What are the FACTS we KNOW are true?

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by twizzler333, Jul 9, 2004.

  1. twizzler333

    twizzler333 Inactive

    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have read literally hundreds of different things on these boards concerning this case. I have looked at some of the documents provided on some websites, etc., so I want to know what are the exact true facts of this case?
    I don't want the theories or heresay, just what are the actual facts?

    The ransome note- Did ALL the experts conclude that Patsy was the ONLY person tested in any way, shape or form that could not be eliminated?

    The DNA (even though this is not a good DNA case)- What was the DNA? Someone said possibly saliva on a previous post. What was John's DNA found on the panties that some have mentioned? FACTS only though.

    The fibers- Fibers from Patsy's clothing found how on the garotte? Embedded? Just on it? Was there any conclusion as to how they may have been transferred?

    The 911 call- Did they really find there was additional "conversation" after Patsy believed the phone was hung up? What was the final conclusion to this?

    DID John really take a long walk on the 26th?

    Was the window in the basement broken, was there evidence of a possible entry via the window? Was the pantry door really opened and/or unlocked?

    I agree that Tracey may be pointing the finger at the wrong person in stating Steven whoever is a prime suspect but I really want to know what the actual facts are, not the hearsay or the opinions of those of us here who have this knowledge possibly third hand.

    I am just trying to understand all of this. There are so many conflicting stories/theories/arguements about this. I pray to God every day that justice can be found in this case, albeit the Ramsey's or any other person involved. I would hate to be so accusatory to someone innocent in this. And after all the abuse the Ramsey's have taken and the accusations, I would hate to think they really are innocent and have not only gone through the death of their beloved daughter but also been accused of such a heinous crime against someone they treasured so dearly. If they did do this, I do think they deserve all of this hell and more, but innocent until proven guilty is the American way set forth by our forefathers and we should not forget that.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. tipper

    tipper Former Member

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All the experts did not conclude Patsy wrote the note. If you read Steve Thomas' deposition you'll get some sense of the mixture of opinions and that she probably fell into the same category as a number of people. The difference is she was in the house and that is how Thomas qualifies it in his book. You can find the various expert opinions online if you do a google search or even look here. I think there was some recent discussion about experts.

    I don't think anyone (publically) knows what the DNA came from. At least I don't recall ever seeing it named anywhere.

    Don't know about the fibers in the garotte. If they exist they may be secondary transfer or they may have been left by Patsy Ramsey while she was strangling her daughter. Their existence just popped up from nowhere as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps it came from the National Enquirer book.

    The only additional conversation that has been verified by an expert (Tricia hired him) found Patsy saying at the end "Help me, Jesus" several times. He didn't hear John and/or Burke nor did he find any editing attempts. However he was not working with a first generation tape so I suppose it is possible something more could be picked up. But this man (Ginsberg) was looking and didn't find anything. "Help me, Jesus" seems pretty congruent with the situation. The so-called 'enhanced tape' has never been released. Aerospace? said they stand behind their work but, quite rightly, didn't say what that work produced.

    John did take a walk, I know he took one with friends, he may have taken one alone. I can't remember.

    The window was broken. Whether it had evidence of possible entry is subjective. Physically it is possible to come in through the window but I'm not convinced anyone did. Whether or not the door was open depends on who you read. Some say yes, some say no. I read recently there was a police report that said it was open but I can't remember who or where so I have no idea whether it should carry any weight. It just goes in my large pile of "Maybe..."

    PS Does anyone know why I get automatically logged out when I'm typing a post. It is getting very annoying.
     
  4. TressaRing28

    TressaRing28 Former Member

    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It said in PMPT that John took a walk the evening of the 26th- I think he went alone.

    Wonder if he took alittle cording and, hey what the heck some duck tape?

    Maybe he needed to ask God why me-me-me-

    It seems so irrelevant now huh?


    IMO
     
  5. popcorn

    popcorn Inactive

    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nothing else is exact and true. This is America where even facts are open to interpretation in court.
     
