Evidence you can't explain

[DeeDee249]

I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but the touch DNA thing still bothers me. I understand that it's easy to get touch DNA on things, but was the clothing not packaged? Then it could be a factory worker I guess, but it still seems a little odd to me. All the evidence tells me the Ramseys did it, but when people say "well what about the DNA?" I feel like "touch DNA is everywhere" is not the best response. It does look suspicious. I also don't understand why Patsy would go grab that underwear and not a pair of JonBenet's own.

The thing about TDNA is that it is pretty useless unless you can NAME a donor. BOTH parents claimed to have touched those long johns. JR is KNOWN to have done so- he carried her body up from the basement and was seen holding her upright around her waist. EXACTLY the place where the TDNA was found. (the waistband). Patsy CLAIMED to have dressed her in the long johns that night after they arrived home, though we have only her word. JR's TNDA should definitely be on the long johns, and a good way to tell if Patsy was telling the truth is to see whether HERS is on there too. No evidence of parental TDNA on the long johns has ever been mentioned, though that does not mean it wasn't discovered.
If you have studied the case, you will see that ALL of JB's panties were stained with fecal matter. The police reported this when they removed them from the house. The panties she was found in were NEW- fresh from a package of 7 pairs, wrapped as a gift for JB's cousin and scheduled to be mailed to her when Patsy returned from their trip. The way I see it, there were three reasons to use those panties instead of her own.
One is that Patsy would not want JB to be found in soiled panties. Please do not discount this- amid all the horror of that night, even a mother staging the murder of her little girl would STILL think about this.
Two is that JB's panties were 2 floors up- in drawers in her bathroom. If someone went up to get them, there is a chance that BR, in the next room, might see. Although I believe BR may have some involvement in the crime itself, I do not believe he had any part in he redressing or staging of the body. That was all the parents.
Three is that the new panties were right there in the basement. Handy. I believe the parents dod not think about the size, or whether anyone thought they were too big on her. They were put on UNDER the long johns, so no one looking at her would know how big they were. That wasn't discovered until her clothing was removed at the autopsy. The leg openings on those panties hung down to her knees. There is no way she would evert have dressed herself in those panties- I don't care how cute they were. They would have bunched up under the black velvet pants JB wore that day. Very uncomfortable.

 

[lawstudent]

The thing about TDNA is that it is pretty useless unless you can NAME a donor. BOTH parents claimed to have touched those long johns. JR is KNOWN to have done so- he carried her body up from the basement and was seen holding her upright around her waist. EXACTLY the place where the TDNA was found. (the waistband). Patsy CLAIMED to have dressed her in the long johns that night after they arrived home, though we have only her word. JR's TNDA should definitely be on the long johns, and a good way to tell if Patsy was telling the truth is to see whether HERS is on there too. No evidence of parental TDNA on the long johns has ever been mentioned, though that does not mean it wasn't discovered.
If you have studied the case, you will see that ALL of JB's panties were stained with fecal matter. The police reported this when they removed them from the house. The panties she was found in were NEW- fresh from a package of 7 pairs, wrapped as a gift for JB's cousin and scheduled to be mailed to her when Patsy returned from their trip. The way I see it, there were three reasons to use those panties instead of her own.
One is that Patsy would not want JB to be found in soiled panties. Please do not discount this- amid all the horror of that night, even a mother staging the murder of her little girl would STILL think about this.
Two is that JB's panties were 2 floors up- in drawers in her bathroom. If someone went up to get them, there is a chance that BR, in the next room, might see. Although I believe BR may have some involvement in the crime itself, I do not believe he had any part in he redressing or staging of the body. That was all the parents.
Three is that the new panties were right there in the basement. Handy. I believe the parents dod not think about the size, or whether anyone thought they were too big on her. They were put on UNDER the long johns, so no one looking at her would know how big they were. That wasn't discovered until her clothing was removed at the autopsy. The leg openings on those panties hung down to her knees. There is no way she would evert have dressed herself in those panties- I don't care how cute they were. They would have bunched up under the black velvet pants JB wore that day. Very uncomfortable.

Thank you. I realize the touch DNA is useless without a match, but I still understand why it raises suspicion, especially with the cops clearing them publicly. That was misleading and odd.

 

[Steely Dan]

we who examine and analyze this have the luxury of having (more than) sufficient time to do so, and the benefit of not being involved. distance often improves perspective. the pressure of the early morning deadline and their close involvement caused them to wear blinders and not fully consider how the stage(d) play would be perceived by the intended audience. the better wording re the ransom call would have been to name the day rather than saying "tomorrow". I don't think they took the time to consider that saying "tomorrow" revealed what they knew: that the event took place (began) before midnight

BBM

The whole ransom note, IMO, was a huge mistake. I've never heard of a three page ransom note before. "We have your daughter. Don't call the police just wait for a call." That's all that needs to be said.

