JBR, PR and UMI

For all intents and purposes, JB was DEAD after the head blow. She would not have felt anymore pain or had anymore reactions to outside stimulus. I know this from personal experience. Doctors had to show me this in order for me to believe that my dad had already left his body. This so that I would turn off the machinery keeping him alive. The Ramseys were intelligent people. They knew she was already GONE. Whether or not the ligature was for staging or to finish her off (sorry), I do not believe Patsy did it. This was JR's contribution to lead investigators down the wrong road.

Patsy didn't know that. In fact, doctors had to show you. Patsy didn't necessarily know she was gone, either.

Patsy knelt down next to her baby, turned over her body and attached the garrote, tying it in the back of her neck. with Joni's body facing down, mom carefully twisted the life out of her, perhaps leaning on her body, perhaps caressing her hair as she murdered her. Maybe she whispered in her ear something like, "It is okay sweetie pie, this won't take long. I pray you can't feel anything. Soon it will be all over. I love you darling. I wish to god this hadn't happened. I don't want you to die. Believe me, precious angel, I wish I didn't have to kill you." Perhaps she turned her head a bit to see if she was grimacing. "Oh, thank God, she doesn't seem to be suffering." And so she re-grips the handle, twists it some more and listens carefully with her ear on JonBenet's little back for sounds of a heartbeat, or to detect any up or down movement of her body indicating that she was still breathing. "Oh damn! Joni, die baby, die. I can't bear this." and she pauses to check again for signs of life. She strokes her hair and weeps over this scene. "It is okay, honey. Don't worry. This will all be over in a minute or two. Let me just tighten this cord. That's it. Just relax. Someday soon I'll see you in heaven." Once again, she pauses. She detects a faint heartbeat and very soft breathing. "Oh my love, die, please, die!" She tightens the material with another one half inch turn and holds it like that, begging god to let it end. Finally, with the side of her head and her ear pushing into her back, she can hear nothing. No sign of life at all. Silence.

Is that better?
 
Wouldn't it be nice if the wooden paintbrush handle of the garrote had been tested for DNA (skin cells, prints, etc.) . Because I don't see that it ever was. Now if THAT yielded the "rogue male DNA" then I'd consider my fence-sitting skills (though it might not convince me that the Rs weren't there).
But THEN I'd say that the male DNA was the killer's. Or ONE of the killers.
 
"Her parents were not homicidal maniacs after all..."


What type of homicidal parents were they?
 
Wouldn't it be nice if the wooden paintbrush handle of the garrote had been tested for DNA (skin cells, prints, etc.) . Because I don't see that it ever was. Now if THAT yielded the "rogue male DNA" then I'd consider my fence-sitting skills (though it might not convince me that the Rs weren't there).
But THEN I'd say that the male DNA was the killer's. Or ONE of the killers.

Right, DeeDee. The problem being that he must have used his bare hands when handling her clothes but put gloves on to handle the paint brush. As a matter of fact, he would have had to have been wearing gloves the whole time he was in the house as he left absolutely NO evidence anywhere (sorry, except on JB's clothes). In my opinion this makes him either very brilliant or incredibly stupid. To leave dna in the one place that anybody would know it would be found. Why did he do this? I am sincerely asking that. He was so meticulous about not leaving evidence, but screwed up so royally. This defies logic.
 
"I can go with it on a seemingly lifeless (but them not knowing she was alive) JB."

What do you think, did she check to see if she was alive before or only after she tightened the garrote? Or, maybe she didn't check at all?

Do you think she decided to leave her there, tied up, appearing to be strangled, for 12 hours, hoping if in fact she wasn't dead, she would die before someone discovered her?

Did she run any possible risks if she left her in the basement alive, before going back to bed? Perhaps as Patsy was trying to fall asleep, she returned to the basement to end it. Say, she couldn't stop ruminating over all the possible dreaded scenarios she might encounter, and that was keeping her awake. BTW, she was beat and really needed some ZZZZs. She figured she would be better off if she killed her; that way she was confident she would avoid jail. Besides, she couldn't let her talk. If she wasn't already dead, she had to kill her. There was simply no other way. The broken skull alone, without more signs she was attacked by an intruder, might lead investigators to become suspicious. Her path, her mission are getting clearer to her now. So, although she seemed dead, she had to be sure. And, she had to see if killing her would be painful, too, so she made sure she was dead first. Ahh, but she wasn't! Damn!