  6. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Twizzler333, I've tried several times to post my entire response but it's coming through with odd edits not of my making... maybe this case has finally taken on a life and a mind of its own... lol. Anyway, I'll post it in sections:

    ALL of the experts concluded, in varying degrees, that Patsy could not be eliminated as the writer. There were others who also couldn't be eliminated (two, I think, are mentioned in PMPT... I don't know if there were more than two), but those people had alibis and were cleared as suspects. John WAS eliminated by all of the experts as the writer.

    The source is unknown. A Ramsey rep said it may've been saliva, which was speculation on their part. The DNA experts said the sample may have been contaminated and/or distorted during testing and they couldn't tell if the DNA -- a minute partial/degraded sample -- was from one, two or more donors. They were able to use the partial sample to exclude some people, but it wasn't complete enough to positively identify anyone.
     
  7. tipper

    tipper Former Member

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.webbsleuths.com/dcf/DCForumID107/9.html

    "Thomas depo 17 - handwriting experts"


    Q. (by Lin Wood) Have you ever had an opportunity to review any of Darnay Hoffman's handwriting
    experts' reports, that would be a report from David Liedman, Cina Wong and another individual named
    Tom Miller?

    A. No.

    Q. Do you know whether they were ever tendered to the prosecution or to the police department
    and rejected as not credible?

    A. It's my understanding and this may have been even after I left the police department, that Mr.
    Hoffman made his experts available to the prosecution.

    Q. And they declined saying that they were not credible or do you know?

    A. I don't know.

    Q. You don't know that. You do know that there were other experts that reviewed Patsy Ramsey's
    handwriting and did not find evidence of authorship, true?

    A. Who were those?

    Q. Do you think there were not three other people that looked at this and did not find that there was
    evidence to find that she wrote the note?

    A. I don't know who you're referring to.

    Q. Well, there was a Secret Service examiner, Mr. Dusak?

    A. Right.

    Q. Speckin Laboratories?

    A. Mr. Speckin, yes.

    Q. Right. And there is one other, help me. I can pull it if you want me to?

    A. Alfred, Alford, Edwin Alford.

    Q. Did you look at their conclusions and remember them?

    A. I did.

    Q. What was Mr. Dusak's conclusion?

    A. Mr. Dusak, I believe, his official conclusion on his report for courtroom purposes was no
    evidence to indicate.

    Q. No evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on
    the ransom note, was that Mr. Dusak's conclusion?

    A. Among other things.

    Q. And he was a document analyst for the United States Secret Service, right?

    A. Right.

    Q. Then we have Mr. Edwin F. Alford, Jr., police expert, examination of the questioned
    handwriting, comparison of the handwriting specimen submitted has failed to provide a basis for
    identifying Patsy Ramsey as the writer of the letter. Is that his conclusion?

    A. I remember Mr. Dusak. If you have a document that would help --

    Q. This is Mr. Alford.

    A. I know. I remember Mr. Dusak. If you have a document that would help me refresh my
    memory on Mr. Alford, I don't recall --

    Q. Not beyond what I have just told you, but if that helps you refresh you one way or the other what
    I've just told you is I believe Mr. Alford concluded?

    A. Will you repeat his --

    Q. Sure.

    A. -- what he concluded.

    Q. The examination of the questioned handwriting comparison with the handwriting specimen
    submitted has failed to provide a basis for identifying Patricia Ramsey as the writer of the letter?

    A. If that's what the report says. I certainly don't disagree with --

    MR. DIAMOND: He's asking you whether that refreshes your recollection.

    Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Do you recall Mr. Alford coming to that conclusion?

    A. To a -- yeah, I think that's the conclusion.

    Q. And then Leonard A. Speckin, he said that he found no evidence that Patsy Ramsey disguised
    her handwriting exemplars. Did you -- were you aware of that conclusion by Mr. Speckin, a police
    expert?

