Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[madeleine]

Originally Posted by Ames

Don't hold your breath...Holdon has a habit of not giving his thoughts on our RDI questions. I think that its because he has no answers..

(Gotta go and take my kids to school, I will be back shortly though. )

Well I'm waiting,because TO ME that's the number one key piece of evidence that points to the R's.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by madeleine

Maybe it's only me but I never heard of a terrorist who also sexually assaulted his victim/victims.Have you?

Let me think.....uhhhhh....Nope. Never heard of one that writes Ransom notes either...especially three pages worth.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by madeleine

Well I'm waiting,because TO ME that's the number one key piece of evidence that points to the R's.

And I totally agree with you. That one is impossible to explain away...try as the IDI's might. Her fibers were entwined in the garotte, along with being in the paint tote, and on the STICKY side of the tape over JB's mouth.

[Holdontoyourhat]

Originally Posted by Ames

And I totally agree with you. That one is impossible to explain away...try as the IDI's might. Her fibers were entwined in the garotte, along with being in the paint tote, and on the STICKY side of the tape over JB's mouth.

Things I know: RN author stated "the immediate execution" and "will be beheaded" in writing.

Why I know it: They published a photocopy of the ransom note.

Things I don't know: PR's fibers were entiwined in the garrote, how they became intwined if they even exist, why it would be significant (she's JBR's mother, naturally her fibers would be all over the place)

Why I don't know: There's no affidavit published that quantifies the fiber, the amount or type that was found. No way of knowing if it was 3 fibers or 30000 fibers. What color were they, from what article of clothing? Who says they're fibers from her clothes? Fibers aren't unique like a fingerprint, they can not be matched like DNA can. They can be fibers from ANY clothing with SIMILAR fabric. The fiber, like the DNA, is arguable.

As arguables go, unknown male DNA mixed with blood in JBR's underwear is exponentially more significant than fibers entwined in the garrote. JBR's hair would've naturally been contaminated with her mother's fibers.

Finding PR fibers on her own daughter just isn't very remarkable. In the paint tote, or whatever, its about as remarkable as finding sand on the beach.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

Things I know: RN author stated "the immediate execution" and "will be beheaded" in writing.

Why I know it: They published a photocopy of the ransom note.

Things I don't know: PR's fibers were entiwined in the garrote, how they became intwined if they even exist, why it would be significant (she's JBR's mother, naturally her fibers would be all over the place)

Why I don't know: There's no affidavit published that quantifies the fiber, the amount or type that was found. No way of knowing if it was 3 fibers or 30000 fibers. What color were they, from what article of clothing? Who says they're fibers from her clothes? Fibers aren't unique like a fingerprint, they can not be matched like DNA can. They can be fibers from ANY clothing with SIMILAR fabric. The fiber, like the DNA, is arguable.

As arguables go, unknown male DNA mixed with blood in JBR's underwear is exponentially more significant than fibers entwined in the garrote. JBR's hair would've naturally been contaminated with her mother's fibers.

Finding PR fibers on her own daughter just isn't very remarkable. In the paint tote, or whatever, its about as remarkable as finding sand on the beach.

Oh GOOD GRIEF! They were the red and black fibers from the jacket that she wore that night to the White's party. I will see if I can find the interview about that. Have you even READ the Ramsey's interviews? Any of them?? The fibers WERE the fibers from her jacket...not similar. Okay, I agree that Patsy's fibers on her own daughter isn't remarkable...I will give you that. I can even see transference occuring when the tape was applied to JB's mouth (its a stretch, but maybe Patsy's fibers were somehow on JB's face, and that is how the fibers from Patsy's jacket became attached to the sticky side of the tape). The fact that the fibers were found in the paint tote...also...can be explained away...it is ALSO a stretch, but, the fibers could have been transferred onto JB, and then when she was brought down to the basement, some of those fibers floated away and into the paint tote...okay, like I said..it's a stretch. But, you CAN NOT explain how Patsy's fibers became ENTWINED in the garotte. She would have had to have some sort of contact with it, as it was being made. Now THAT one cannot be explained.

MR. LEVIN: I think that is probably fair. Based on the state of the art scientific testing, we believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, were found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket that she is wrapped in, were found on the duct tape that is found on the mouth, and the question is, can she explain to us how those fibers appeared in those places that are associated with her daughter's death. And I understand you are not going to answer those.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

OK, when someone says "he will be beheaded," or "he will be immediately executed," you believe that person is an artist, right?

