Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? POLL

  • John

    Votes: 124 8.4%
  • Patsy

    Votes: 547 37.2%
  • Burke

    Votes: 340 23.1%
  • An Intruder, (anyone including someone known to them)

    Votes: 459 31.2%

  • Total voters
    1,470
Status
Not open for further replies.

Chrishope

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
26
Chrishope,

Well fortunately my surname is not Newton, so magical assumptions are not part of my cranial furniture.

I arrived at my conclusion using the same method as yourself. As per usual in this debate you neglect the either/or perspective.

That is the fibers can arrive both as secondary and primary transfer. Your preference for a particular route simply underlines your cognitive bias. Which for the more knowlegable sleuthers will bring your promotion of a particular theory into question.

Your assertions regarding the fibers, regardless of color, are without foundation.


Really, why? Elementary school reasoning suggests there was more than one potential route of transfer, i.e. multiple.



.

.

As usual, you see bias where none exists. That the fibers could be there from either primary or secondary transfer is exactly what I've suggested, and exactly why I call the fiber evidence inconclusive. Or to put it in the words of the GBI - meaningless.

We cannot determine by which method the fibers arrived in their various locations. The best thing to do is not to pretend one transfer method is more likely than the other, and just solve the case sans fiber evidence.

The desire to pretend the location of the fibers places PR in the basement is where the bias comes in, but that's your theory, not mine. My theory of the case is not based on fiber evidence at all realizing, as I do, that the fiber evidence is meaningless.
 

Chrishope

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
26
Again, both Chrishope and UKGuy have arrived at a conclusion that says the same thing: fibers found in the JB murder investigation can be accounted for in multiple ways. Without an account from either a witness to the crime, or a confession by the killer, we will probably never know exactly how the fibers got into the scene of the crime.

And I do agree, Chrishope, that the as yet unsourced (as far as public knowledge goes) brown fibers, must be considered equally for leads as to the killer(s) of JB. Since there were other items not recovered from the crime scene (additional cord, tape, more fresh size 12's in a package), which could have been disposed of by the killer, we might also be able to suspect that the source for the brown fibers could also have been in a disposal process?


Actually UKGuy starts out saying it's "hardly secondary transfer", meaning, I take it, that he thinks primary transfer is more likely. Later he says that the fibers could arrive by either method. I agree. Maybe we are making progress.

As soon as we realize that secondary transfer is just as real a possibility as primary, we are free to set aside the fiber evidence. If we don't set it aside, we will mislead ourselves.

If we want to be consistent, we must look at the brown fibers in the same way we look at the red. IMO they are as inconclusive as the red. But if one prefers primary transfer to explain the red (and more than one poster here does), one must assume the brown are there from primary transfer as well.
 

midwest mama

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
36
Actually UKGuy starts out saying it's "hardly secondary transfer", meaning, I take it, that he thinks primary transfer is more likely. Later he says that the fibers could arrive by either method. I agree. Maybe we are making progress.

As soon as we realize that secondary transfer is just as real a possibility as primary, we are free to set aside the fiber evidence. If we don't set it aside, we will mislead ourselves.

If we want to be consistent, we must look at the brown fibers in the same way we look at the red. IMO they are as inconclusive as the red. But if one prefers primary transfer to explain the red (and more than one poster here does), one must assume the brown are there from primary transfer as well.

ITA. The best thing, though probably very difficult, is to try to reach a case conclusion without considering fiber evidence. It is almost impossible not to let the fiber evidence be influential, but once it is removed from a formula to solve the crime, the playing field becomes more objective, IMO.

And I believe that without recovered items and absolute matches to fibers offered under testimony, a skilled defense attorney would get the fiber evidence ruled out during a trial anyway.

I would love to see this case considered without any fiber evidence or DNA evidence being allowed, and just see where the 'chance arrow' might land. Sure were plenty of cases solved and tried prior to those forensic discoveries without either of those types of evidences, even allowing for an occasional wrong conviction.
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,440
As usual, you see bias where none exists. That the fibers could be there from either primary or secondary transfer is exactly what I've suggested, and exactly why I call the fiber evidence inconclusive. Or to put it in the words of the GBI - meaningless.

We cannot determine by which method the fibers arrived in their various locations. The best thing to do is not to pretend one transfer method is more likely than the other, and just solve the case sans fiber evidence.

The desire to pretend the location of the fibers places PR in the basement is where the bias comes in, but that's your theory, not mine. My theory of the case is not based on fiber evidence at all realizing, as I do, that the fiber evidence is meaningless.

Chrishope,
I am not suggesting the bolded phrase is the case, that is your bias, you have selected a process.

I am suggesting that the fibers could have arrived by both primary AND secondary transfer.

Logically there is no necessity that it is either primary OR secondary transfer.