    A. Among other conclusions, yes.

    Q. You understood enough about the handwriting analysis that a legitimate handwriting questioned
    document examiner analyzes not just similarities, but also has to analyze and account for dissimilarities,
    right?

    A. If you say so, Mr. Wood, I'm not --

    Q. I'm asking you, sir.

    A. No, I'm not a handwriting expert and don't purport to be.

    Q. So you can't --

    A. If you're asking me about my layman's knowledge about handwriting science I would be happy to
    answer your question.

    Q. I'm asking you about your understanding of the science when you were the, quote, one of the lead
    detectives. Did you not listen to what the experts were saying and what their bases were and did you
    not grasp the fundamental idea when you were listening that they were saying we've got to analyze
    both similarities and dissimilarities?

    MR. DIAMOND: Objection. Compound. You may answer.

    Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did you understand that to be the case or not?

    A. That was among many things that I understood them to look at.




     
  8. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    After the books -- Schiller's Perfect Murder Perfect Town and Thomas's Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation -- were published containing fiber facts, additional fiber facts were revealed in subsequent police interviews (Atlanta, August 2000) with the Ramseys. They are "facts" if you believe the police investigators. The following includes those facts as well as the book facts:

    Patsy's jacket fibers were found entwined in the knot of the garrote, also in the paint tote, on the sticky side of the duct tape and elsewhere at the crime scene. Patsy claimed not to have been in the vicinity (basement) while wearing the jacket. John discarded the duct tape (with fibers attached) in the basement before bringing up the body, then covered the body with a sweatshirt and a blanket, after which Patsy came in contact with the body.

    Additionally, fibers from John's shirt were found on the crotch of JonBenet's underwear.

    According to police, yes -- additional conversation after the tape was enhanced by a high-tech lab. Burke is heard asking what he should do and what his parents found, and John is heard angrily telling him they weren't speaking to him.

    According to Schiller's book, yes.

    The window was broken and, according to John, unlatched. But John said HE himself had broken the window several months prior when he'd been locked out of the house. He also said he went to the basement the morning of the 26th and closed the unlatched window. According to police, he didn't mention the window to them that morning.

    There were some glass pieces on the floor, but no sign of disturbance on or around the window sill, including an intact spider web covering the grate outside, or otherwise any evidence that someone had used the window for access. Also, a chair was blocking the door to that basement room from the hallway side, making it impossible that someone had exited through that room and window.

    The initial Ramsey statements were that all of the doors were locked. I believe the back door was found open, but police didn't know if it had been left open by one of the guests in the home that morning. Also, pry marks on the door frame had been there for months according to the housekeeper.
     
  9. tipper

    tipper Former Member

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.davidignatius.com/011900WashingtonPost.html

    The Washington Post





    Tricks, Lies and Criminal Confessions


    By David Ignatius

    Wednesday, January 19, 2000; Page A23


    Is it okay to lie if it helps you to get something good? Most of us would probably answer no. Our common-sense morality tells us that, except in the most extreme cases, a good end doesn't justify using dishonest means.

    But it turns out that for police and FBI officers, trickery is an accepted practice in questioning suspects. Interrogators can pressure suspects with clever lies--telling them that an accomplice has confessed, for example, or that an eyewitness saw them commit the crime, or that they've flunked a polygraph test--in their efforts to obtain a confession.

    This darker side of interrogation surfaced a week ago when The Washington Post obtained a transcript of the FBI's interrogation of suspected nuclear spy Wen Ho Lee. FBI agents tried to convince Lee during a March 1999 interrogation that he had failed an earlier lie-detector test when, according to The Post's Vernon Loeb and Walter Pincus, "polygraph examiners actually had given him an extremely high score for honesty."

    FBI agents also tried to browbeat Lee into making a confession--suggesting that if he didn't, he would die in the electric chair. "Do you know who the Rosenbergs are?" an FBI agent badgered Lee. "The Rosenbergs are the only people that never cooperated with the federal government in an espionage case. You know what happened to them? They electrocuted them, Wen Ho."