Not being a medical expert, she nevertheless felt competent enough in her skills to conclude or at least expect Joni was brain dead and wouldn't feel a thing. It all made perfect sense. To make sure it didn't look like she was involved in killing her, she killed her! How ingenious, she thought!! She wasn't some type of monster, either; besides avoiding jail, and getting some sleep, she wasn't going to leave her down there alive. That would be cruel.
 
Wouldn't it be nice if the wooden paintbrush handle of the garrote had been tested for DNA (skin cells, prints, etc.) . Because I don't see that it ever was. Now if THAT yielded the "rogue male DNA" then I'd consider my fence-sitting skills (though it might not convince me that the Rs weren't there).
But THEN I'd say that the male DNA was the killer's. Or ONE of the killers.

Check it now!
 
Q. Were you ever told by anyone that

22 the reason the Ramsey lawyers were allowed to

23 see the garrote and to see the firsthand

24 original of the ransom note is because both

25 items were getting ready to be tested in a

1 fashion that would be destructive
and that

2 from a strategical standpoint somewhere down

3 the road it might be advantageous for the

4 defense lawyers not to be able to claim foul

5 by saying that they didn't have a chance to

6 observe these pieces of evidence before they

7 were destroyed? Did you ever hear that

8 explanation given as to why the Ramsey

9 lawyers were allowed to look at those two

10 items?


http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm
 
Q. But you had no evidence to support

8 that statement about the turtleneck being wet,

9 true?

10 A. No, I don't know that it was

11 urine stained.

12 Q. Or wet?

13 A. Or wet.
 
Q. Did you all to your knowledge, did

20 the Boulder Police Department conduct any test

21 that would establish that the duct tape that

22 was pulled off of her mouth by John Ramsey

23 that was then picked up by Fleet White was

24 found somehow to contain a perfect set of

25 JonBenet's lip prints, was any test performed

359

1 that made that finding?

2 A. There was an examination apparently

3 done at some point which was reported back to

4 a detective briefing at which I was present

5 and I believe that was Wickman or Trujillo

6 that shared that information.

7 Q. Who conducted that examination?

8 A. I don't know.

9 Q. Was it an expert of some type?

10 A. I don't know that there is such a

11 thing as an expert examination and there is

12 no testing that I'm aware of. I think

13 that's more common sense observation.

14 Q. Did you ever find the roll of

15 duct tape because the duct tape was torn on

16 both ends, wasn't it?

17 A. We never found the roll of duct

18 tape to source to the duct tape that was

19 covering the victim's mouth.
 
Q. Did you all to your knowledge, did

20 the Boulder Police Department conduct any test

21 that would establish that the duct tape that

22 was pulled off of her mouth by John Ramsey

23 that was then picked up by Fleet White was

24 found somehow to contain a perfect set of

25 JonBenet's lip prints, was any test performed

359

1 that made that finding?

2 A. There was an examination apparently

3 done at some point which was reported back to

4 a detective briefing at which I was present

5 and I believe that was Wickman or Trujillo

6 that shared that information.

7 Q. Who conducted that examination?

8 A. I don't know.

9 Q. Was it an expert of some type?

10 A. I don't know that there is such a

11 thing as an expert examination and there is

12 no testing that I'm aware of. I think

13 that's more common sense observation.

14 Q. Did you ever find the roll of

15 duct tape because the duct tape was torn on

16 both ends, wasn't it?

17 A. We never found the roll of duct

18 tape to source to the duct tape that was

19 covering the victim's mouth.



regarding defense lawyers reviewing evidence before destructive testing
WOOD 15 Q. Doesn't that make good sense

16 though, just listening to it?

THOMAS 17 A. Well, I am familiar as a police

18 officer that in Colorado if destructive

19 testing is employed, the defense has a right

20 to be present.
 
6 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Burden of Proof

7 4/17/2000, Greta Van Sustren said to Alex

8 Hunter, In the Ramsey book Patsy and John

9 Ramsey write that John has been excluded from

10 being the author of the note and that Patsy

11 on a one to five scale, five meaning

12 excluded, hit 4.5. Do you endorse those two

13 findings?

14 Hunter: Well, I think that's

15 close,
 
Yep the great detective launched his bed-wetting theory and it's not even sure whether the sheets were tested or not and what the conclusions were...It' s in his depo somewhere...makes you wanna scream and bang your head till you drop DEAD.
 
http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Mr. Thomas, were

22 the sheets on JonBenet's bed collected on the

23 26th of December for forensic testing?

24 A. I was told they were.

25 Q. And what tests were performed on

273

1 them?

2 A. I don't know. Detective Trujillo

3 had that assignment.