We know this intuitively since there should be fibers transferred by Patsy during any prior interaction with JonBenet.

Normally I could accept secondary transfer for fibers, but the fibers in the wine-cellar are embedded into the knotting, this and similar fibers being observed in the paint tote must mean, if secondary transfer is the case, that this person was covered in Patsy's fibers, and that they happened to transfer to all the important points of contact in the case.

Not impossible to happen, but I reckon its improbable.


The desire to pretend the location of the fibers places PR in the basement is where the bias comes in, but that's your theory, not mine.
You cannot demonstrate that Patsy was never in the wine-cellar can you?

That Patsy's fibers are all over the wine-cellar crime-scene and the paint-tote, represents prima facie evidence that Patsy visited the wine-cellar that night.

If you wish to consider that the fibers arrived by other means that does not invalidate the assumption that the fibers link Patsy directly to the wine-cellar.


.
 

Chrishope

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
26
Chrishope,
I am not suggesting the bolded phrase is the case, that is your bias, you have selected a process.

I am suggesting that the fibers could have arrived by both primary AND secondary transfer.

Logically there is no necessity that it is either primary OR secondary transfer.

Agreed.

We know this intuitively since there should be fibers transferred by Patsy during any prior interaction with JonBenet.

Normally I could accept secondary transfer for fibers, but the fibers in the wine-cellar are embedded into the knotting, this and similar fibers being observed in the paint tote must mean, if secondary transfer is the case, that this person was covered in Patsy's fibers, and that they happened to transfer to all the important points of contact in the case.

Not impossible to happen, but I reckon its improbable.

There is no basis for such a reckoning. It's quite probable. We're talking 4 fibers on the duct tape. I'm not sure how many fibers were talking about in the paint tote on the garrote. The total number of fibers found may be so small that there is nothing the least bit unlikely about 2ndry transfer.

The fibers would of course be in those locations because the transferring person touched all those areas.

You cannot demonstrate that Patsy was never in the wine-cellar can you?

That Patsy's fibers are all over the wine-cellar crime-scene and the paint-tote, represents prima facie evidence that Patsy visited the wine-cellar that night.

If you wish to consider that the fibers arrived by other means that does not invalidate the assumption that the fibers link Patsy directly to the wine-cellar.


.

I've never said primary transfer is an invalid assumption. Either transfer method is possible, thus, the fiber evidence is of no value in figuring out whodunnit. We cannot tell, by the fiber evidence alone, who did what. If it's admitted that both primary and secondary transference are possible, then any theory of the case is consistent with the fiber evidence. IOWs the fiber evidence is meaningless.
 

Chrishope

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
26
ITA. The best thing, though probably very difficult, is to try to reach a case conclusion without considering fiber evidence. It is almost impossible not to let the fiber evidence be influential, but once it is removed from a formula to solve the crime, the playing field becomes more objective, IMO.

And I believe that without recovered items and absolute matches to fibers offered under testimony, a skilled defense attorney would get the fiber evidence ruled out during a trial anyway.

I would love to see this case considered without any fiber evidence or DNA evidence being allowed, and just see where the 'chance arrow' might land. Sure were plenty of cases solved and tried prior to those forensic discoveries without either of those types of evidences, even allowing for an occasional wrong conviction.


We actually have no choice but to try to solve the case without regard to the fiber evidence. Since both primary and secondary transfer are possible, and neither one is more likely than the other, fiber evidence will get us nowhere.

I agree with you completely that to be objective we must set aside the fiber evidence. We can't solve the case by looking at fiber evidence because it doesn't have meaning - or if you prefer, allows for multiple meanings.
 

Darlene733510

Active Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
3,388
Reaction score
6
Website
Visit site
There was a hair on the duct tape. It was possibly from a beaver, which would match the boots PR wore to the Whites. ST said that the Prosecutor refused to approve a warrant to have the hair tested.
There were 7 prints on the RN. One from BPD sgt.,one from Mr. Ubowski(FBI), and the other 5 were from PR. This came from ST. Why would JR's prints not be on that note?
When asked about her jacket PR said that she and PW had jackets that were similar, and PR had another similar one. She wasn't sure which one she wore to the dinner at the Whites.
Then she could not remember wearing the black and red jacket, and said that perhaps while she was at the W's,in the living room, she may have mentioned that she was cold, and perhaps PW gave her PW"s jacket to wear.
About the rope used for the gavotte - was this similar to the rope used for JB's cowboy costume? To me it also resembles the thick laces that are in some of the over the ankle tennis shoes, or a drawstring from something like sweatpants, bottom of a jacket, etc. To me the rope looked more flat, which is similar to shoe lace material. I just looked at all of our jackets, with the drawstring bottom and they are all round.
 

DeeDee249

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
8,053
Reaction score
306
Doesn't matter which jacket Patsy CLAIMED to have worn. Photos from the White's show her wearing her own jacket and it is THOSE fibers that were found at the crime scene.
 

