlower]

Originally Posted by DeeDee249

The R lawyers had every right to decline. In this country, the defense is never given full disclosure of evidence until an indictment is made and a trial scheduled. Then, the prosecution must show their "hand". Not before. This is usually the time when the defense may ask for a plea bargain after seeing the evidence against their client.
The R lawyers asked, knowing full well it would be refused.

Exactly. And because they were never indicted the 'fiber evidence' has never been proven. It is no different to LE telling a suspect that they have 'a witness' who saw them at the scene of the crime, in order to try to elicit a confession. It's just a tactic.

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by MurriFlower

Exactly. And because they were never indicted the 'fiber evidence' has never been proven. It is no different to LE telling a suspect that they have 'a witness' who saw them at the scene of the crime, in order to try to elicit a confession. It's just a tactic.

I disagree. They may very well had the fiber analysis to link the fibers to the parents' clothing. Because there was no trial, this was never publicized. While tactics you describe (a witness, etc.) are commonly used, fiber analysis is something the prosecution would actually have to present at a trial, so they'd have to put their money where their mouth is.

[MurriFlower]

Originally Posted by DeeDee249

I disagree. They may very well had the fiber analysis to link the fibers to the parents' clothing. Because there was no trial, this was never publicized. While tactics you describe (a witness, etc.) are commonly used, fiber analysis is something the prosecution would actually have to present at a trial, so they'd have to put their money where their mouth is.

If you agree that they can 'say' they have a witness, then this would be no different to fiber evidence, as a witness would have to be produced at trial also. I think the only difference with this case is (and for reasons not fully understood by me) we have transcripts of these interviews, which I assume would never ordinarily been made public.

[CathyR]

Ok there may be evidence that the BPD has never released and they are holding it close like an ace in the hole.