I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but the touch DNA thing still bothers me. I understand that it's easy to get touch DNA on things, but was the clothing not packaged? Then it could be a factory worker I guess, but it still seems a little odd to me. All the evidence tells me the Ramseys did it, but when people say "well what about the DNA?" I feel like "touch DNA is everywhere" is not the best response. It does look suspicious. I also don't understand why Patsy would go grab that underwear and not a pair of JonBenet's own.

Did they ever test the touch DNA against the unmatched DNA of the three people?

 

[BOESP]

I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but the touch DNA thing still bothers me. I understand that it's easy to get touch DNA on things, but was the clothing not packaged? Then it could be a factory worker I guess, but it still seems a little odd to me. All the evidence tells me the Ramseys did it, but when people say "well what about the DNA?" I feel like "touch DNA is everywhere" is not the best response. It does look suspicious. I also don't understand why Patsy would go grab that underwear and not a pair of JonBenet's own.

Patsy actually dug her own grave with the over-sized panties. She said (my words) that JonBenet pitched a temper tantrum for the panties even though Patsy told her they were a gift for JonBenet's cousin and that they were sizes too big. JonBenet still wanted them so Patsy told her to just put them in the drawer "no big deal." Patsy claimed JonBenet got them out of the drawer and put them on by herself without Patsy's knowledge.

ETA: No size 12 panties were found in JonBenet's bathroom drawer, where Patsy said they were kept. IOW, Patsy got caught up in her own lie with these panties.

 

[UKGuy]

Patsy actually dug her own grave with the over-sized panties. She said (my words) that JonBenet pitched a temper tantrum for the panties even though Patsy told her they were a gift for JonBenet's cousin and that they were sizes too big. JonBenet still wanted them so Patsy told her to just put them in the drawer "no big deal." Patsy claimed JonBenet got them out of the drawer and put them on by herself without Patsy's knowledge.

ETA: No size 12 panties were found in JonBenet's bathroom drawer, where Patsy said they were kept. IOW, Patsy got caught up in her own lie with these panties.

BOESP,
ITA. Patsy said she never knew about the size-12's. From memory she said she first read about them in the National Enquirer or on the day of the interview?

If Patsy had put those size-12's on JonBenet and her explanation for this was JonBenet dressed herself. Then Patsy must know in advance to put the remaining size-12's into her underwear drawer?

The blatant lying suggests she knew nothing about the size-12's and is covering for another R, any guesses as to who?


.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be,
Your "tomorrow" assumption works backwards also. It could be an attempt to suggest JonBenet was abducted and killed prior to midnight on the 25th.

JonBenet's deceased date on her tombstone is 12/25/1996!

To use the ransom note as the center piece of any theory simply invalidates it. The ransom note is staged forensic evidence, and as such renders any theory employing it inconsistent.

I reckon all three R's were involved in the staging and death of JonBenet. Patsy did most of the staging, not John, it is likely that Patsy vetoed JR's intended dumping of JonBenet and came up with the idea of the ransom note?

That the R's voices can be heard talking camly on the 911 call demonstrate they were all colluding in the staging, i.e. BR: What will I do?.

This should allow any thought of a lone BDI, PDI or JDI to abandonded!

the case is slightly more convoluted and complicated than that of a simple linear narrative.

The evidence yet unexplained is JonBenet's head injury, nobody has yet offered any compelling account that fits any one particular theory.


.

The Ramseys returned home on the 25th. The 'small foreign faction' as implied in the note, was wrote the note for someone's benefit: in this case, the first point of contact HAD to be the parents since the note came from the home.

If the note says "tomorrow" in reference to the ransom etc it could only have meant the 27th since the note could only have been obtained and read by the 'intended' targets -- the Ramseys -- on the 26th.The note wasn't written for someone to read on the 25th -- the time when the family would be in bed. Further, the note says to be "well rested". That is an instruction. How can the Ramseys be well rested if they wake up, read the note on the 26th and the abductors call on the 26th between 8am and 10am. It's an instruction that only makes real sense if we are talking about the 27th and the "tomorrow" wording makes sense when viewed in this context.

So, I find it plausible that Patsy's call was not intended to happen. I think it threw a spanner in the works. I mean, if Patsy was responsible for this in any capacity and wrote the note, why would she call the police when she had a dead body in the house and a ransom note which explicitly told her not to? Wouldn't she want to get the body out of the house to make it more believable otherwise the suspicions mount on the parents (which they did).