Darlene733510

Active Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
3,388
Reaction score
6
Website
Visit site
I know what she was doing about the jacket, and that it was on her in the pictures. What was evident to me was how she was willing to throw PW under the bus.
 

DeeDee249

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
8,053
Reaction score
306
I know what she was doing about the jacket, and that it was on her in the pictures. What was evident to me was how she was willing to throw PW under the bus.

The Rs had no loyalty whatsoever to anyone but themselves. From the very first moments, they schemed and plotted to see who they could pin this on. They would have sacrificed anyone they knew- even their close friends- to keep the blame away from anyone who was in that house that night.
They had only been in Colorado 3 years and they thought they were WAY above anyone there. They were too rich, too powerful, too smart not to get away with this. And let's face it- they DID.
 

Darlene733510

Active Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
3,388
Reaction score
6
Website
Visit site
I wonder why the housekeeper has never written a book? Wasn't it rumored that she was going to write one?
The R's and all their lawsuits made a lot of money. I am surprised that some of the people they accused did not file lawsuits against them. I am hoping that we will see a couple of new books soon, and one I am waiting for is the one by SD. Has anyone heard anything about that?
 

eileenhawkeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
8,763
Reaction score
123
Look at this gem from a March 6, 1997 article:

The Rocky Mountain News today quoted a source as saying that JonBenet's parents would only talk to police together, with a doctor standing by if one of them became ill.

what in the world...
 

Chrishope

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
26
Doesn't matter which jacket Patsy CLAIMED to have worn. Photos from the White's show her wearing her own jacket and it is THOSE fibers that were found at the crime scene.

True. The red fibers "consistent" with PR's jacket are from PR's jacket. She didn't wear PW's jacket.
 

midwest mama

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
36
...... (Snipped) they thought they were WAY above anyone there. They were too rich, too powerful, too smart not to get away with this. And let's face it- they DID.

Somewhat, For Now!. Patsy did leave without facing anything here, but imagine what happened when she was given the final judgement by her Maker! Burke cannot face any sort of legal prosecution, true, and even if he can stand to look at himself in a mirror each day, I'd bet there are those who, knowing who he is, cannot bear a moment in his company. Supposedly Burke is well enough to realize this, and that must be pretty crappy in spite of any pretending he might be doing.

I'm going to hold on to hope that the day will come that John Ramsey has to once and for all answer a conscience call and come forth with the truth - before he, too, gets his final and perfect justice from the great Judge!
 

DeeDee249

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
8,053
Reaction score
306
I wonder why the housekeeper has never written a book? Wasn't it rumored that she was going to write one?
The R's and all their lawsuits made a lot of money. I am surprised that some of the people they accused did not file lawsuits against them. I am hoping that we will see a couple of new books soon, and one I am waiting for is the one by SD. Has anyone heard anything about that?

I am sure she was threatened by the R's lawyers. Also, she had wanted to be able to write about her testimony in front of the Grand Jury and this was denied at the time. However, I had read not too long ago that this had been reversed and she now is able to include that information, should she wish to go forward with her book. I would LOVE to read anything she might write, as I know would many people. But I don't think she will risk being sued. Of course, anyone has the right to write anything they wish- and if it is the truth, you can't be sued for libel. A dead person can't be libeled, so Patsy is fair game, but JR and BR can sue, even if she writes the truth. Doesn't mean they would win or be able to stop the release of the book though. But LHP may simply not want to fight that fight.
 

DeeDee249

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
8,053
Reaction score
306
https://www.facebook.com/burke.ramsey.5?fref=ts

Is this the real Burke Ramsey? I googled photo's of him when he was a kid and he doesn't look the same at all, to me. Maybe someone else can confirm for me!?

That is him. He is in his 20s now, so obviously looks different than he did at age 9. His Facebook is private now, but it wasn't always. You used to be able to see his friends. He had other Rs as well as DS in his friends. He did attend Purdue.
 

DanielleMiriya

New Member
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Website
www.facebook.com
That is him. He is in his 20s now, so obviously looks different than he did at age 9. His Facebook is private now, but it wasn't always. You used to be able to see his friends. He had other Rs as well as DS in his friends. He did attend Purdue.
USUALLY I can see some sort of resemblance when comparing a kid photo to an adult photo but for some reason he just looks WAY different to me, maybe my eyes are bad! lol....Thank you for verifying, his eyes really creep me out for some reason...:scared:
 

DeeDee249

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
8,053
Reaction score
306
USUALLY I can see some sort of resemblance when comparing a kid photo to an adult photo but for some reason he just looks WAY different to me, maybe my eyes are bad! lol....Thank you for verifying, his eyes really creep me out for some reason...:scared:

He gave me the creeps back then, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top