Nedra & Patsy's sisters

[BlueCrab]

I think at the very least, Patsy got the paintbrush, staged the garotte scene, and applied the tape to JonBenet's face. Fiber transfer does not adequately explain fibers from her clothing being in places they should not have been, such as on the tape, in the paint tray, and tied and caught in the ligature knot and cord. She never wore those clothes in the basement, and she never painted while wearing them - I just don't see how the fibers from those clothes would end up in those very conspicuous locations if she hadn't been there dressed in that article of clothing while the garotte was made, tied, and tape applied.

Nuisanceposter,

IMO John and Patsy are both engulfed up to their chins in the staging of this crime. Their fibers are in the basement because I think John and Patsy were in the basement hours before they called 911 at 5:52 AM. But neither of them killed JonBenet. There's no evidence against them and they have exculpatory evidence in their favor.

The fibers were microscopic and are the result of secondary transfers. IOW the fibers are floating in the air; they will settle anywhere; and they can only be seen under a microscope. For example, there were hundreds of other microscopic fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape besides the 4 fibers from Patsy's jacket. And microscopic fibers can settle on nylon cord and work their way into the twistings simply by gravity.

However, there are two items of fiber evidence that bother me; and they are: (1) the black fibers from John's shirt found in the crotch area of JonBenet's panties. It could mean several different things, including John still being dressed in the clothes he wore at the White's dinner party as he was engaged in the wee hours of the morning with Patsy in staging the crime to look like a kidnap murder instead of a sex murder; and (2) Patsy also still dressed in the clothes she wore to the party.

BlueCrab

 

[Solace]

Nuisanceposter,

IMO John and Patsy are both engulfed up to their chins in the staging of this crime. Their fibers are in the basement because I think John and Patsy were in the basement hours before they called 911 at 5:52 AM. But neither of them killed JonBenet. There's no evidence against them and they have exculpatory evidence in their favor.

The fibers were microscopic and are the result of secondary transfers. IOW the fibers are floating in the air; they will settle anywhere; and they can only be seen under a microscope. For example, there were hundreds of other microscopic fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape besides the 4 fibers from Patsy's jacket. And microscopic fibers can settle on nylon cord and work their way into the twistings simply by gravity.

However, there are two items of fiber evidence that bother me; and they are: (1) the black fibers from John's shirt found in the crotch area of JonBenet's panties. It could mean several different things, including John still being dressed in the clothes he wore at the White's dinner party as he was engaged in the wee hours of the morning with Patsy in staging the crime to look like a kidnap murder instead of a sex murder; and (2) Patsy also still dressed in the clothes she wore to the party.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

Why are the fibers from John's shirt being in JonBenet's panties important and not the fibers from Patsy's sweater being in the tape or the garrote, which you say could be secondary transfers. So then, why can't the fibers from John's shirt be secondary. They could have gotten on Patsy and she transferred them, if you want to look at it this way.

The fact is Patsy said she was no where near the basement when she wore that sweater and the chances of those fibers flying down to the basement are fairly rare. She was upstairs. I could see if you said the body was found in the kitchen and Patsy had walked around the kitchen with her sweater. But she was found in the basement and the sweater fibers are found under the tape and in the paint tray in the basement. The chances of that happening are not slim to you?

 

[laini]

laini,

Thanks for asking those two questions. I'll answer them both right now.

1. I have several BDI theories, but this doesn't mean he killed JonBenet. It simply means he was somehow INVOLVED in the crime, and that's the basis of the Ramsey coverup. And yes, IMO there was a fifth person in the house that night, and that fifth person could be the killer. The wording in the polygraph questions tip me off that there was definitely a fifth person in the house that night and not even the parents know "for sure" which of the two was the actual killer. By not knowing FOR SURE, John and Patsy were able to pass the polygraph exam without showing deception.

2. The reason given me for not using names or even initials of my suspects on WS is legal in nature. The forum can be sued. Yet, all other posters seem to throw names around with impunity. Therefore, I wonder if there's been some legal intimidation directed at WS because of my posts. And I wonder why me? Have I been getting too close with some of my BDI theories?

BlueCrab

Thank you for answering
Where can the polygraph questions be found? Is it in the Nat. Enquirer book? Or online? TIA.

 

[laini]

I would be surprised since Patsy was listed as a suspect. However, if the moderator said do not say Berke did it, I would understand and if the moderator said do not list that other person you mentioned (hypothetically) because we can be sued for slander. Unless the person has been listed as a suspect, they are NOT fair game. That is just the law, it has nothing to do with going after anyone because of their views. The moderator is just protecting herself. It has nothing to do with you BlueCrab. It is about being sued.[/QUOTE

Okay. I think I understand now. If someone was already named a suspect, I can say on a public forum that I think they did it. BUT, if someone has not been named a suspect by LE, then I would be risking being sued if I say their name as the killer?