NO, HOTYH. In the CONTEXT of THIS case, that's what I'm saying. As usual, you are making the classic mistake of chopping up the note into pieces instead of considering the whole gestalt.

That IS what you posted.

NO, it ISN'T. That's you twisting it around again.

C'mon SD, lets get real just for a second.

I don't know about you, but I've been "real" about this case from Day One.

I mean, just for a second.

Whatever you have to say, just say it.

Remember that show 'Whats my line'? Or maybe you're too young.

I'm afraid that WAS before my time.

In the context of that show, the contestant says 'he will be beheaded' or 'he will be immediately executed" your guess would be artist, is that right?

NO, HOTYH. I'm saying the person in THIS case was someone with a major flair for the dramatic, someone who thinks of themselves as an artist. Not because of whatever you think makes me think this stuff, but because that's where it leads me.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

NO, HOTYH. In the CONTEXT of THIS case, that's what I'm saying. As usual, you are making the classic mistake of chopping up the note into pieces instead of considering the whole gestalt.



NO, it ISN'T. That's you twisting it around again.



I don't know about you, but I've been "real" about this case from Day One.



Whatever you have to say, just say it.



I'm afraid that WAS before my time.



NO, HOTYH. I'm saying the person in THIS case was someone with a major flair for the dramatic, someone who thinks of themselves as an artist. Not because of whatever you think makes me think this stuff, but because that's where it leads me.

I think that I will join you...

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Tadpole12

I had read this interesting judicial article, a critique on how touch dna should never be used on its own to convict, that in effect, without other evidence, it is inconclusive.

So ..... I'm still wondering what additional evidence there would be to allow ML to draw the conclusion that JR and his family can be exhonerated.

In case you didn't know, Tadpole, ML wanted to clear the Rs from Day One. And I'm not just saying that. Several books and articles contain instances of her saying that.

The inside fabric of JBR's long john bottoms must have been tested to exclude the source of dna as being a previous wearer of the clothing.

Maybe just the location ( 3 location) of dna services that conclusion?

When someone has ALREADY decided it happened a certain way, I guess that's all they need!

And how can PR be wholely eliminated as a participant?

By ML's way of thinking, because she's a woman and ML can't believe a woman could kill her own child. NO BULL! That's what she told one of her campaign workers!

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by sophie

brilliant post, superdave, thanks. One other thing that tends to eliminate a political faction is the fact that no one claimed 'credit' for the crime afterwards, which terrorist or political organisations almost always do. It was mere hours after 9/11 and the london tube bombings that al-quaeda claimed credit. Just last week, at least two splinter republican groups claimed credit for the death of soldiers on an ira base. I'll accept this as statistical rather than evidential but, in all honesty, how many foreign factions with a gripe against the us are also that anxious to remain anonymous?

not many!

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Ames

Holdon, what is your opinion of the thumb print looking bruise on JB's right arm, in the picture that I posted...I believe it was on this thread.

Also, why...in YOUR opinion, did Patsy start typing all of her notes to Burke's school, and to his teacher, after JB's death?

Don't hold your breath.

[Sophie]

There has been some discussion on here of the DNA evidence and how central it is to solving the case. I'm on a slight rant about this today since a guy over here has today been cleared of murder after 27 years in prison, the exoneration being based on DNA evidence. I am not doubting the outcome in this case but I honestly foresee a time when, in 'beyond a reasonable doubt' jurisdictions like the US and UK, the test will evolve into 'beyond any doubt' and the police will close cases if there is no DNA at a crime scene.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

We both DONT KNOW that PR ever typed notes to Burkes teacher. Thats something you're telling me, and I'm supposed to just take your word for it.

"Take her word for it?" She gave you the interview!

We also both DONT KNOW how JBR got that 'thumb like' bruise on her arm. That it was caused by a thumb or a bicycle or playground equipment neither one of us have any idea.

Given everything else, we can make some damn good guesses.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

Don't hold your breath.

He has already answered...go up a read a few posts up. He said that the thumblike bruise was actually in a u shape, I enlarged it, and he is right...but, it looks like a fingernail (from a thumb) mark to me, and it is in a place where I have seen a picture of Patsy grasping JB's arm before. Holdon thinks that she could have gotten hurt on her bicycle, or on some playground equipment. Odd place for a bruise, if that is how it happened.

