Solace,
Because there will be fiber transfer from the size-12 underwear to the black velvet pants and in the reverse direction.
No they should be able to tell whether any urine on the blankets arrived by surface contact or osmosis.
.
Rogue DNA
- Thread starter why_nutt
- Start date
Solace,
.
Solace,
Because there will be fiber transfer from the size-12 underwear to the black velvet pants and in the reverse direction. Possibly, there will be fiber transfer. Not necessarily UK. And we have not heard anything about her wearing size 12 underwear to the party. So why do you even waste time on this?
No they should be able to tell whether any urine on the blankets arrived by surface contact or osmosis. And that is how they will tell whether the blanket was at the party UK? Just for the future, UK, when you are trying to sound like you wrote the book on forensics, you might want to check your posts before you post them.
IMO, your theory that John and Patsy were thinking of dumping her body first and then changed is wrong. IMO, your theory that they were hoping that the FBI would not find the body and then they could leave is beyond any rational thought in this case. Even John Ramsey, as sick as he was that night, was not that out of it to believe that the FBI are going to overlook the tiny room in the back of the cellar where she was found.
Patsy went ballistic and killed her daughter in a reckless fit of rage. And then she and John tried to cover it up.
.
See above.
Solace,
I you continue to misrepresent what I post, I will stop replying to your posts.
.
Tell me where I am wrong. I am responding to your posts that you believed they meant to dump her body and then flee. Am I wrong? I am responding to a post where you said (and never answered me when I questioned it by the way) that Patsy and John intended to flee after the search of the house proved futile and JB was never found. Am I wrong, did you not say that? Did you not say that John killed JonBenet because she refused to do a sex act for him? Di you not say that John wanted to inflict some harm over Christmas. If I am wrong and you did not say that, I will apologize but you will have to correct me first.
UK, I would not want others to think I misrepresent what you say, so as an example I am posting your post of November 11th.
Posted on November 11th under forensics.
"So there you are, the Ramsey hope was that the police would turn up do a cursory search and if JonBenet was not found then they would search outwards from the house, with the Ramsey's leaving for Atlanta, probably anywhere but Colorado, and out of jurisdiction?
The flight to Atlanta was part of Plan-B, they never knew if it would work, but what else could they do, their prior staging was deemed inefective, so JonBenet was redressed , hair restyled, garrote applied, blankets added etc, all to suggest a bedtime abduction, then the 911 call was made the rest is history.
What you see in the wine-cellar is not how it happened its a staged crime-scene, thats the scene the Ramsey's want you to view, how she died and how JonBenet and her crime-scene was cleaned up is hidden from view.
There is more to the death of JonBenet than meets the eye, it goes beyond the theories promoted by the lead detectives e.g. Intruder vs. Accident, the forensic evidence suggests it is more complex. "
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
First of all...I am a she...just like you are. And second of all, try reading my signature at the end of EVERYONE of my posts.
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
Are you feeling just a little bit threatened UKGuy? I can count on one hand the people that agree with your theory. And I KNOW that I am 100 % correct on that. Enough with the mudslinging, and sarcasm.
I can't see the R's planning to flee to Atlanta before the body was found. They wanted to be thought of as victims right from the start. Not even the staunchest R supporter would believe that they would leave Boulder with their "kidnapped" daughter still missing. That would just scream guilt. And for murder, I think they'd probably be extradited back to Colorado, right?
Those size 12 panties more and more rule out an intruder to me. I mean, most people keep their underwear in a bedroom dresser, not a bathroom. No intruder would know to look there.
There's only 1 reason those huge panties were on her. They HAD to say "Wednesday". I can't believe it was a coincidence they were grabbed. It had to look like they were the panties she'd had on all day. And if they were, the fibers from the black velvet pants would be on them, and I have never seen it said that they were.
In the interviews PR tried to make it seem like JBR always got dressed by herself. I'm not saying she never did it, but a controlling mother like PR wouldn't let JBR get ready for a party by herself. Those panties would have bunched up so much that I can't see PR letting her go like that. And from what I have read, JBR couldn't read. She wouldn't have know they said "Wednesday". The bloodied size 6s were removed (never to be found again, right?) and replaced with what the Rs assumed would be identical panties- the only other pair in the house that said "Wednesday". I just don't think they though the size would become an issue - they didn't think the pineapple would become an issue either.