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab,

Why are the fibers from John's shirt being in JonBenet's panties important and not the fibers from Patsy's sweater being in the tape or the garrote, which you say could be secondary transfers. So then, why can't the fibers from John's shirt be secondary. They could have gotten on Patsy and she transferred them, if you want to look at it this way.

The fact is Patsy said she was no where near the basement when she wore that sweater and the chances of those fibers flying down to the basement are fairly rare. She was upstairs. I could see if you said the body was found in the kitchen and Patsy had walked around the kitchen with her sweater. But she was found in the basement and the sweater fibers are found under the tape and in the paint tray in the basement. The chances of that happening are not slim to you?

Solace,

IMO both John and Patsy were in the basement prior to the 911 call, regardless of what Patsy says. Nothing the Ramseys say about what took place that morning can be considered credible. They've been caught in too many lies.

The problem is that microscopic fibers from people who live in the house is poor evidence. Only if the fibers are from a person who doesn't have any reason for being in the house does it become important. The fibers are airborne and thus can be anywhere because of the furnace ductwork continually circulating warm air throughout the house and the cold air return bringing it back to the furnace to be recirculated.

What we don't know is how big the fibers are from John's shirt and Patsy's jacket. If the fibers are not microscopic, then the probability of them being direct transfers is greatly increased and more damning.

Therefore, I'm gonna back off the fiber evidence controversy; we don't know enough details.

BlueCrab

 

[Solace]

Solace,

IMO both John and Patsy were in the basement prior to the 911 call, regardless of what Patsy says. Nothing the Ramseys say about what took place that morning can be considered credible. They've been caught in too many lies.

The problem is that microscopic fibers from people who live in the house is poor evidence. Only if the fibers are from a person who doesn't have any reason for being in the house does it become important. The fibers are airborne and thus can be anywhere because of the furnace ductwork continually circulating warm air throughout the house and the cold air return bringing it back to the furnace to be recirculated.

What we don't know is how big the fibers are from John's shirt and Patsy's jacket. If the fibers are not microscopic, then the probability of them being direct transfers is greatly increased and more damning.

Therefore, I'm gonna back off the fiber evidence controversy; we don't know enough details.

BlueCrab

Okay, but then I have another question. What exculpatory evidence for Patsy and John is there?

 

[BlueCrab]

Okay, but then I have another question. What exculpatory evidence for Patsy and John is there?

Solace,

The foreign male DNA evidence tentatively clears John (JonBenet's DNA was mixed with one and perhaps two other males, making a definite conclusion difficult.) and definitely clears Patsy (She's a female.).

The handwriting examinations definitely eliminated John as the writer of the RN and determined it was highly unlikely that Patsy wrote it.

The polygraph examinations cleared John and Patsy as the killers of JonBenet and cleared Patsy as the writer of thr RN.

BlueCrab

 

[Tober]

The foreign male DNA evidence tentatively clears John (JonBenet's DNA was mixed with one and perhaps two other males, making a definite conclusion difficult.) and definitely clears Patsy (She's a female.).

BlueCrab--You're stretching. The Ramsey case DNA can't be used to clear anyone of the crime. The most that can be said is that any individual who isn't a match can be excluded as being the donor of that DNA. That's all.

 

[Credence]

BlueCrab--You're stretching. The Ramsey case DNA can't be used to clear anyone of the crime. The most that can be said is that any individual who isn't a match can be excluded as being the donor of that DNA. That's all.

But if it's male it would clear Patsy.

 

[Tober]

But if it's male it would clear Patsy.

Not of involvement in the crime, only of being the donor of that DNA.

 

[icedtea4me]

The polygraph examinations cleared John and Patsy as the killers of JonBenet and cleared Patsy as the writer of thr RN.

The polygraph examiner asked Patsy "Did you write the ransom note?" She responded "No" and it was determined she was telling the truth. Yet, what if when she wrote it, in her mind, she did not intend it to be taken as a ransom note?


-Tea

 

[BlueCrab]

The polygraph examiner asked Patsy "Did you write the ransom note?" She responded "No" and it was determined she was telling the truth. Yet, what if when she wrote it, in her mind, she did not intend it to be taken as a ransom note?


