The complicity of Patsy in coverup.

[MurriFlower]

Didn't she call for backup and it wasn't heeded?

I think that was after the body was found. It's true that BPD shouldn't have left her there alone, eventhough it was only thought to be a kidnapping at that time, but it demonstrates how little priority it was given. I wouldn't have had much faith in them finding her IF it had been a kidnapping, when they couldn't even find her in her own home!! But even after she was found and had obviously been murdered, it took the ME another 7 hours to arrive and then he spent all of 10 minutes examinining the body, before leaving it until the following morning to do the autopsy. For a Police Department that supposedly saw very few murders, they were surprisingly casual about this one. It's not as if it was a couple of crack heads beating each other to death, but a 6yo girl, daughter of rich parents, brutally murdered in her own home!! If it wasn't for the media, I doubt BPD would have given it much attention at all. Don't start me!! (too late LOL)

 

[Toltec]

I think that was after the body was found. It's true that BPD shouldn't have left her there alone, eventhough it was only thought to be a kidnapping at that time, but it demonstrates how little priority it was given. I wouldn't have had much faith in them finding her IF it had been a kidnapping, when they couldn't even find her in her own home!! But even after she was found and had obviously been murdered, it took the ME another 7 hours to arrive and then he spent all of 10 minutes examinining the body, before leaving it until the following morning to do the autopsy. For a Police Department that supposedly saw very few murders, they were surprisingly casual about this one. It's not as if it was a couple of crack heads beating each other to death, but a 6yo girl, daughter of rich parents, brutally murdered in her own home!! If it wasn't for the media, I doubt BPD would have given it much attention at all. Don't start me!! (too late LOL)

The Coroners assistants entered the home soon after the body was found. I'm sure they took liver temp and checked her eyes...

The Coroner was not allowed in until the search warrant was signed by a judge. He arrived soon after the warrant.

We are not privy to the Coroners notes...just the autopsy report.


John and Patsy assumed Officer French would find JonBenet...but he didn't. He reported that when he came up from the basement, Patsy held her hands to her face "eyeballing him".

What a surprise/disappointment that Officer French didn't discover JonBenet...later on John had to "discover the body" so they could leave that hell hole.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I think that was after the body was found. It's true that BPD shouldn't have left her there alone, eventhough it was only thought to be a kidnapping at that time, but it demonstrates how little priority it was given. I wouldn't have had much faith in them finding her IF it had been a kidnapping, when they couldn't even find her in her own home!! But even after she was found and had obviously been murdered, it took the ME another 7 hours to arrive and then he spent all of 10 minutes examinining the body, before leaving it until the following morning to do the autopsy. For a Police Department that supposedly saw very few murders, they were surprisingly casual about this one. It's not as if it was a couple of crack heads beating each other to death, but a 6yo girl, daughter of rich parents, brutally murdered in her own home!! If it wasn't for the media, I doubt BPD would have given it much attention at all. Don't start me!! (too late LOL)

Why would BPD ignore the murder of a 6-year-old? Why would any police department ignore the murder of a child? It seems that in every police department, child murder cases would be a big priority, even if they aren't big news with the media. My guess is the R's put up so many barriers with their wealth and connections that it became impossible for LE to really do their job. It may just be a Boulder thing though; the only two murders I can think of in that town were Susannah Chase (which took about 10 years to solve) and Jason Miyedette. Jason was also killed by his wealthy parents, and I believe that case never went to trial. And if the reason why BPD had to give this case attention was because of media pressure, I'm all for it.

If JonBenet hadn't been in pageants, and the media skipped by the story, why would BPD ignore it? We're talking about the only murder in 1996; of a wealthy 6-year-old. It's not like JBR was murdered in Denver and they have lots of other crimes they have to deal with.

