Separating FACT from fiction - Discussion

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by sissi, Feb 23, 2006.

  1. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Statements of Material Facts:

    Dark animal hairs were also found on JonBenet's hands that have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF 184)

    fibers consistent with those of the cord used to make the slip knots and garrote were found on JonBenet's bed. (SMF 168)

    Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes and none of their shoes match the shoeprint marks. (SMF 153; PSMF 153.) Likewise, another similar partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF 155; PSMF 155. ) The owner of the "HI-TEC" shoe that made the footprints at the murder scene has never been identified. (SMF 154, 155; PSMF 154, 155. ) In addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a palmprint that does not match either of defendants' palmprints. (SMF 156; PSMF 156.) The individual to whom it belongs has never been identified. (SMF 156; PSMF 156.)
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Voice of Reason

    Voice of Reason New Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The aforementioned palmprint has since been identified as that of Melinda Ramsey, but she has been officially cleared as a suspect in the case. This was told to numerous media outlets by investigators and first reported by Charlie Brennan in August of 2002.
     
  4. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is NOT a fact, the FACT is in 2003 the palm print was NOT identified. One was , but ONE was NOT!
    To believe that a member of the household left a print that was not identified over a period of 7 yrs, IMO would be incredible.

    The source of this misinformation was released a year before the Carnes decision by "Charlie Brennan". 2002


    Hand, boot prints determined to be innocent occurrences
    By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
    August 23, 2002

    BOULDER - Investigators have answered two vexing questions in the
    JonBenet Ramsey case that have long helped support the theory that an
    intruder killed her, according to sources close to the case.

    The answers, which have been known to investigators for some time but
    never publicly revealed, could be seen to weaken the intruder theory.

    The two clues are:

    • A mysterious Hi-Tec boot print in the mold on the floor of the Ramseys'
    wine cellar near JonBenet's body has been linked by investigators to
    Burke, her brother, who was 9 at the time. It is believed to have been
    left there under circumstances unrelated to JonBenet's murder.

    Burke, now 15, has repeatedly been cleared by authorities of any
    suspicion in the 1996 Christmas night slaying, and that has not changed.

    • A palm print on the door leading to that same wine cellar, long
    unidentified, is that of Melinda Ramsey, JonBenet's adult half-sister. She
    was in Georgia at the time of the murder.

    "They
     
  5. Voice of Reason

    Voice of Reason New Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have edited my above post to reflect the proper timing of the release of that information. I don't follow your statement regarding one print id'ed, one unknown. Are you saying there were two palm prints on the doorknob?

    I am adding additional information, because I think Judge Carnes' ruling is not a good place to get undisputed facts, as she did not have all facts in front of her. Many facts put forth by the Ramseys simply could not be disputed by Chris Wolf as he didn't have access to any source of proof to dispute them. Therefore, many statements were accepted as facts for lack of rebuttals by Wolf. Here is more info...

    From Charlie Brennan's article...

    “A palm print on the door leading to that same wine cellar, long unidentified, is that of Melinda Ramsey, JonBenet's adult half-sister. She was in Georgia at the time of the murder.”…

    and:

    “…L. Lin Wood, the attorney representing the Ramseys, who now live in Atlanta, doesn't debate the palm print findings…”

    Why wouldn't Lin Wood dispute this if it wasn't true???

    Patsy Ramsey's 2000 interview:

    14 Q. Do you recall a period of time,
    15 prior to 1996, when your son Burke purchased
    16 a pair of hiking boots that had compasses on
    17 the shoelaces? And if it helps to
    18 remember --
    19 A. I can't remember.
    20 Q. Maybe this will help your
    21 recollection. They were shoes that were
    22 purchased while he was shopping with you in
    23 Atlanta.
    24 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
    25 as a fact?
    0123
    1 MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as
    2 a fact.

    ...

