Did John Ramsey carry the body to contaminate the scene or not?

[ElleElle]

HE was a father in morning.. Stiff or not who knows what he would be thinking??

You are wrong.. I remember distinctly when The argument about Caylee drowning and them saying that George just picked up the body and disposed of it and the police and emt's they had on discussing saying they have seen parents try to give CPR to obviously dead children.. IT is a parental instinct to try and save your child.

IT is not disrespectful. IT is normal for many parents who find their children deceased.

BBM~ Or it normal to act that way if you killed the child? :waitasec:

 

[ElleElle]

I have a problem with him moving her. I could understand touching the body, looking for signs of life, even trying CPR. Wouldn't people get to him faster than picking her up from that awkward position? Wasn't FW near by? I don't think it was necessarily to contaminate the scene, but maybe to get her out of the crime scene. Worried about the police seeing something?

BBM~ If he was worried about the LE seeing something; what difference did it make? She was already dead? Maybe she was not dead yet between 11-1pm?

The "intruder" story did not go so well the moment Patsy made the 911 call; then John finding the body. It does not compute! :banghead:

 

[ElleElle]

When analyzing JR's behavior when he found the body, don't forget to throw in the mix that there were supposed "kidnappers" too. He had read the ransom note. So, when he discovered the body, it would have "clicked" instantaneously in his mind that this was no accidental death of his child and that this was a crime scene. So the moment he found her, he should've automatically been freaked out. He should've cried out hysterically, should have yelled for help, should have been leary that the kidnapper was still down there somewhere in the dark basement. All of this would have happened within split-seconds, of course.
I hypothesize that the only way he would've carried her up the stairs in a semi-composed manner is if it was an accidental death. Or if it was something much more nefarious (wink wink).
Everyone knows you leave a crime scene alone. Even under the most adverse and horrifying discoveries and conditions.....you'd scream, you'd freeze, you'd yell for assistance which there was plenty of it right upstairs.
Think about it....

Cheers! Great post and ITA, John's behaviour does not fit in with the ransom note.

Most people who be in shock when finding a dead body, let alone a loved one.

By casually carrying JBR up, does not spell out shock imo.

 

[ElleElle]

Anyone who comes upon a deceased person knows what a hideous shock it is, no matter if expected or not.

Those of us who have had this horrible experience - what was the first thing you did? How did you spend the very first few minutes? Sitting down like the air has been punched out of you would be the first thing but once your brain begins working - what was the first actual thing you did?

Did you attempt to move your loved one? Sit them up or carry them to another room? Or did you cover them and call 911?

TIA

BBM~ None of the above. I left everything as was, and called 911.

 

[robotdog]

the "stupid touch DNA" could have come from anyone at the party that had touched any number of other people through the past week, month or year.

touch DNA in this case is a scapegoat

goats are getting the short end of this scam.

there ain't no intruder in this case:banghead:

 

[ElleElle]

It has to be an inside job!"............Jeeze, who talks like that anyway?

Again... trying to throw it back into the "intruder" story.

The Ramsey's can't keep the flow going... this is not normal behaviour unless they are careless in a cover-up.

Sorry O/T

 

[BOESP]

BBM~ If he was worried about the LE seeing something; what difference did it make? She was already dead? Maybe she was not dead yet between 11-1pm?

The "intruder" story did not go so well the moment Patsy made the 911 call; then John finding the body. It does not compute! :banghead:

ElleElle, respectfully, at the time John Ramsey found JonBenet, the rigor mortis and livor mortis indicates she had been dead many hours prior to the time she was found.

 

[ElleElle]

Ah, but it was an inside job, since the Ramsey's were the only ones in the house!

touché !!! :seeya:

 

[BOESP]

Cheers! Great post and ITA, John's behaviour does not fit in with the ransom note.

Most people who be in shock when finding a dead body, let alone a loved one.

By casually carrying JBR up, does not spell out shock imo.

I agree with you on this. Considering the statements Linda Arndt made about John Ramsey's demeanor and mannerisms as he brought JonBenet up the steps, I'd say he was showing anger and rage at someone, but not shock.

 

[ElleElle]

ElleElle, respectfully, at the time John Ramsey found JonBenet, the rigor mortis and livor mortis indicates she had been dead many hours prior to the time she was found.

Thanks! Off to read the autopsy report. :blushing:

 

[passionflower]

I wish I could vote for 2. First I do feel he wanted to contaminate the scene and 2nd I feel he knew she was there and wanted her found. JMOO

 

[lawstudent]

Every interaction among people at the crime scene with the victim's body contaminates it. Valuable evidence from JBR's body could have rubbed off onto JR. Transference of other people's DNA on JR could have landed on JBR's body.
If JR played a roll in his daughter's death, he would want to contaminate the crime scene, lawstudent.

I understand what you're saying, but do you really think he was thinking "I have random people's DNA all over my body if I pick her up/lie on top of her maybe some will rub off!"? Forensics were not as developed, and I doubt people were thinking of things like touch DNA at the time. They weren't criminal masterminds. Even if they watched a lot of crime shows, their alleged scenario didn't necessitate contamination to make it work, unless they were going to go through the trouble of stealing someone else's semen or other incriminating material. They'd certainly know enough to clean off anything incriminating, but "valuable evidence rubbing off onto his body"? Like what? If it was evidence of someone else, it's unlikely it would all rub onto his body, plus that would mean he wasn't responsible. If it was evidence of blood or semen or fibers that belonged to him, it would still be unlikely to all suddenly attach to him and remove him from suspicion - he would have washed that off earlier if he thought it was still present. I just don't see what role contamination plays in this case - they probably had no idea that police can examine little fibers and skin cells to this degree, particularly when he's carrying her on the outside of her clothes where his hair or something would be expected.