 

[MurriFlower]

Why would BPD ignore the murder of a 6-year-old? Why would any police department ignore the murder of a child? It seems that in every police department, child murder cases would be a big priority, even if they aren't big news with the media. My guess is the R's put up so many barriers with their wealth and connections that it became impossible for LE to really do their job. It may just be a Boulder thing though; the only two murders I can think of in that town were Susannah Chase (which took about 10 years to solve) and Jason Miyedette. Jason was also killed by his wealthy parents, and I believe that case never went to trial. It seems Boulder likes to be seen as "perfect" and these murders ruin that image. Perhaps they feel it is better to ignore them so people forget, and it doesn't mess up Boulder's perfect image. And if the reason why BPD had to give this case attention was because of media pressure, I'm all for it.

my big bold

What you are talking is about after the Rs became suspects, in the days, weeks and months following the murder.

The incompetence/casualness I'm talking about began from the 911 call. Officer French? arrived in the Police car - perhaps he should have given that some thought -- if there was a kidnapping and they were watching the house..... He then performed a superficial search in which he didn't even open the door to the wc (secured with a latch designed to keep out children!) cause he couldn't work out how!

Why would BPD ignore the murder of a child? I'm not sure, but it appears to be the attitude of arrogant apathy that characterised this case. You certainly come across this when dealing with some cops who have more ego than brains. I expect it an attitude that comes down from the leadership (or lack of it).

That the Rs quickly came to distrust them is no big surprise. Instead of searching for a murderer, BPD focused their entire attention on finding evidence against them.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

my big bold

What you are talking is about after the Rs became suspects, in the days, weeks and months following the murder.

The incompetence/casualness I'm talking about began from the 911 call. Officer French? arrived in the Police car - perhaps he should have given that some thought -- if there was a kidnapping and they were watching the house..... He then performed a superficial search in which he didn't even open the door to the wc (secured with a latch designed to keep out children!) cause he couldn't work out how!

Why would BPD ignore the murder of a child? I'm not sure, but it appears to be the attitude of arrogant apathy that characterised this case. You certainly come across this when dealing with some cops who have more ego than brains. I expect it an attitude that comes down from the leadership (or lack of it).

That the Rs quickly came to distrust them is no big surprise. Instead of searching for a murderer, BPD focused their entire attention on finding evidence against them.

Patsy never said on the 911 call that the RN said not call the cops, so the dispatcher wouldn't have known to tell the responding officer to go to the house in an unmarked car.

 

[madeleine]

Why would you trust anything that emanated from someone who demonstrated such gross incompetence?? Was there one single thing she did correctly that would cause you to trust her instinct?

That's not about her being incompetent,I agree with that.I was talking about the different views,hers and ST's.He wasn't there and the first reactions of the parents are crucial.She was there,she was the only outsider actually.Why was she ignored though and mocked by her male co-workers.Because she had a different view?Because she was right?Read her deposition re Koby and ST .It's like being a black female working with M.Fuhrman.

 

[MurriFlower]

That's not about her being incompetent,I agree with that.I was talking about the different views,hers and ST's.He wasn't there and the first reactions of the parents are crucial.She was there,she was the only outsider actually.Why was she ignored though and mocked by her male co-workers.Because she had a different view?Because she was right?Read her deposition re Koby and ST .It's like being a black female working with M.Fuhrman.

I think it's because she didn't 'tow the party line'. The PDI mob didn't want to hear about JDI, or IDI.

 

[DIRK SCHILLER]

please dear friends, can you help me?
I have a very important question:
can you talk about a dead child if you did not find any corpse, clothes,shoes,traces after 32 years?
I mean if the child wasn´t near a river,sea,fire
can a pathologist from police say that kid is dead?

 

[DeeDee249]

Were we not informed (here recently) that the 'light' the cops use to detect semen also detects blood and urine and doesn't distinguish between them? Initially they thought there was semen on JBR's body, but found when tested it was smeared blood. Wouldn't urine would be fairly common on and around the bed of a bedwetter?