4 Q. Was there any test that you're

5 aware of that indicated the presence of urine

6 on those sheets?

7 A. Detective Trujillo imparted to me

8 that he had learned or believed that there

9 was not a presumptive test for urine

10 according to the CBI.

11 Q. Were they wet?

12 A. When?

13 Q. That morning. Did --

14 A. Unknown.

15 Q. -- you ask? Did you ask any of

16 the officers there, hey, by the way, were the

17 sheets on JonBenet's bed wet? Did you ask

18 that question of anybody?

19 A. I did not.

20 Q. Do you know if anybody else did?

21 A. I don't know.

22 Q. You don't know the answer to

23 whether they were wet or not?

24 A. I have been told that they were

25 urine stained.

274

1 Q. Who told you they were urine

2 stained?

3 A. Detective Trujillo, Detective

4 Wickman.

5 Q. Have you seen the photographs of

6 the sheets?

7 A. It depends on which photographs

8 you're talking about.

9 Q. Of her sheets, of the bed.

10 MR. DIAMOND: Have you seen any.

11 A. Crime scene photographs, yes.

12 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did they say they

13 could smell urine?

14 A. I have been told that CBI says,

15 yes, those sheets which are still in evidence

16 smell urine stained.

17 Q. And did they stain because --

18 well, you don't have kids, but I don't know

19 if you've ever had a bed-wetting accident but

20 when you have children one day you'll

21 probably know this to be true, urine stained

22 sheets, were these stained, have you seen

23 them?

24 A. I have not seen the sheets.

25 Q. I mean, you write -- you have

275

1 written in your book that JonBenet wet the

2 bed. What I want to know is what evidence

3 supports that statement that you are aware of

4 and that you found out about?

5 A. Urine stained sheets, the plastic

6 bed fitting and the diapers halfway out of

7 the cabinet.

8 Q. The diapers had urine on them?

9 A. That's not what I said.

10 Q. Well, I'm -- diaper halfway out of

11 the cabinet shows that the sheets were wet or

12 that she wet the bed?

13 A. No, I think you asked me what led

14 me to believe that she may have wet the bed.

15 Q. Well, I mean it seems to me that

16 the answer is pretty simple. Did you ever

17 go look at the sheets? They were there for

18 your viewing if you wanted to, weren't they?

19 A. No, they were at CBI.

20 Q. You could have picked up the phone

21 and asked somebody at CBI about the test on

22 them, couldn't you?

23 A. No, Detective Trujillo told us.

24 Q. Did you ever see the written

25 report on that finding by CBI?

276

1 A. I don't know that CBI did a

2 report on whether or not the sheets were

3 urine stained.

4 Q. Surely you're not telling me that

5 the CBI's forensic testers performed, the only

6 test was to smell and look at the sheets?

7 A. As I said, I have been told that

8 there is not a presumptive test for urine.

9 Q. How about for the substances that

10 make up or are found in urine?

11 A. I have no training or knowledge of

12 that.

13 Q. How big was the area of the

14 sheets where they were urine stained or wet?

15 A. I don't know.

16 Q. Isn't there something that

17 describes that, a report?

18 A. Urine stained sheets according to

19 Trujillo.

20 Q. Take a look at page 146 of your

21 book, please. Down at the paragraph that

22 starts "John Meyer." Do you follow me?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. "John Meyer, the Boulder County

25 coroner, had barely begun his autopsy findings

277

1 before Lee questioned the urine stains found

2 on the crotch of the long-john pants and the

3 panties beneath them." Have I read that

4 correctly?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. To put this into context, this

7 would have been during the VIP explanation or

8 conference, right?

9 A. No, I don't believe so.

10 Q. I'm sorry, when do you believe

11 this event took place where Meyer was going

12 through the autopsy findings where Henry Lee

13 was present?

14 A. I believe this was in 1997 at the

15 Boulder Police Department.

16 Q. Do you know when in 1997?

17 A. My best guess would be maybe

18 March, February.

19 Q. Reading on. "Were there

20 corresponding stains on the bed sheets? We

21 didn't know, although when the crime became a

22 murder instead of a kidnapping, those sheets

23 should have been promptly collected for

24 testing." Have I read that correctly?

25 A. Yes.

278

1 Q. Well, you didn't know in February,

2 are you telling me that you found out

3 subsequent in time that the sheets were wet?

4 When did you find out,

5 Mr. Thomas --

6 MR. DIAMOND: Go ahead.

7 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Let me -- why

8 don't you just tell me, when did you first

9 find out that the sheets were wet?