PLEASE scroll up and read what he said about Patsy's jacket fibers being entwined in the garotte. He wants to know who SAID that, what color the fibers were, how do we know that it was the actual fibers from her clothes, etc. etc. I have answered him...but, why don't you put in your two cents....you have such a way with words.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

Heresay on the presumed-to-exist typed notes to BR's teacher does not a fact make. Maybe you should reread, where Wood asks them to produce copies and they can't. That should've raised a flag right away that they don't even exist because they can't be produced.

Given what Mr. Wood has promised to produce and failed to do so, I wouldn't take anything he has to say at face-value.

Don't forget, they don't HAVE to show him anything. He was just there to throw up obstacles, which infuriated Kane so much he nearly walked out.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

Neither one of us know for a fact that PR ever typed notes to Burkes teacher. Thats something somebody said happened, that we can't corroborate or view. Why is that?

Why would she lie?

The bruise is really 'u' shaped, not thumb shaped like you've repeated over and over. What causes a 'u' shaped bruise? I don't know, just like you don't know what caused it.

I can tell you from personal experience what causes it! A fingernail! If you look closely at the bruise, you can see a crescent-shaped mark in there!

[Ames]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

"Take her word for it?" She gave you the interview!

I have a funny feeling that I could show him a video of the Ramsey's taking part in their daughter's murder, and he STILL wouldn't believe me.

Given everything else, we can make some damn good guesses.

That is for darn sure!

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Ames

Ummm...a terrorist??

Holdon, the problem with that is even JOHN R. said that it was an inside job, even HE didn't believe that it was actually a Small Foreign Faction, that wrote the note. And even JOHN said that it appeared as if a WOMAN had written it.

Yeah, when they asked him why the note was left by a killer, he completely COPPED OUT! He said, "well, this is a disturbed person, it wouldn't make any sense to a normal person." SHEESH!

And no, that is not just something that I made up, it is in his 98 interview.

Damn skippy!

[Ames]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

Why would she lie?

Exactly! What would Burke's teacher have to gain by lying? Especially about something that she may be asked to produce evidence of. [/quote]

I can tell you from personal experience what causes it! A fingernail! If you look closely at the bruise, you can see a crescent-shaped mark in there!

Yep, I enlarged it, and that is exactly what I believe caused that mark.

[Sophie]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

Why would she lie?



I can tell you from personal experience what causes it! A fingernail! If you look closely at the bruise, you can see a crescent-shaped mark in there!

This bruise had completely passed me by - visually, it looks like a textbook grabmark, the likes of which we have all had at one point or another.

[Holdontoyourhat]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

NO, HOTYH. I'm saying the person in THIS case was someone with a major flair for the dramatic, someone who thinks of themselves as an artist. Not because of whatever you think makes me think this stuff, but because that's where it leads me.

In your case, you have to look at the whole enchilada, and are unable to look at separate items. Hmmm. That seems like a disadvantage, and not very analytical. The person who says 'immediate execution' and 'beheaded' might be an artist, but most people who overheard that language wouldn't rush to conclude they were an artist. That would be ridiculous.

Suppose your only clue to a murder in the woods was that a note was left on the victim, that was unremarkable, except the closing salutation 'Victory!' Do you just go 'this is not a clue' or 'nothing can be derived from this, its meaningless'?

Suppose you overheard someone say "if he is late, then it will result in his immediate execution." Is this a 'duh' for you? Do you have enough information to determine that the speaker is, for example, a plumber? A computer programmer?

The only roles for 'immediate execution' and 'beheaded' that have been suggested so far are artist, actor or actress, and terrorist. I can think of one or two that would far better suit the expressions.

[Sophie]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

In your case, you have to look at the whole enchilada, and are unable to look at separate items. Hmmm. That seems like a disadvantage, and not very analytical. The person who says 'immediate execution' and 'beheaded' might be an artist, but most people who overheard that language wouldn't rush to conclude they were an artist. That would be ridiculous.

Suppose your only clue to a murder in the woods was that a note was left on the victim, that was unremarkable, except the closing salutation 'Victory!' Do you just go 'this is not a clue' or 'nothing can be derived from this, its meaningless'?

Suppose you overheard someone say "if he is late, then it will result in his immediate execution." Is this a 'duh' for you? Do you have enough information to determine that the speaker is, for example, a plumber? A computer programmer?