    4 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Okay. Does it
    5 jog your memory to know that the shoes with
    6 compasses were made by Hi-Tec?
    7 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
    8 as a fact?
    9 MR. LEVIN: Yes. I am stating
    10 that as a fact.
    11 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't know
    12 that.
    13 Q. (By Mr. Levin) I will state this
    14 as a fact. There are two people who have
    15 provided us with information, including your
    16 son, that he owned Hi-Tec shoes prior to the
    17 murder of your daughter.
    18 MR. WOOD: You are stating that
    19 Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec
    20 shoes?
    21 MR. LEVIN: Yes.
    22 MR. WOOD: He used the phrase
    23 Hi-Tec?
    24 MR. LEVIN: Yes.
    25 MR. WOOD: When?
    0125
    1 MR. LEVIN: I can't, I can't give
    2 you the source. I can tell you that I have
    3 that information.{/B]
    4 MR. WOOD: You said Burke told
    5 you.
    6 MR. LEVIN: I can't quote it to
    7 you for reasons I am sure, as an attorney,
    8 you are aware.
    9 MR. WOOD: Just so it is clear,
    10 there is a difference between you saying that
    11 somebody said Burke told them and Burke
    12 telling you because Burke has been
    13 interviewed by you all December of 1996,
    14 January of 1997, June of 1998.
    15 Are you saying that it is within
    16 those interviews?
    17 MR. LEVIN: No.
    18 MR. WOOD: So he didn't tell you,
    19 he told somebody else you are stating as a
    20 fact because I don't think you all have
    21 talked to him other than those occasions,
    22 have you?
    23 MR. KANE: Mr. Wood, we don't
    24 want to get into grand jury information.
    25 Okay?
    0126
    1 MR. WOOD: Okay.
     
  6. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting in that one court is labeling items "statements of material facts", and another court forum is saying, "is that a fact"...Yes ,it's a fact..
    I suppose we can choose what to believe.

    I do know, the BPD was questioning adults, including members of their own force , trying to determine if an adult could have worn these shoes into the house. I do know , having been involved in more than one depo myself, that leading questions do not have to have substance in truth. example.."Burke you owned compass shoes..would you say they were pretty hi tech" , answer, "yep, I guess they were hi-tech", "well don't guess, were they hi-tech or not"..yep they were hi-tec" Does anyone believe a child, in 1995, making him eight yrs old that summer, knew the "brand name" of his shoes? If they were, do we believe the little size matched the print? An average 8 yr old would wear a size between 3-4, Burke is not a large child.
    I believe words are put into our mouths, at least that has been my experience. Perhaps Boulder is above this? Ex. again, "would you say she was wrapped" ..yes.."papoose style", "yes papoose "...later those words would become JR's..become his own description.


    From..http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...n+questions&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&ie=UTF-8
    Trick questions. Object to trick questions that assume facts not in evidence, contain false implications, and half-truths, or are putting words in the witness's mouth that you know are not true.

    "assumed facts that are not in evidence" this is key
     
  7. Voice of Reason

    Voice of Reason New Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    FACT: Nobody put the words "papoose" in John Ramsey's mouth.

    MIKE KANE: All right. Okay. Now, when you
    9 went inside to that room, you described the
    10 blanket. And you said it was folded like -- I'm
    11 just trying to get a mental picture of it. Was it
    12 like --
    13 JOHN RAMSEY: It was like an Indian papoose.

    As to "Statement of Material Facts," that is a legal term. It does not mean "undisputed, 100% established facts." Again, as I noted earlier, Judge Carnes did not have everything in front of her, nor did Chris Wolf. Therefore, if the Ramseys said something was a fact, and Chris had nothing to rebut it with, Judge Carnes called it a fact.
     
  8. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you read each of his interviews you will find it "became his word", it was offered by the interviewer. His first interview went like this.

    JR: She was laying on the blanket, and the blanket was kind of folded around her legs. And her arms were tied behind her head, and there was some pieces of black tape (inaudible) on her legs, and her head was cocked to the side.

    Papoose was offered by one of the interviewers between this one and the one you quoted.

    within this is something interesting...PIECES OF BLACK TAPE ON HER LEGS??

