Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[Ames]

"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!

 

[BBB167893]

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]

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]

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]

NO, HOTYH. :banghead: 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]

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?

 

[BBB167893]

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.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

 

[BBB167893]

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!

 

[BBB167893]

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.

 

[BBB167893]

In your case, you have to look at the whole enchilada, and are unable to look at separate items. Hmmm.

I've only been saying that for the last year!

That seems like a disadvantage, and not very analytical.

Ah, this is excellent! THAT's the HOTYH I knew was in there! Now, we're getting someplace!

To that, I say three things:

1) I'm legitimately interested in why you feel that way.

2) As to why I feel that way, that's what CASKU told the cops. To quote, "taken alone, they said, each piece of evidence may be argued, but together, enough pebbles become a block of evdentiary granite."

3) Even if you're right about it not being analytical (which may be), it doesn't seem very prudent from MY perspective to chop the case up like a chef at a Benihana's.

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.

Who's rushing?! It took me five years!

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'?

Apples and handgrenades, HOTYH.

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?

If I heard someone say THAT, I'd probably be in on it!

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.

Then why not lay it on us? No Mickey-Mousing around.

 

[Sophie]

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

Depressing! A senior judge here reacted to the exoneration by saying that the time is coming when we will realise that imprisoning people for murder is medieval and inhuman. I really really really hope that your judges are less, well, swearwordishly idiotic.

 

[BBB167893]

Depressing! A senior judge here reacted to the exoneration by saying that the time is coming when we will realise that imprisoning people for murder is medieval and inhuman. I really really really hope that your judges are less, well, swearwordishly idiotic.

That may be a misplaced hope.

 

[Ames]

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!

Well, the note served it's purpose, didn't it...to some IDI's, that is. But, IMO...John was right when he said a disturbed person wrote it....Patsy.

Damn skippy!

LOL, you are so funny!

 

[Ames]

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.

Yeah, I am a little bit sick of playing mind games.

 

[Ames]

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

I will have to go back and re-read that interview. I was thinking that it was the jacket, because she tried to say that PW had one just like it.....IOW...trying to say that the fibers could have come from PW, instead of hers.

Until I can pour over the interview....this is from wiki

What Ramseys Were Wearing on December 25

• Patsy Wore Red, Black and Grey Fleece. In the August 28, 2000 Atlanta interview, based on photos taken at White's party (shown to Patsy in the 1998 interviews), Patsy said she was wearing "kind of a black and red and gray fleece" on the night of December 25 (p. 153, lines 23-24). This is referred to as a "jacket" in Bruce Levin's further questioning of Patsy.
• Priscilla White Owned Similar Jacket. In the same interviews, Patsy explained how she got that jacket: "Priscilla had had one like it that I admired. And she told me, I believe she told me she got hers at EMS. So I went there to look. And they didn't have one or I didn't want to get one exactly like hers. So I think I got that one at Marshals in Boulder" (p. 154, lines 14-20).

 

[BBB167893]

I will have to go back and re-read that interview. I was thinking that it was the jacket, because she tried to say that PW had one just like it.....IOW...trying to say that the fibers could have come from PW, instead of hers.

Until I can pour over the interview....this is from wiki

What Ramseys Were Wearing on December 25

• Patsy Wore Red, Black and Grey Fleece. In the August 28, 2000 Atlanta interview, based on photos taken at White's party (shown to Patsy in the 1998 interviews), Patsy said she was wearing "kind of a black and red and gray fleece" on the night of December 25 (p. 153, lines 23-24). This is referred to as a "jacket" in Bruce Levin's further questioning of Patsy.
• Priscilla White Owned Similar Jacket. In the same interviews, Patsy explained how she got that jacket: "Priscilla had had one like it that I admired. And she told me, I believe she told me she got hers at EMS. So I went there to look. And they didn't have one or I didn't want to get one exactly like hers. So I think I got that one at Marshals in Boulder" (p. 154, lines 14-20).

I remember. But on the other hand, PR does say "sweater fibers."

I mean, we ARE talking a bunch of macho male cops here.

 

[Tadpole12]

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.

ya sure Hotyh .... the note and scene is the calling card ..... I get the rough premise, although your suggested arian affectation within perps behaviour ...... kinda pushing the envelope for me .....

but I don't mind suspending my disbelief .... for the IDI SFF members.

 

[Tadpole12]

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.



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



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!

Hey SD. TY for the background info on Lacy ....
ya I have yet to get there, a decades worth of power dynamic between the PB and DA office. I've read snippets here and there ....

hmmmm, I'm still wading my way through info on Boulder's fair share of Satantics, atmosphere on Pearl St and the twists in JBR forum history ....

handwriting analysis is fascinating!http://science.howstuffworks.com/handwriting-analysis.htm

Thinking about the limitations of the analysis of the note, re simulation, how use of the felt tip pen limited the use of certain criteria of analysis ....

 

[Ames]

I remember. But on the other hand, PR does say "sweater fibers."

I mean, we ARE talking a bunch of macho male cops here.

True...and she calls it fleece. That does sound like a sweater to me. I think that I got jacket from the interview...see a portion below. I have a fleece sweater...but, I also own two fleece jackets..and NO, I wasn't at the Ramsey home that night. LOL But, if Patsy calls it Sweater fibers...she should know, she is the one that wore it and the one that owned it.

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.