The light (fluoroscope) does not differentiate between blood, urine or semen. But the area was then swabbed, and that test determined it was JB's blood. If you are asking if urine was also found, probably it was, as her longjohns and panties were urine stained. But only the blood was mentioned specifically, as were the dark fibers from whatever was used to wipe her.
Even if the urine was voided at death (and her death was murder), the urine release cannot be determined to have been left at death- it may have been a product of a bedwetting accident. Of course, many RDI believe the panties were put on her after her death, and urine found on them was from having the wet longjohns put on over them.
Because of the uncertainty of when the urine was released, only the blood is important, as far as the crime is concerned. Blood does not belong in or around the vagina of a child. Urine is another matter.

 

[DeeDee249]

The Coroners assistants entered the home soon after the body was found. I'm sure they took liver temp and checked her eyes...

The Coroner was not allowed in until the search warrant was signed by a judge. He arrived soon after the warrant.

We are not privy to the Coroners notes...just the autopsy report.


John and Patsy assumed Officer French would find JonBenet...but he didn't. He reported that when he came up from the basement, Patsy held her hands to her face "eyeballing him".

What a surprise/disappointment that Officer French didn't discover JonBenet...later on John had to "discover the body" so they could leave that hell hole.

Do you have a source for that info about the coroner's assistants? I have ever seen where either of those tests were done by anyone- had they been, the coroner should have noted it in his report and listed a valid TOD. He did not, instead putting the time her body was discovered as TOD.

Officer French was himself disappointed that he had not been able to figure out how to open a simple wood latch securing the WC door. An unforgivable breach- couldn't he even have looked UP and seen the latch? All he did was try to pull the doorknob and simply gave up.
That's why JR raced to the WC as soon as Det. Arndt told him to "look around". He really didn't have to look around, did he? Because he already knew where to look.

 

[DeeDee249]

please dear friends, can you help me?
I have a very important question:
can you talk about a dead child if you did not find any corpse, clothes,shoes,traces after 32 years?
I mean if the child wasn´t near a river,sea,fire
can a pathologist from police say that kid is dead?

This must be so heartbreaking for you. My heart goes out to you.
I am not sure I understand, but you can talk about your missing child forever. Without a body or other forensic evidence, the person is PRESUMED dead. Different countries have different laws regarding this, but in the US if a person has been missing 7 years with no trace or evidence they are alive somewhere, that person can be declared legally dead.
As far as a criminal investigation, police really don't have much to go on if there is absolutely no trace of that person, and after a period of time, they stop investigating. No pathologist can declare a person dead without forensic evidence of a body or remains. But a court can rule a person legally dead (with no proof of physical death) after 7 years in the US. This is a legal ruling, and has nothing to do with the police.
Sometimes if clothing or other items or places have large quantities of the missing person's blood, even when there is no body, the investigation will state that there is sufficient evidence to believe the person is dead. But without that physical evidence, there isn't much they can do.
If the missing person can be proven to have been in the company of other persons just before they disappeared, obviously those people can be investigated. But still, with no body or other forensic evidence it is nearly impossible to show they had anything to do with it.
The Natalee Holloway case is a good example. No body, and lies and suspicious actions surround the people she was last seen with. But no body or other evidence has ever been found. I am sure her poor mother feels she is dead, but she will always have a little bit of hope Natalee will be found alive someday. After 7 years, her family can petition the court to have her declared legally dead.
I hope your son is found. Then you can at least have some closure.

 

[MurriFlower]

The light (fluoroscope) does not differentiate between blood, urine or semen. But the area was then swabbed, and that test determined it was JB's blood. If you are asking if urine was also found, probably it was, as her longjohns and panties were urine stained. But only the blood was mentioned specifically, as were the dark fibers from whatever was used to wipe her.
Even if the urine was voided at death (and her death was murder), the urine release cannot be determined to have been left at death- it may have been a product of a bedwetting accident. Of course, many RDI believe the panties were put on her after her death, and urine found on them was from having the wet longjohns put on over them.
Because of the uncertainty of when the urine was released, only the blood is important, as far as the crime is concerned. Blood does not belong in or around the vagina of a child. Urine is another matter.