    Tough tactics, but not all that uncommon. Courts have given police and the FBI surprisingly wide latitude in interrogation. The only clear limit is that you can't use techniques--such as physical torture or the psychological equivalent--that would compel an innocent person to confess to a crime he or she didn't commit. An example would be threatening a mother that she would lose her children if she didn't confess. Otherwise, lies are generally permissible.

    The most widely used police manual advises that when cops are questioning someone they think is guilty, they should use tactics that "decrease the subject's perception of the consequences of confessing, while at the same time increasing the subject's internal anxiety associated with his deception."

    Sometimes, that means trickery. Clever cops will sympathize with suspects, pretend to be their pals, agree with them that the crime wasn't really their fault. They will lie about the evidence they've collected, the witnesses they've got, the chance they can get the suspect a reduced sentence--whatever it takes to get a confession. Real life, it turns out, includes dialogue that would embarrass the screenwriters for "NYPD Blue."

    …

     
  10. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More important,

    The CRIMINALS lie more than LE.

    I'm so sick of the people who trash LE time and time again. Not all LE lie for the sake of lying. If they lie and deceive it is 99% of the time for the good of the people and justice. AND it's legal.

    The criminals can have attorneys!

    The criminals are DANGEROUS! Many a criminal, many a pedophile and many a murderer has been brought to true justice using this "trickery". How many people are complaining that Susan Smith is in prison? You think those babies' father and other loved ones are up in arms that trickery was used? You think those babies would complain? You think the victims' families and loved ones are complaining that the Perp who raped, murdered, slaughtered their family member should complain? You think the public should complain because dangerous people are locked away, unable to cause harm to others because they were lied to by LE?

    LE gets nothing but insulted by those who would call them in a heartbeat if they were victims themselves.

    Sickening!

    What has the world become when it is just accepted that LE can be labeled time and time again as immoral idiots who can't and don't do their job.
     
  11. tipper

    tipper Former Member

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The point is that just because LE claimed something in an interrogation doesn't mean it can be accepted as "fact." I don't think the lab reports on the fibers have ever been produced or verified. Until that happens I don't think we should assume the fiber info, as presented in the interrogation, is a fact
     
  12. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We also can't assume it is a lie.

    Don't get me wrong. I think LE should be held accountable if they go over the line as they have done in the spy case, but the vast majority of police investigations do not go over the line.

    The difference is that I personally will take the word of LE as truth before I take the stance that it is "trickery" .
     
  13. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And if you read my post you saw my qualifier: They are "facts" if you believe the police investigators.

    I realize some people believe those mean old cops had nothing better to do than harass the poor persecuted, misunderstood Ramseys, in which case, why these people persist in trying to discuss "facts" is a mystery since nothing is a "fact." Patsy in Wonderland :rolleyes:
     
  14. TressaRing28

    TressaRing28 Former Member

    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Those mean old Boulder Police are the actual reason this case is so cold ...
     
  15. Eagle1

    Eagle1 Former Member

    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I forget exactly which friends were with JR when he sort of headed for the hills, but they must have been saying he should never have allowed something or other, because he reportedly kept saying, "I'm so sorry." Wasn't FW one of them? Father Rol maybe?

    They may have been looking for the campsite of one of the pagan groups that I read somewhere regularly have ceremonies. You never know.
     
  16. Maikai

    Maikai New Member

    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    On more than one occasion, when Steve Thomas talked about Patsy's handwriting, he also qualified the statement to include "of those in the house that night" when talking about all the handwriting samples they supposedly analyzed. So.....they had to be known to be in the house that night. There are others whose handwriting was a closer match.
     
  17. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maikai, whose handwriting was a closer match than Patsy's?

    imo
     
  18. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nobody!

    This question has been asked ad nauseum of those who continue to state such drivel

    There has never been an answer

    But every now and then, they repeat it, then someone asks who, and there is never an answer.
     
  19. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I see the answers are not yet here. Oh my, what a surprise!
     
  20. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    still waiting
     
  21. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

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