To use the ransom note as the center piece of any theory simply invalidates it. The ransom note is [b]staged[/b] forensic evidence, and as such renders any theory employing it inconsistent.

But that simply is not true. Because it is staged what it does do is 1. Prove no abductors did it (it was a Ramsey) 2. Excludes potential suspects (becuase it was Ramsey) 3. Draw focus to those who could do it (one of the Ramseys) and 4. Give some context to what happened ( the note was obviously done to deflect from something). Your logic is a bit similar to that of a non sequitur -- the conclusion you state doesn't really follow the premise i.e a staged note means any gleanings/theories from it are invalid. I think the ransom note does form the centre piece of theories (along with the injury evidence) and as such is valid to do so because it offers us valuable evidence as to how and why things happened.

That the R's voices can be heard talking camly on the 911 call demonstrate they were all colluding in the staging, i.e. BR: [i]What will I do?[/i].

If all the voices are on the tape, all it shows is that there are other voices present other than the main voice -- Patsy. It doesn't prove anything unless specific phrases are uttered which prove collusion like Burke saying "Mother, what will I do now since I did this mess -- I don't want to go to jail".And that isn't the case. Maybe Burke woke u because of the commotion with Patsy and that's why his voice is there.Maybe he is saying "what will I do" because he sees his stressed out mother and is offering her help. Same with John. It doesn't mean they were all colluding at all. How do you get from 'voices on a tape' to 'voices on a tape equals collusion'? It isn't necessarily correlative.

The evidence yet unexplained is JonBenet's head injury, nobody has yet offered any compelling account that fits any one particular theory

Plenty of people have offered plausible explanations for why it exists. However, depending upon one's own theory, we will dismiss them if they don't fit our own theory. For example, I don't think Patsy hit JonBenet in a rage (although that is absolutely possible) so I don't but into it. I think the head injury was sustained after the neck injury and I think it was done to make sure she was dead or simulate some horrific attack that would be abductors hostile to the family may do.

 

[Steely Dan]

The Ramseys returned home on the 25th. The 'small foreign faction' as implied in the note, was wrote the note for someone's benefit: in this case, the first point of contact HAD to be the parents since the note came from the home.

If the note says "tomorrow" in reference to the ransom etc it could only have meant the 27th since the note could only have been obtained and read by the 'intended' targets -- the Ramseys -- on the 26th.The note wasn't written for someone to read on the 25th -- the time when the family would be in bed. Further, the note says to be "well rested". That is an instruction. How can the Ramseys be well rested if they wake up, read the note on the 26th and the abductors call on the 26th between 8am and 10am. It's an instruction that only makes real sense if we are talking about the 27th and the "tomorrow" wording makes sense when viewed in this context.

So, I find it plausible that Patsy's call was not intended to happen. I think it threw a spanner in the works. I mean, if Patsy was responsible for this in any capacity and wrote the note, why would she call the police when she had a dead body in the house and a ransom note which explicitly told her not to? Wouldn't she want to get the body out of the house to make it more believable otherwise the suspicions mount on the parents (which they did).

Respectfully snipped by me.

You make a good point about when "tomorrow" was supposed to be, but there's something that's bothered me. John's friend looked in the room that JonBenet's body was discovered and found nothing. Later John looks in the room and says something to the effect of immediately seeing the blanket. Which the detective says would be impossible by their testing work.

So, was the body there when the friend looked or did John put it there while he disappeared for awhile? Was the plan to make the SFF look like she was kidnapped and then dump the body somewhere? If it was, the cops sticking around may not have been factored into the whole thing. Also, JR probably didn't know his friend had already opened the door to that room previously.

I think PR's phone call was approved by both JR and PR. It's possible they thought the cops would say; "We're gonna put a tap on your phone for any incoming calls." and then leave. Then JR would go and dump the body. However, the cops kept hanging around long after they expected so finding the body was a quick change decision. JMO

 

[Steely Dan]

BTW, LFB. Is your location of "Running up that hill" a reference to the Kate Bush song?

 

[madeleine]

was wondering...they weren't stupid people but maybe naive and thought the cops would tap the phones and leave until "tomorrow"/27?maybe they thought,the note says no cops ,so we will be alone for a day,having enough time to get rid of the body?but then why call all the friends over?IMO calling the friends over=wanting for the body to be found,using the friends as a tampon between them and police?

 

[madeleine]

if the plan was a different one JR was obviously the one who suddenly decided to change it (by moving the body closer to the door?)