Those size 12 panties more and more rule out an intruder to me. I mean, most people keep their underwear in a bedroom dresser, not a bathroom. No intruder would know to look there.
There's only 1 reason those huge panties were on her. They HAD to say "Wednesday". I can't believe it was a coincidence they were grabbed. It had to look like they were the panties she'd had on all day. And if they were, the fibers from the black velvet pants would be on them, and I have never seen it said that they were.
In the interviews PR tried to make it seem like JBR always got dressed by herself. I'm not saying she never did it, but a controlling mother like PR wouldn't let JBR get ready for a party by herself. Those panties would have bunched up so much that I can't see PR letting her go like that. And from what I have read, JBR couldn't read. She wouldn't have know they said "Wednesday". The bloodied size 6s were removed (never to be found again, right?) and replaced with what the Rs assumed would be identical panties- the only other pair in the house that said "Wednesday". I just don't think they though the size would become an issue - they didn't think the pineapple would become an issue either.
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
I agree. WHY in the world would an intruder run back upstairs, and tear through drawers, trying to find a pair of Wednesday Panties...or ANY panties for that matter. Why put anymore panties back on her at all?? Its a supposed "intruder"....why should he care if she has on panties or not?? I believe as you do, that those Wednesday panties were grabbed on purpose....it was the WEDNESDAY that mattered, not the size. And the way that those Bloomies are packaged....or ANY panties that have the days of the week on them...they are lined up so that all of the days can be seen by the buyer of the package. The intruder would have had to just totally pass over the Sunday, Monday and Tuesday panties....and grab the Wednesdays. Why not grab the first ones that they come to....the Sunday ones? Nope, there was a reason for the Ramsey's to grab the Wednesday ones. I think that JB was wearing the size 6 ones when she went to the party....and after she got home. Those may even be the ones that she soiled that night, while asleep...causing Patsy to fly into her rage. Maybe its not blood that was on them, but urine and possibly feces...and THAT is the reason that they were disposed of. Now wouldn't THAT fit right into Steve Thomas' bed wetting theory?? (Which I believe is exactly what happened).
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
I also wonder if they planned to blame FW as back up,(which they did) in case the others didn't work out.ie-FW wiped her and assaulted her during the party in the bathroom.
it was a bedroom abduction and the R's didn't know about the prior assault,was the plan.that's why she was covered with blankets I believe..bedroom abduction from her bed with an underlying assault *they know nothing about.
Ames,
threatened are you suggesting I should be?
I am not concerned with numbers but with the truth.
You personally will never recieve any mudslinging or sarcasm from me period.
.
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
I am just referring to TWO sarcastic posts that you have posted about me. I will re-post your quotes if you would like me too. I do read your posts, but I haven't replied to any in quite a while....so, why are you referring to me in your posts, in a sarcastic way??
I have decided to go ahead and post your quotes...so you can see what I am talking about...
Originally Posted by UKGuy
"Solace,
I'll allow you some thinking time on that one.
You must confer with Ames, he will have a definitive answer."
Originally Posted by UKGuy
"Solace,
A homicide falls into one of a few well defined categories e.g. accident, and I have never heard of a reckless homicide, but no doubt Ames will confirm that you are 100% correct."
Looks alot like sarcasm to me.
Right, they just did not think of everything; they were frantic. This is a murder that was unintentional at the outset and sequed into an all out staging, self-preservation mo. Just the ransom note alone shows that they were out of their minds that night.
I am just referring to TWO sarcastic posts that you have posted about me. I will re-post your quotes if you would like me too. I do read your posts, but I haven't replied to any in quite a while....so, why are you referring to me in your posts, in a sarcastic way??
I have decided to go ahead and post your quotes...so you can see what I am talking about...
Originally Posted by UKGuy
"Solace,
I'll allow you some thinking time on that one.
You must confer with Ames, he will have a definitive answer."
Originally Posted by UKGuy
"Solace,
A homicide falls into one of a few well defined categories e.g. accident, and I have never heard of a reckless homicide, but no doubt Ames will confirm that you are 100% correct."
Looks alot like sarcasm to me.
I concur.
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
LOL...Its okay SuperDave...I just took offense at another poster's sacasm about me. (In other words, they think that I think that I know EVERYTHING..and that what I say is right, and that I have the case figured out.....which I DO...but, thats beside the point. LOL)
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
You do have the case figured out.
LOL...well, I believe that I do. AND SO DO YOU!!!