10 A. I do not think the sheets were

11 collected promptly. I think it was after the

12 fact. And one of the questions of this

13 investigation was that no one had checked the

14 bed on the morning of the 26th prior to a

15 wet bed possibly drying whether or not the

16 bed was wet. But the sheets nonetheless were

17 collected and described to me as being urine

18 stained and just recently saw something

19 corroborating that when Mr. Smit appeared on

20 the Today Show and there was a comment from

21 the CBI about that.

22 Q. Traces of creatinine were found;

23 is that what you're talking about?

24 A. I don't think that is what they

25 said on the NBC show.

279

1 Q. What did they say?

2 A. I think it said a CBI source said

3 the sheets were or appeared to be urine

4 stained.

5 Q. Let's go back and find out not so

6 much what NBC was talking about. Let's find

7 out what the police knew. Were the sheets

8 collected on December 26th, 1996 or not?

9 A. They were -- I don't know. I

10 wasn't there.

11 Q. What did you find out about it?

12 A. That at some point during the ten

13 days subsequent to December 26, 1996, when

14 the house was a crime scene, those sheets

15 were collected.

16 Q. At such time as they would have,

17 if wet, been dry; is that what you're telling

18 me?

19 A. Possibly.
 
Or, maybe she didn't check at all?

It's my belief that she didn't have a chance to check, not until it was too late, at least.

The broken skull alone, without more signs she was attacked by an intruder, might lead investigators to become suspicious.

Agreed.
 
6 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Burden of Proof

7 4/17/2000, Greta Van Sustren said to Alex

8 Hunter, In the Ramsey book Patsy and John

9 Ramsey write that John has been excluded from

10 being the author of the note and that Patsy

11 on a one to five scale, five meaning

12 excluded, hit 4.5. Do you endorse those two

13 findings?

14 Hunter: Well, I think that's

15 close,

Obviously, you've never read the full exchange from "Burden of Proof," so I'll provide it:

HUNTER: Well, I think that's close, but I think that this is a mumbo jumbo area, and we saw Judge Matsch in the McVeigh case, you know, not allow this handwriting stuff in. And I think it is stuff.

Frankly, if we ever have a trial here, and ransom note were to become a key piece of evidence against anybody, I would want the jury to be able to look at that, and hopefully be able to look at historical writings, and make sort of their own judgments.


I should also point out that ST was on the show three days before, where he revealed that the "1-5" scale was invented by the two experts the Rs had hired. That fits, because there is no "1-5" scale. The only scale recognized by the courts (US v. Thorton) is a nine-point scale:

It reads, from 1 to 9, Identification, Highly probable did write, Probably did write, Indications did write, No conclusion, Indications did not write, Probably did not write, Highly probable did not write, and Elimination

Isn't that interesting?

ETA: I think we went off the track somewhere along the line.
 
Obviously, you've never read the full exchange from "Burden of Proof," so I'll provide it:

HUNTER: Well, I think that's close, but I think that this is a mumbo jumbo area, and we saw Judge Matsch in the McVeigh case, you know, not allow this handwriting stuff in. And I think it is stuff.

Frankly, if we ever have a trial here, and ransom note were to become a key piece of evidence against anybody, I would want the jury to be able to look at that, and hopefully be able to look at historical writings, and make sort of their own judgments.


I should also point out that ST was on the show three days before, where he revealed that the "1-5" scale was invented by the two experts the Rs had hired. That fits, because there is no "1-5" scale. The only scale recognized by the courts (US v. Thorton) is a nine-point scale:

It reads, from 1 to 9, Identification, Highly probable did write, Probably did write, Indications did write, No conclusion, Indications did not write, Probably did not write, Highly probable did not write, and Elimination

Isn't that interesting?

ETA: I think we went off the track somewhere along the line.

Yes but not in a bad way.

I now know - the tape on JBRs mouth wasn't properly tested (so no PR fibers would have been found); the tape was torn not cut with a knife (SWK or any other); RDI use out of context and incomplete sentences uttered by investigators as evidence; some of the most important physical evidence (RN and garotte) was destroyed during earlier testing; the wet bed that RDI use as evidence that PDI, may or may not have ever happened; expert assessment of the RN and that PR was the author wasn't even believed by the investigators.

Yep, I think we've gotten somewhere here.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
4,318
Total visitors
4,493

Forum statistics

Threads
591,839
Messages
17,959,855
Members
228,622
Latest member
crimedeepdives23
Back
Top