Thanks DD but we are talking about semen supposedly found on JBR's bed and on the floor. I was suggesting it might have been urine, but mistaken for semen as happened initially when smeared blood was mistaken for semen. Otherwise, there doesnt' appear to be anywhere else this has been discussed.

This is the quote from RTC

I downloaded the book onto my IPAD. it is page 61.
Among the items police now sought.....They were also looking for traces of semen, and in the victim's bedroom,ultraviolet light showed stains on the bed and surrounding carpet. The mattress was wrapped in plastic.

The way I read it , is that they found semen on her bed and in her carpet.

 

[DeeDee249]

Thanks DD but we are talking about semen supposedly found on JBR's bed and on the floor. I was suggesting it might have been urine, but mistaken for semen as happened initially when smeared blood was mistaken for semen. Otherwise, there doesnt' appear to be anywhere else this has been discussed.

This is the quote from RTC

They never found semen on JB's bed or carpet or anywhere else in the house. The fluoroscope indicated the presence of protein (found in blood, semen, urine) but samples from her sheets and the piece of carpet taken up were shown to be urine.
The only semen found in the house was JAR's semen on his comforter- NOT the one on his bedroom at the house, but the one in the basement suitcase from his dorm room.
I think when the fluoroscope highlighted these other area, including JB's thighs, LE excitedly HOPED it was semen. Semen is something that can directly identify a person. Its presence infers that an ejaculation took place and, though like all liquids, can be transferred from hand to clothing or other places, this is still much more incriminating than skin cells. Skin cells are everywhere, on every surface. Semen is not. The presence of semen anywhere ON JB, the crime scene (the blanket, nightie, WC) or her clothing or in her room has no innocent explanation. The semen on the blanket in the basement suitcase cannot be linked to the crime at all, though it may seem suspicious. Semen on a comforter belonging to a college boy (or any male, actually) is not suspicious. Semen in, on , or around JB's body or room would be suspicious. Even if semen were found on JAR's bed in his own room, that would not be suspicious. Fairly common, actually.

 

[DIRK SCHILLER]

This must be so heartbreaking for you. My heart goes out to you.
I am not sure I understand, but you can talk about your missing child forever. Without a body or other forensic evidence, the person is PRESUMED dead. Different countries have different laws regarding this, but in the US if a person has been missing 7 years with no trace or evidence they are alive somewhere, that person can be declared legally dead.
As far as a criminal investigation, police really don't have much to go on if there is absolutely no trace of that person, and after a period of time, they stop investigating. No pathologist can declare a person dead without forensic evidence of a body or remains. But a court can rule a person legally dead (with no proof of physical death) after 7 years in the US. This is a legal ruling, and has nothing to do with the police.
Sometimes if clothing or other items or places have large quantities of the missing person's blood, even when there is no body, the investigation will state that there is sufficient evidence to believe the person is dead. But without that physical evidence, there isn't much they can do.
If the missing person can be proven to have been in the company of other persons just before they disappeared, obviously those people can be investigated. But still, with no body or other forensic evidence it is nearly impossible to show they had anything to do with it.
The Natalee Holloway case is a good example. No body, and lies and suspicious actions surround the people she was last seen with. But no body or other evidence has ever been found. I am sure her poor mother feels she is dead, but she will always have a little bit of hope Natalee will be found alive someday. After 7 years, her family can petition the court to have her declared legally dead.
I hope your son is found. Then you can at least have some closure.

thank you so much for the reply but what I meant is
with no body, how can you know that child hasn´t been abducted?