-Tea

icedtea,

The way polygraph questions are asked, it is hard to avoid showing deception because the questions on a particular subject come from several different directions. For instance, here's what expert examiner Ed Gelb asked Patsy:

1. "Did you write the ransom note that was found in your house?"

2. "Regarding that ransom note, did you write it?"

3. "Is that your handwriting on the ransom note found in your house?"

Patsy did not show deception in any of her answers to the questions.

BlueCrab

 

[Solace]

icedtea,

The way polygraph questions are asked, it is hard to avoid showing deception because the questions on a particular subject come from several different directions. For instance, here's what expert examiner Ed Gelb asked Patsy:

1. "Did you write the ransom note that was found in your house?"

2. "Regarding that ransom note, did you write it?"

3. "Is that your handwriting on the ransom note found in your house?"

Patsy did not show deception in any of her answers to the questions.

BlueCrab

Lets not forget that it took several tries and several different polygraphers to get the result that Patsy wanted. Also, lets not forget that when one polygrapher wanted Patsy to take a drug test, they did not use that polygrapher. And lets not forget that Dr. Gelb's credentials are more than suspect. I have posted his history and where he got his diplomas from before but here goes again.

The Ramsey attorneys first contacted a polygraph examiner named Gene Parker and inquired if he would be interested in performing the polygraph test on John and Patsy. Parker said he would be interested in performing the tests, but mentioned that because of the seriousness of the crime, he would require both Ramseys take a drug test. Parker said the urine drug tests could be performed right on his premises by a doctor or nurse just before the tests began. The Ramsey attorney told Parker they would get back to him at a later date, and they did call him back about three hours later. In that second call, Parker was informed they were not interested in his conducting the tests because they had found another polygraph examiner they planned on using who did not require drug testing. Looks like Lin Wood forgot his own words on the Larry King Live show:

Gelb's involvement in the Ramsey case has brought out some very interesting information about the man. . Supposedly Gelb's resume states that he received his doctorate degree from LaSalle University in Louisiana. That would be a real problem, because LaSalle was found to be nothing but a mail-order diploma mill. LaSalle's office was investigated and raided by the FBI, and Thomas Kirk, LaSalle's owner and founder, was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to five years in federal prison. Kirk earned millions of dollars from people looking to obtain fraudulent college degrees at a discount rate with little or no actual course work required.
Calls to Gelb's office by people trying to verify his education were not returned, and one internet sleuth even went as far as to check the master registry of Ph.D. dissertations and could find no information on a doctorate thesis authored by Edward Gelb.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

The foreign male DNA evidence tentatively clears John (JonBenet's DNA was mixed with one and perhaps two other males, making a definite conclusion difficult.) and definitely clears Patsy (She's a female.).This time read what I have posted below. It is ridiculous for you to keep posting this as a defense of Patsy.

The handwriting examinations definitely eliminated John as the writer of the RN and determined it was highly unlikely that Patsy wrote it. By the ones you choose to believe.

The polygraph examinations cleared John and Patsy as the killers of JonBenet and cleared Patsy as the writer of thr RN. I am not surprised that the Ramseys would finally find someone like Dr. Gelb, like attracts like.

BlueCrab

You are joking, right??


We have been over the DNA forever and if you are going to bring that up, then my faith in your knowledge of this case has dimmed considerably. WE ALL KNOW that the DNA is older and was not put there the night of the crime. It was most likely from a packager as forensic Dr. Lee said and he proved that there was DNA in the packaging of similar underwear when he went and bought a package and performed DNA tests and found DNA. Come on BlueCrab, sell that to someone who does not know.


Handwriting: Here you go:

There are six experts who believe that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note, among them experts, Gideon Epstein and Cina Wong, who said they were "100 percent certain" Mrs. Ramsey wrote the ransom note.Among six experts who believe Patsy Ramsey wrote the note are experts Gideon Epstein and Cina Wong, who said they were "100 percent certain" Mrs. Ramsey wrote the ransom note


DNA: Once again:

"…It is the current understanding of the family that the investigation team considers this male DNA sample to be the key piece of evidence and was, without a doubt, left behind by the killer of their child."

The very same scientist who conducted the DNA testing in the Denver Police Department’s DNA lab contradicts the above statement.

Rocky Mountain News, May 18, 2004, Charlie Brennan
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...2893675,00.html
text version backup

A claim by John Ramsey's campaign that investigators have the DNA of his daughter's killer goes too far, according to the forensic scientist who developed the genetic profile from that sample.

"That's one of the possibilities, but that's not the only possibility," said the scientist, who asked that his name not be used. It's impossible to say whether the DNA belonged to an adult or a child, according to the scientist.