    I will concede to this, depending on where we read, there is sometimes information missing a word,or an edited comment..here and there that throw us all off.
     
  9. Voice of Reason

    Voice of Reason New Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In reading the interviews, I see John as the first person to ever use the word "papoose." If I am incorrect, please post the portion of the interview which shows otherwise. As this is a thread for facts (and not debate), I'll gladly remove/edit my post to conform with undisputed facts.
     
  10. lawman

    lawman New Member

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    hello all,

    does anybody know the true events about this call .
    was it ever established who made the call ?
     
  11. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I suppose the conclusion by most is that it was Fleet. No one spoke up and disputed this info, no one from the party, not the police, not the Ramseys, and not Fleet.
     
  12. lawman

    lawman New Member

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thanks sissi,

    was it thought that he accidentally dialled 911 ?
     
  13. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The way the story goes, (I think),was that his mom was sick, (however I thought she was in Vail) and he had to make an international 011 call. I disputed this early, because I was under the, evidently mistaken ,impression that you had to dial a one first, because the dialing of a 0 would automatically send you to an operator. Given a misdial I would "think" the 911 operator would have picked up the additional dialing of numbers. Or maybe he just thought he was in bolivia...dunno
     
  14. lawman

    lawman New Member

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thanks sissi,
    i always wondered about that call, that seems to clear it up.
    back to square one as always.
     
  15. JBRMod2

    JBRMod2 Registered User

    Messages:
    560
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have removed the above posts from the "Separating Facts from Fiction" thread as we want to keep that thread limited to simple statements of facts and non-facts.

    Sissi and VoiceOfReason - please feel free to re-post your points on the original thread without the discussion and please remember not to state opinions as facts.
     
  16. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sissi - it has not been proved that the ramseys never owned Hi Tecs - in fact, the opposite has been claimed by those who know them. Ramsey claims are not facts. The Hi-tec belonging to the killer is a non-FACT. The Hi-tec belonging to Burke is a non-FACT. I would say the Hi-Tec is a non-clue!
     
  17. aussiesheila

    aussiesheila Inactive

    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just know you are all going to love this

    Possible explanation: DP comes up to his granddaughter's bedroom, rouses her, begins a 'game' with her - drawing a red heart on her right palm, tying a loop around the wrist, telling her all the while that Santa is downstairs and he had a lovely surprise for her.

    Possible explanation: Santa is downstairs in the basement with a lovely soft ?brown baby ?rabbit for JonBenet to pet before the serious stuff begins.
     
  18. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I now see how the confusion exists, I have read TT Papoose, and on here it conveniently says...INAUDIBLE..

    TT: When you saw the white blanket, was JonBenet completely covered up? How was she laying there, cause I wasn’t there that day.

    JR: She was laying on the blanket, and the blanket was kind of folded around her legs. And her arms were tied behind her head, and there was some pieces of black tape (inaudible) on her legs, and her head was cocked to the side.

    TT: (Inaudible)

    JR: I’m all right.

    TT: I know this is (inaudible) after you found JonBenet, and (inaudible) if you would, where was Fleet at when that happened?

    JR: I don’t remember. We never, I was, I was, Fleet was behind me, but I don’t remember him going from that point to when I brought her upstairs. He might have been right behind me, I just was so . . .

    TT: Can, could you tell me step-by-step when you found her, tell me how you picked her up and tell me (inaudible).

    JR: Right. I found her and I, the first hope of course is that she’s OK. I took the tape off her lips, and her lips were blue. And I tried to untie her hands and her arms. She was stiff, and so I was afraid that she was gone, and so I just picked her up, and screams, and the I went upstairs and laid her down on the floor and I heard Suzanne, she said she’s dead.

    TT: OK. Tell me, you talked about you picked her up. Again, I have to use for the tape more than anything.

    JR: I picked her up, you know, under her arms.

    TT: So, she’s up and down.

    JR: Uh-huh.

    TT: OK. You carry her upstairs that way?

    JR: Right.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice