The REAL target?

[Toth]

> All I can think of is "we lost our cell phones for a mo. HENCE
>there are no records of phone calls that night.
Whether they lost the cell phone or not, the phone company records would be the same. There were no calls made from or to that cell phone that month.

>Never saw THAT teddy bear,faint, Faint.
It was in the bag of prizes every contestant received, Patsy simply did not recall ever having seen it before and may not have. It certainly looked a bit shabby and out of place. It was therefore proper for her to call it to the attention of the investigators.

>Get my Golf clubs out of that house next day
No gold clubs were removed from the house or attempted to be removed from the house.
>Get out of town the day of finding her body
You mean to go home to Atlanta? For the funeral?

>,don't care who Burke is with or how long he is unprotected,
you mean with Fleet White, with the police and with CPS. They should have been worried then?

 

[Britt]

Originally posted by Toth
lannie: Get out of town the day of finding her body

Toth: You mean to go home to Atlanta? For the funeral?

Was the funeral on December 26?

That must be it. John's attempted flight a half hour after bringing the body up from the basement was because he didn't want to be late to the funeral.

 

[Imon128]

Sounds as if John might have been mulling over the funeral arrangements quite awhile before the discovery of the body? The decision as to where to bury JB, etc., were made without any conversation that we know about, between John and Patsy.

Patsy most likely was doing her Lazarus routine while John dialed the pilot. I don't know of any written conversation about John and Patsy discussing the funeral arrangements. Sometimes it's what's NOT said that makes us ponder.

 

[MsBee]

IQuote Imon: I don't know of any written conversation about John and Patsy discussing the funeral arrangements. Sometimes it's what's NOT said that makes us ponder.

So then because YOU don't have information as to what the grieving parents said to each other you condemn them as killers? That makes me ponder. Why would you consider anyone is privvy to their private conversations?

 

[Maxi]

Aunt Pam talked a little about the preparation for the funeral on LKL. I remember her saying something about the m.e. cutting JBR's fingernails so terribly short that they couldn't do a proper manicure.

I think John's part in the funeral arrangements was probably quite different from Patsy's. There may not have been any need for them to discuss the arrangements.

 

[gretchen]

Originally posted by Maxi
Aunt Pam talked a little about the preparation for the funeral on LKL. I remember her saying something about the m.e. cutting JBR's fingernails so terribly short that they couldn't do a proper manicure.

I think John's part in the funeral arrangements was probably quite different from Patsy's. There may not have been any need for them to discuss the arrangements.

Aunt Pam was so concerned about JonBenet's fingernails being cut short that a "proper manicure" couldn't be done? How SICK is this family? Gee, I would be much more concerned with who in the he** killed my niece!

Manicure indeed!!

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by gretchen
Aunt Pam was so concerned about JonBenet's fingernails being cut short that a "proper manicure" couldn't be done? How SICK is this family? Manicure indeed!!

What Gretchen, you would bury a 6-year old little girl without a proper manicure??? Sheesh, I'll bet you'd even put her in the ground without waxing her eyebrows~ Shame on you! :banghead:

 

[Maxi]

I think the m.e.'s cut them way down, like halfway down the nail bed. I can't remember whether Aunt Pam's comments seemed to be about appearances or about her hands looking hurt. I'll see if the transcript is still available.

Anyway, I had the impression Patsy's family was handling the funeral details and John was basically just paying for it and dealing with lawyers. I could be wrong, tho. It was a long time ago now.

 

[K777angel]

No intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey.

With all that was done to that little girl there should be a plethora of forensic evidence left behind by the perp.
There is not.
The only forensic evidence left were those of her parents.
Patsy's jacket fibers ENTWINED in the cord around JonBenet's neck. On the sticky side of the duct tape - which Patsy "claims" she was never near. In the paint tote where the broken paint brush found that was used on the cord tied around her neck.
John Ramseys black fibers from his Italian made shirt he was wearing that night according to police statements - found in JonBenet's underwear.
To name a few.
Forget the DNA angle. The criminal forensic DNA experts in this case have said it was degraded, contaminated and that this was
"NOT a DNA case."
For all that was done to JonBenet, if it were some outside intruder who was careless enough to even BE in that house with her parents right there - there would be his DNA and fiber/forensic evidence all over the place.
There is not.
So it's not just what they DID find present that points to the Ramsey family - it is the dearth of what they did NOT find just as much.