And I don't understand how DNA from someone at the party can easily get under her clothes. Possible, but doesn't seem particularly likely. Not saying I don't believe the Ramseys were involved, and they weren't cleared, but I don't see how DNA on her underclothes can be dismissed so easily.

 

[DeeDee249]

]The TDNA appeared on the waistbands of her panties and longjohns, and on the legs of the longjohns- exactly where someone would handle then if pulling them on or off. JR was SEEN holding her around the waist. Patsy claimed to put the longjohns on her. Either or both parents may have removed the longjohns, put on the new panties and pulled them back up. Both parents attended a party that day. Both may have picked up the same TDNA.
With the release of the GJ indictments, I think anyone who may still believe the parents had no involvement is in denial. It is not certain who did what, but we can figure out why. I think the message was pretty clear, and the charge of accessory to murder makes the presence of the TDNA pretty unimportant. We ALL know a donor will probably never be found. That TDNA would be all over that crime scene. Not just 2 pieces of clothing both parents handled. The TDNA didn't get UNDER her clothes. It got on the longjohns when they were pulled off and on and on the panties when they were put on, The clothes picked up the TDNA as she was dressed. It didn't have to get under anything.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I understand what you're saying, but do you really think he was thinking "I have random people's DNA all over my body if I pick her up/lie on top of her maybe some will rub off!"? Forensics were not as developed, and I doubt people were thinking of things like touch DNA at the time. They weren't criminal masterminds. Even if they watched a lot of crime shows, their alleged scenario didn't necessitate contamination to make it work, unless they were going to go through the trouble of stealing someone else's semen or other incriminating material. They'd certainly know enough to clean off anything incriminating, but "valuable evidence rubbing off onto his body"? Like what? If it was evidence of someone else, it's unlikely it would all rub onto his body, plus that would mean he wasn't responsible. If it was evidence of blood or semen or fibers that belonged to him, it would still be unlikely to all suddenly attach to him and remove him from suspicion - he would have washed that off earlier if he thought it was still present. I just don't see what role contamination plays in this case - they probably had no idea that police can examine little fibers and skin cells to this degree, particularly when he's carrying her on the outside of her clothes where his hair or something would be expected.

And I don't understand how DNA from someone at the party can easily get under her clothes. Possible, but doesn't seem particularly likely. Not saying I don't believe the Ramseys were involved, and they weren't cleared, but I don't see how DNA on her underclothes can be dismissed so easily.

Cant you imagine the number of people that handle every piece of clothing manufactured and packaged?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Linda7NJ]

]The TDNA appeared on the waistbands of her panties and longjohns, and on the legs of the longjohns- exactly where someone would handle then if pulling them on or off. JR was SEEN holding her around the waist. Patsy claimed to put the longjohns on her. Either or both parents may have removed the longjohns, put on the new panties and pulled them back up. Both parents attended a party that day. Both may have picked up the same TDNA.
With the release of the GJ indictments, I think anyone who may still believe the parents had no involvement is in denial. It is not certain who did what, but we can figure out why. I think the message was pretty clear, and the charge of accessory to murder makes the presence of the TDNA pretty unimportant. We ALL know a donor will probably never be found. That TDNA would be all over that crime scene. Not just 2 pieces of clothing both parents handled. The TDNA didn't get UNDER her clothes. It got on the longjohns when they were pulled off and on and on the panties when they were put on, The clothes picked up the TDNA as she was dressed. It didn't have to get under anything.

Remember the good old days when all we heard about constantly was the fingernail DNA? lol




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[txsvicki]

Remember, too, Kolar says the touch dna was IN the seam of the panties.

 

[passionflower]

Could the touch DNA be by the person that packaged the panties? Maybe they were never washed before dressing JBR???

 

[LinasK]

Remember, too, Kolar says the touch dna was IN the seam of the panties.

Could the touch DNA be by the person that packaged the panties? Maybe they were never washed before dressing JBR???

Bingo!!:seeya: That's our answer- the touch DNA came from the manufacturing- especially if it was in the seam where it was found- not a normal spot to touch like the main surface area.:drumroll:The size 12 panties were brand new, not washed, straight out of the package. They were to be a Christmas present for Patsy's niece.

 

[FrayedKnot]

Could the touch DNA be by the person that packaged the panties? Maybe they were never washed before dressing JBR???

I believe that was posited in ST's book? Or maybe I read that elsewhere? :waitasec:

In any case, it makes perfect sense to me! Especially after some of the 20/20 specials I have seen about trying on new clothes in stores.......:gasp:

 

[UKGuy]

Bingo!!:seeya: That's our answer- the touch DNA came from the manufacturing- especially if it was in the seam where it was found- not a normal spot to touch like the main surface area.:drumroll:The size 12 panties were brand new, not washed, straight out of the package. They were to be a Christmas present for Patsy's niece.

LinasK,
Brand New, Not Washed? Probably, but guess what: Patsy was asked during the Atlanta Interview if she had ever washed the size-12's since giving them to JonBenet, I think Patsy replied with ramnesia.

Surely only IDI think the touch-dna on the size-12's has any relevance. Also the size-12's the R's handed back should surley have matching touch-dna on the seam also. Lets assume its from the person's thumb or finger as they machine stitch the seam to the pants?

.