The only roles for 'immediate execution' and 'beheaded' that have been suggested so far are artist, actor or actress, and terrorist. I can think of one or two that would far better suit the expressions.

HOTYH, I love your posts and have done a bit of back-reading to establish your theory. Speaking as someone who really wants the Ramseys to be innocent but has found no compelling evidence to suggest that they are, can I ask what would persuade you of their guilt?

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Ames

LOL..well, apparently it is. Where is SuperDave?...He will know...we will ask HIM.

All right; for the sake of amity, I'll play HOTYH's little game.

Let's see: psychopath would have been my next choice, but that's out.

Doesn't leave too much. Terrorist, executioner, all out.

I say quit Mickey-Mousing around and just get to the point.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

Things I don't know: PR's fibers were entiwined in the garrote, how they became intwined if they even exist, why it would be significant (she's JBR's mother, naturally her fibers would be all over the place)

Why I don't know: There's no affidavit published that quantifies the fiber, the amount or type that was found. No way of knowing if it was 3 fibers or 30000 fibers. What color were they, from what article of clothing? Who says they're fibers from her clothes? Fibers aren't unique like a fingerprint, they can not be matched like DNA can. They can be fibers from ANY clothing with SIMILAR fabric. The fiber, like the DNA, is arguable.

As arguables go, unknown male DNA mixed with blood in JBR's underwear is exponentially more significant than fibers entwined in the garrote. JBR's hair would've naturally been contaminated with her mother's fibers.

Finding PR fibers on her own daughter just isn't very remarkable. In the paint tote, or whatever, its about as remarkable as finding sand on the beach.

Yeah, I had a feeling that's what you'd say.

There are a few things wrong with it, though.

1) Her fibers were not "all over the place." They were in those key areas.

2) We know they were from her clothes because she admitted that (more on that in a moment).

3) Arguable? Yes. From a scientific standpoint, you are correct. But fiber evidence IS admissable in court, and most people understand that when they say a match, they mean it. What's more, the fibers have one thing the DNA does NOT: TIME. We can pinpoint those fibers from that night.

4) JB's hair was NOT contaminated with her mother's fibers, at least not according to the autopsy report.

5) As for your remark about "sand on the beach," too bad you weren't there to remind PR of that! Because she tripped herself up several times in that regard. Regarding the paint tote, she said that she did not go near the tote with those clothes on. Here's how that one went down in 2000:

Q. You have told us that you painted as a hobby. Would you wear this coat to paint?

A. No.

As for being tied into the cord knots, mm, mm, mm! That's the neatest of all! I think it's time for another excerpt from Chapter 3:

What's more, she made no attempt to answer the question and give a possible innocent explanation. It took two full years to come up with an explanation, but she eventually told a CBS reporter that her fibers had transferred to JonBenet that morning because Patsy, who had been wearing the same clothing she had worn at the party, laid on top of her. But this cannot explain it. In their own book, "Death of Innocence," John Ramsey writes that by the time Patsy came near the body, JonBenet was already fully covered. This is borne out by the police reports.

There's more, but I think I made my point.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Sophie

There has been some discussion on here of the DNA evidence and how central it is to solving the case. I'm on a slight rant about this today since a guy over here has today been cleared of murder after 27 years in prison, the exoneration being based on DNA evidence. I am not doubting the outcome in this case but I honestly foresee a time when, in 'beyond a reasonable doubt' jurisdictions like the US and UK, the test will evolve into 'beyond any doubt' and the police will close cases if there is no DNA at a crime scene.

From an American perspective, we're rapidly approaching that plateau now!

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Ames

He has already answered...go up a read a few posts up. He said that the thumblike bruise was actually in a u shape, I enlarged it, and he is right...but, it looks like a fingernail (from a thumb) mark to me, and it is in a place where I have seen a picture of Patsy grasping JB's arm before. Holdon thinks that she could have gotten hurt on her bicycle, or on some playground equipment. Odd place for a bruise, if that is how it happened.

PLEASE scroll up and read what he said about Patsy's jacket fibers being entwined in the garotte. He wants to know who SAID that, what color the fibers were, how do we know that it was the actual fibers from her clothes, etc. etc. I have answered him...but, why don't you put in your two cents....you have such a way with words.

I did! But you did make a slight miscue. From what I understand, it was the sweater, not the jacket.