You must take every aspect of this case (evidence and FACTS - not just "oh they were just not the "type" of people who would be involved in such a crime...") into account in order to see the real picture. You cannot exclude facts because it does not "fit" your theory - as Lou Smit shamefully does over and over.
Nor can you "kill the messenger" when you don't like the message.
It's called objectivity. And certain posters here lack it altogether.

 

[Imon128]

And, IMO, that includes McSanta, Keenan's pet theory, and any intruder who entered via Lou's infamous basement window. Even John said it was an inside job, and WHO was inside? Four went to sleep, three woke up. Four, that we know about. I'm not discarding that a 5th family member was in the home, but never discussed, and that's because nobody might have known. No pedophile, no outsider, the inner circle can't be dismissed, at this point, IMO.

 

[Toth]

>With all that was done to that little girl there should be a >plethora of forensic evidence left behind by the perp.
>There is not.
Dna, note, cord, tape, rope, sack, window debris, window grate and vegetation, palm print, shoe prints, flashlight(?), cigarette butts(?).

>Forget the DNA angle.
Yeah, lets forget the most scientific and reliable tool we have.

>if it were some outside intruder who was careless enough to
>even BE in that house with her parents right there - there
>would be his DNA and fiber/forensic evidence all over the place.
>There is not.
Don't you think the fibers found in the immediate area of the place of death that match no fibers anywhere else in the house would qualify?

>It's called objectivity. And certain posters here lack it altogether.
Yes. And you are a very certain poster.
Don't quite know about your investigative techniques though, if you found a known pedophile who had been in the area would you want to not focus on "the type of person" he was?

 

[Toth]

Originally posted by Imon128
Four went to sleep, three woke up.

No, Four went to sleep, three stayed asleep, one was awakened during the night by an intruder.

 

[Imon128]

AND HENCE (no intruder, IMO) three woke up.

 

[Maxi]

There's plenty enough lack of objectivity on both sides of the case.

 

[ajt400]

Originally posted by K777angel
Forget the DNA angle. The criminal forensic DNA experts in this case have said it was degraded, contaminated and that this was
"NOT a DNA case."

Wasn't that stated before the DNA was found? I have read elsewhere that the DNA was CODIS certifiable, that there were enough markers to be able to match a suspect, if found.

Anyone got any links that will be fact, and no ones opinion??

Also, in all fairness, there could have been DNA, whether belonging to the parents or an alleged suspect intruder, before the crime scene was trampled upon.

Two of the biggest points are why can no one connect the rope and tape to the R's? Those were essential in the murder?

I agree with Maxi that both sides will not meet in the middle. Even if new evidence comes out OR old evidence is rehashed, most will not admit to any wrongdoing.

 

[Toth]

The dna appears foreign even if it were lacking in the desired number of markers. Its still 'a male other than a Ramsey'.

The tape was a recently manufactured roll of tape, an item not likely to have been bought as some sort of Christmas gift wrapping tape and certainly there is no matching roll of tape in the house.

As for lack of objectivity: I think you can include Opinionated Lee in that category. He had access to very little and yet he spouts off on the dna. The BPD even mislead the forensic types on the stun gun marks, originally concealing information from Dr. Dobersen.

 

[ajt400]

I include everyone in that comment. As far as Dr Lee goes, yes he is a smart man, but how could he testify for the defense in OJ's case, but not this one? That undermines his credibility as far as I am concerned.

 

[Imon128]

Dr. Lee, as I recall, was hired by Alex Hunter before anybody else could get to him. Same with Barry Scheck.

 

[ajt400]

So then his opinion is limited to which side hires him frst? We know this to be true. Also, can the prosecution hire people like the defense can? I thought they could not hire witnesses.

 

[Maxi]

Both Scheck and Lee have said they are only on the side of good science.