"You have DNA that's male, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the killer's," the scientist said. "It could be innocent. It could be from the (undergarment's) manufacturer. It could be a lot of things. Of course it's important. But it's not more important than the rest of the investigation."

"It is only a sample," he said. "You need a match, and that will help you get a name. And then that gives you somebody to talk to. But that person might be alibied-out, or there might be some other explanation for why it's there."


Without knowing if a sample was left by blood, saliva, or some other material, it could be "unknown cellular material sloughed off by somebody's hand," the source said. "You're in an area that is very gray, and it can be very confusing, as to the interpretive value of it."

BLUECRAB: I thought you were going to give me some exculpatory evidence, not the same thing that the Ramseys have been spouting for years. It has been listened to ad nauseum and some of it such as the DNA is a downright lie.


Also: The Infamous Dr. Gelb:


The Ramsey attorneys first contacted a polygraph examiner named Gene Parker and inquired if he would be interested in performing the polygraph test on John and Patsy. Parker said he would be interested in performing the tests, but mentioned that because of the seriousness of the crime, he would require both Ramseys take a drug test. Parker said the urine drug tests could be performed right on his premises by a doctor or nurse just before the tests began. The Ramsey attorney told Parker they would get back to him at a later date, and they did call him back about three hours later. In that second call, Parker was informed they were not interested in his conducting the tests because they had found another polygraph examiner they planned on using who did not require drug testing. Looks like Lin Wood forgot his own words on the Larry King Live show:

Gelb's involvement in the Ramsey case has brought out some very interesting information about the man. . Supposedly Gelb's resume states that he received his doctorate degree from LaSalle University in Louisiana. That would be a real problem, because LaSalle was found to be nothing but a mail-order diploma mill. LaSalle's office was investigated and raided by the FBI, and Thomas Kirk, LaSalle's owner and founder, was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to five years in federal prison. Kirk earned millions of dollars from people looking to obtain fraudulent college degrees at a discount rate with little or no actual course work required.

Calls to Gelb's office by people trying to verify his education were not returned, and one internet sleuth even went as far as to check the master registry of Ph.D. dissertations and could find no information on a doctorate thesis authored by Edward Gelb.

 

[Solace]

But if it's male it would clear Patsy.

Credence: No it would not clear Patsy. As Dr. Lee pointed out and proved, the DNA could be left by a packager in Taiwan. It is older and Dr. Lee bought a package of underwear and tested it and found OLD DNA TO BE IN THE UNDERWEAR.

BlueCrab knows this OR SHOULD KNOW IT by now. This is basic stuff that has been around for some time and it has been exploited by the Team Ramsey for their benefit. Another fact which just makes me believe all the more that the Ramseys had something to do with this murder. I posted an article about the DNA above. It is interesting right from the scientists mouth regarding the DNA.

BlueCrab, If you are going to argue this point, then lets do it fairly. I think you already know this about the DNA and to put out false information to someone who does not know, such as Credence, is just unfair to Credence and does not do your argument justice at all. THE DNA EXCLUDES NO ONE.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea,

The way polygraph questions are asked, it is hard to avoid showing deception because the questions on a particular subject come from several different directions. For instance, here's what expert examiner Ed Gelb asked Patsy:

1. "Did you write the ransom note that was found in your house?"

2. "Regarding that ransom note, did you write it?"

3. "Is that your handwriting on the ransom note found in your house?"

Patsy did not show deception in any of her answers to the questions.

BlueCrab

But it is being labeled as a ransom note. What if Patsy did not intend it to be a ransom note? What if the true intent of the note was that of something else?


-Tea

 

[BlueCrab]

But it is being labeled as a ransom note. What if Patsy did not intend it to be a ransom note? What if the true intent of the note was that of something else?


-Tea

iced tea,

I honestly can't see how the RN, whether real or fake, can be perceived to be anything other than a RN.

BlueCrab

 

[JMO8778]

BC,the so-called 'ransom note' was nothing more than an excuse for having a dead body in the house,to divert attention away from family members and to put the blame on someone outside the home.It was written after the murder to deflect attention away from themselves.

It goes like this,as one begats the other:

ransom note <-----> dead body in house

So you can bounce between the 2 all day long,and you still come up with the same thing..one leads to the other,nothing more.

 

[JMO8778]

I honestly can't see how the RN, whether real or fake, can be perceived to be anything other than a RN.

BlueCrab

if it's fake,then it isn't a real ransom note.

 

[Solace]

if it's fake,then it isn't a real ransom note.

Marvelous point JMO, marvelous. And quite important too.