 

[MurriFlower]

They never found semen on JB's bed or carpet or anywhere else in the house. The fluoroscope indicated the presence of protein (found in blood, semen, urine) but samples from her sheets and the piece of carpet taken up were shown to be urine.
The only semen found in the house was JAR's semen on his comforter- NOT the one on his bedroom at the house, but the one in the basement suitcase from his dorm room.
I think when the fluoroscope highlighted these other area, including JB's thighs, LE excitedly HOPED it was semen. Semen is something that can directly identify a person. Its presence infers that an ejaculation took place and, though like all liquids, can be transferred from hand to clothing or other places, this is still much more incriminating than skin cells. Skin cells are everywhere, on every surface. Semen is not. The presence of semen anywhere ON JB, the crime scene (the blanket, nightie, WC) or her clothing or in her room has no innocent explanation. The semen on the blanket in the basement suitcase cannot be linked to the crime at all, though it may seem suspicious. Semen on a comforter belonging to a college boy (or any male, actually) is not suspicious. Semen in, on , or around JB's body or room would be suspicious. Even if semen were found on JAR's bed in his own room, that would not be suspicious. Fairly common, actually.

RTC: I am almost half way through the ST Book. One thing that is completely disturbing to me was semen was found on JB's bed and surrounding carpet. WTH?
I wonder if it was found on everybed in the house including the other twin bed in her room? Is it possible to know whose semen it is? Something is not right with this. Whose been having sex or masturbating in her room? I know they said many people slept in her room, but I am not buying it. I think if we can identify the sperm we can identify the molester.

Yep, I guess that's just one more thing ST got totally wrong!

 

[BBB167893]

Yep, I guess that's just one more thing ST got totally wrong!

Actually, I think RTC might have read it wrong. I don't remember any mention of semen on JB's bed in there.

 

[BBB167893]

Why would BPD ignore the murder of a 6-year-old? Why would any police department ignore the murder of a child? It seems that in every police department, child murder cases would be a big priority, even if they aren't big news with the media. My guess is the R's put up so many barriers with their wealth and connections that it became impossible for LE to really do their job. It may just be a Boulder thing though; the only two murders I can think of in that town were Susannah Chase (which took about 10 years to solve) and Jason Miyedette. Jason was also killed by his wealthy parents, and I believe that case never went to trial. And if the reason why BPD had to give this case attention was because of media pressure, I'm all for it.

If JonBenet hadn't been in pageants, and the media skipped by the story, why would BPD ignore it? We're talking about the only murder in 1996; of a wealthy 6-year-old. It's not like JBR was murdered in Denver and they have lots of other crimes they have to deal with.

eileen, have you read the "Best Justice Money Can Buy" thread?

 

[Toltec]

Steve Thomas and LE assumed that there was semen found on JB's body and carpet. None was found. Patsy was asked about the stains on JB's carpet and she claims she spilled something.

The blood on JB's vaginal area did not correspond to the blood smears on her panties. It is safe to assume that the panties were put on JB after the sexual assault.

 

[MurriFlower]

Actually, I think RTC might have read it wrong. I don't remember any mention of semen on JB's bed in there.

Well, I don't know how, seeing as he quoted directly from the book, below:

Post #218

Originally Posted by RTC View Post
I downloaded the book onto my IPAD. it is page 61.
Among the items police now sought.....They were also looking for traces of semen, and in the victim's bedroom,ultraviolet light showed stains on the bed and surrounding carpet. The mattress was wrapped in plastic.

The way I read it , is that they found semen on her bed and in her carpet.

 

[cynic]

Well, I don't know how, seeing as he quoted directly from the book, below:

Post #218

Thomas was relating what areas were being looked at with an alternate light source and indicating what fluoresced, he did not say that the stain was semen.
The staining on JBR’s thighs which fluoresced turned out to be blood.

Detective Trujillo then scanned the body with ultraviolet light and saw fluorescent markings along the thighs. Such light is useful in observing fluid not visible to the naked eye,
and Trujillo thought he saw traces of semen. Samples were taken for testing. Any presence of semen on the victim would indicate a male attacker.
…
They were also looking for traces of semen, and in the victim’s bedroom, ultraviolet light showed stains on the bed and surrounding carpet.

Later in the book:

Colorado Bureau of Investigation technicians gave us some bad news when they determined that the substance found on JonBenét’s leg during the ultraviolet light examination at the autopsy, initially thought to be semen, was just a smear of blood.