 

[Steely Dan]

was wondering...they weren't stupid people but maybe naive and thought the cops would tap the phones and leave until "tomorrow"/27?maybe they thought,the note says no cops ,so we will be alone for a day,having enough time to get rid of the body?but then why call all the friends over?IMO calling the friends over=wanting for the body to be found,using the friends as a tampon between them and police?

What do you mean? I've never heard that phrase before.

 

[madeleine]

What do you mean? I've never heard that phrase before.

Did the actions of John Ramsey on the morning of Dec. 26, 1996 indicate that he believed JonBenet had been kidnapped? There were many actions that conflicted with the claimed belief. A very telling one was John going to the phone and calling in other persons.

What was his mind on then? How was this going to help find the alleged kidnapper and JonBenet? Were any of those called in knowledgeable about kidnapping and called in to assist? If they were not there to assist, why were they there? Could they be anything but a distraction and a hindrance to the investigation?

Yet, John called them in. Why? What truth in John's mind motivated this call? He valued them being there. For what purpose if not to assist in the investigation? They provided consolation and indication that he was believed. Assurance. They provided a buffer between John and the police just by their presence. They provided an emotional escape in a situation that had John on the verge of breakdown.

Although co-perpetrator, Patsy, was on the premises, John was pretty much alone in hostile territory. The hostile territory was in his mind as he knew there would be hostile action if the truth came out. The pressure was getting to him. He was about to lose it. He needed help in the form of friends who would believe, not question. This is what the phone call was about.

If the officer in charge had read suspect behavior, then had upon the arrival of the "guests" met them at the door and sent them away from the crime scene, it could have been a far different story than the long saga that is still being played out.


http://www.acandyrose.com/06102001delmaranalysis4.htm

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Respectfully snipped by me.

You make a good point about when "tomorrow" was supposed to be, but there's something that's bothered me. John's friend looked in the room that JonBenet's body was discovered and found nothing. Later John looks in the room and says something to the effect of immediately seeing the blanket. Which the detective says would be impossible by their testing work.

So, was the body there when the friend looked or did John put it there while he disappeared for awhile? Was the plan to make the SFF look like she was kidnapped and then dump the body somewhere? If it was, the cops sticking around may not have been factored into the whole thing. Also, JR probably didn't know his friend had already opened the door to that room previously.

I think PR's phone call was approved by both JR and PR. It's possible they thought the cops would say; "We're gonna put a tap on your phone for any incoming calls." and then leave. Then JR would go and dump the body. However, the cops kept hanging around long after they expected so finding the body was a quick change decision. JMO

Thought provoking points Steely.

Personally, I think think the plan was to get the body out of the house 'and hence' make the abduction/kidnapping scenario plausible. I therefore think having the body in the house when the cops were called wasn't part of the plan by the culprit -- meaning Patsy wasn't the one who did this since she was the one who called 911.

I think there was some movement of the body by John -- and notice it was him involved in that aspect (suspicious?) because originally I think the body was hidden and then eventually moved to the room it was ultimately found.

I don't agree about the call scenario: I think anyone calling the cops would expect them to come to the house due to the seriousness of the call by Patsy. I just find it really hard to imagine how/why Patsy would call the cops if she was part of all this -- thus going against everything in the ransom note. The note bought them time. They had a full day to sort this stuff out.

The only way it would make sense to me is if Patsy was solely responsible and I have seriously considered this too. That would perhaps explain why she was in the same clothes -- she COULDN'T go back to bed due to time/fear of waking John. She called her friends over to give her a legit distraction from John etc. But I just don't buy this scenario.

I also think the note was written by John but that's a whole 'nother topic.

But yeah, your points are thought provoking. I'll give them some more thought because I've not resolved everything in my mind about the movements in the basement that morning.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I don't know if I believe the Ramseys staged the scene so they wouldn't get arrested. I always see cases where it is so obvious someone committed the crime, and they don't get arrested because they have money or influence. It's just swept under the rug. So I don't buy that if LE showed up, and there was JonBenet with a head wound, they would automatically arrest these two wealthy people. Even if they found the sexual assault evidence, John would still have his high-powered lawyers, his connections, etc.

So I think the staging was done for people who knew them or knew of them; friends, family members, neighbors, co-workers, etc. If these people hear that JonBenet is dead of a head wound, well they are going to know that the Ramseys definitely killed their daughter, and got away with it. By staging it to look like an intruder, the R's have a scenario that doesn't put them as the ones who killed their daughter.

This also relates to my new theory on the CNN interview. I am starting to think that maybe the point of the interview was to just communicate to people who knew the family or knew of them, in Boulder, Charlevoix, Atlanta, West Virginia, etc. Maybe it was suppose to be just a one-time thing, just tell those people that JonBenet was killed by an intruder (so they don't think she was killed by a family member) and they never thought complete strangers would take an interest?

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
ITA. Patsy said she never knew about the size-12's. From memory she said she first read about them in the National Enquirer or on the day of the interview?

If Patsy had put those size-12's on JonBenet and her explanation for this was JonBenet dressed herself. Then Patsy must know in advance to put the remaining size-12's into her underwear drawer?

The blatant lying suggests she knew nothing about the size-12's and is covering for another R, any guesses as to who?


.

BBM. I think she was covering for herself but one or more other people may have been involved peripherally if not directly. Since John and Burke are the only other two known humans in the house that narrows down the possibilities. I'm still not satisfied that perhaps an unknown person may have been visiting that night.

 

[BOESP]

Thank you. I realize the touch DNA is useless without a match, but I still understand why it raises suspicion, especially with the cops clearing them publicly. That was misleading and odd.

It was the DA, Mary Keenan Lacy, who publicly cleared them, not the cops, although technically I guess she is (cough,cough) considered law enforcement. Imo, she acted more like the fullback for Team Ramsey.

 

[BOESP]

<snip>If all the voices are on the tape, all it shows is that there are other voices present other than the main voice -- Patsy. It doesn't prove anything unless specific phrases are uttered which prove collusion like Burke saying "Mother, what will I do now since I did this mess -- <snip>

BBM. It does prove that at least two and probably all three Ramseys lied:

1. John said he checked on Burke and he was asleep and they wanted him to stay asleep.
2. Patsy concurred that Burke was asleep.
3. Burke said he stayed in bed and pretended to be asleep.

So unless it was some other child whose voice was heard at least two of them lied. If it was Burke, all three lied.

My question is why should any of them want to lie about such a simple thing as Burke being not only awake but up and talking.

 

[gramcracker]

So, was the body there when the friend looked or did John put it there while he disappeared for awhile? Was the plan to make the SFF look like she was kidnapped and then dump the body somewhere? If it was, the cops sticking around may not have been factored into the whole thing. Also, JR probably didn't know his friend had already opened the door to that room previously.

per a line of questioning (in the '97 interview IIRC) JR was surprised to learn that FW had been in the basement by himself earlier: "I didn't know that." can't remember if they told him FW opened the door and didn't see JB/the blanket

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

BBM. It does prove that at least two and probably all three Ramseys lied:

1. John said he checked on Burke and he was asleep and they wanted him to stay asleep.
2. Patsy concurred that Burke was asleep.
3. Burke said he stayed in bed and pretended to be asleep.

So unless it was some other child whose voice was heard at least two of them lied. If it was Burke, all three lied.

My question is why should any of them want to lie about such a simple thing as Burke being not only awake but up and talking.

But the Ramseys eventually admitted Burke was awake in the morning.

There's a very obvious reason why they may have lied -- they loved Burke, knew he was innocent and didn't want him interrogated. Something I can imagine lots of parents doing. He was only a 9 year old boy. It was easier to pretend he was asleep rather than awake.

Of course, they could have lied because of something more sinister (some postulate it's related to his involvement) but it could actually be innocent too.

But the point was that voices on the tapes =collusion. And the truth is that it simply does not. Voices on a tape = voices on a tape until PROVEN otherwise.

 

[Steely Dan]

It was the DA, Mary Keenan Lacy, who publicly cleared them, not the cops, although technically I guess she is (cough,cough) considered law enforcement. Imo, she acted more like the fullback for Team Ramsey.

I just got to the part where James Kolar says he gave the powerpoint presentation to Lacy and she told him she didn't want to risk her relationship with the Ramsey's. When Patsy died she went to the funeral in Atlanta. That is extremely unprofessional behavior. JMO, but I think Smit was not very bright. Also, JK says that Smit told him it only took him a week of looking at evidence to come to his conclusion, while it took JK about six months to get enough evidence to start forming an idea of who may have been involved. I wonder what would have happened if Smit hadn't been hired.

BBM. It does prove that at least two and probably all three Ramseys lied:

1. John said he checked on Burke and he was asleep and they wanted him to stay asleep.
2. Patsy concurred that Burke was asleep.
3. Burke said he stayed in bed and pretended to be asleep.

So unless it was some other child whose voice was heard at least two of them lied. If it was Burke, all three lied.

My question is why should any of them want to lie about such a simple thing as Burke being not only awake but up and talking.

BBM

A nine year old kid is going to be tripped up by police very easily by the simplest questions. JMO