DNA Clears Ramseys, Points To 'Unexplained Party'
tiny dancer
Results Prompt DA To Aplogize To JonBenet's Father
BOULDER, Colo. (CBS) ? A new type of DNA test has again cleared the family
of JonBenet Ramsey in her death. The new results prompted Boulder County
District Attorney Mary Lacy to meet with John Ramsey, JonBenet's father,
Wednesday and give him a letter of apology, CBS station KCNC-TV in Denver
reports.
The letter says the Ramsey family will be treated as victims in the case
going forward. John flew to Colorado Tuesday evening.
JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, were long said to be under an
"umbrella of suspicion" in the girl's slaying.
Lacy apologized to the family, saying, "To the extent that this office has
added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any
degree, I offer my deepest apology."
The new type of DNA testing, not available in previous years, was conducted
on DNA recovered from JonBenet's leggings. Previous tests were conducted on
DNA collected from her underwear.
Those earlier tests also did not match any of the Ramsey family members.
The new test also ruled out anyone in a large criminal DNA database. The
results do point to an unknown man, authorities said.
JonBenet's body was found in the family home in Boulder on December 26,
1996. Her father found her body in a rarely used room in the basement of the
home.
Patsy Ramsey died in June of 2006 after a 13-year battle with ovarian
cancer.
Boulder District Attorney Mary T. Lacy issued the following announcement
with regard to the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey:
On December 25-26, 1996, JonBenet Ramsey was murdered in the home where she
lived with her mother, father and brother. Despite a long and intensive
investigation, the death of JonBenet remains unsolved.
The murder has received unprecedented publicity and has been shrouded in
controversy. That publicity has led to many theories over the years in which
suspicion has focused on one family member or another. However, there has
been at least one persistent stumbling block to the possibility of
prosecuting any Ramsey family members for the death of JonBenet - DNA.
As part of its investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, the Boulder
Police identified genetic material with apparent evidentiary value. Over
time, the police continued to investigate DNA, including taking advantage of
advances in the science and methodology. One of the results of their efforts
was that they identified genetic material and a DNA profile from drops of
JonBenet's blood located in the crotch of the underwear she was wearing at
the time her body was discovered. That genetic profile belongs to a male and
does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.
The police department diligently compared that profile to a very large
number of people associated with the victim, with her family, and with the
investigation, and has not identified the source, innocent or otherwise, of
this DNA. The Boulder Police and prosecutors assigned to this investigation
in the past also worked conscientiously with laboratory analysts to obtain
better results through new approaches and additional tests as they became
available. Those efforts ultimately led to the discovery of sufficient
genetic markers from this male profile to enter it into the national DNA
data bank.
In December of 2002, the Boulder District Attorney's Office, under Mary T.
Lacy, assumed responsibility for the investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey
homicide. Since then, this office has worked with the Boulder Police
Department to continue the investigation of this crime.
In early August of 2007, District Attorney Lacy attended a Continuing
Education Program in West Virginia sponsored by the National Institute of
Justice on Forensic Biology and DNA. The presenters discussed successful
outcomes from a new methodology described as "touch DNA." One method for
sampling for touch DNA is the "scraping method." In this process, forensic
scientists scrape a surface where there is no observable stain or other
indication of possible DNA in an effort to recover for analysis any genetic
material that might nonetheless be present. This methodology was not well
known in this country until recently and is still used infrequently.
In October of 2007, we decided to pursue the possibility of submitting
additional items from the JonBenet Ramsey homicide to be examined using this
methodology. We checked with a number of Colorado sources regarding which
private laboratory to use for this work. Based upon multiple
recommendations, including that of the Boulder Police Department, we
contacted the Bode Technology Group located near Washington, D.C., and
initiated discussions with the professionals at that laboratory. First
Assistant District Attorney Peter Maguire and Investigator Andy Horita spent
a full day with staff members at the Bode facility in early December of
2007.
The Bode Technology laboratory applied the "touch DNA" scraping method to
both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was
wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were
chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed
and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near
the waist.
On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified
genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The
unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of
the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.
We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended
additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have
come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional
samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of
Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June
27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come
from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA
testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the
investigation as possible innocent sources.
I want to acknowledge my appreciation for the efforts of the Boulder Police
Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and
the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory for the great work and
assistance they have contributed to this investigation.
The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very
significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be
an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two
separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder.
This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles
were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim's
underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because
concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent
explanation, were unsuccessful.
It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney's Office that
this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.
DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find
during a criminal investigation. We rely on it often to bring to justice
those who have committed crimes. It can likewise be reliable evidence upon
which to remove people from suspicion in appropriate cases.
The Boulder District Attorney's Office does not consider any member of the
Ramsey family, including John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this
case. We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this
new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of
the previous scientific evidence. We do so with full appreciation for the
other evidence in this case.
Local, national, and even international publicity has focused on the murder
of JonBenet Ramsey. Many members of the public came to believe that one or
more of the Ramseys, including her mother or her father or even her brother,
were responsible for this brutal homicide. Those suspicions were not based
on evidence that had been tested in court; rather, they were based on
evidence reported by the media.
It is the responsibility of every prosecutor to seek justice. That
responsibility includes seeking justice for people whose reputations and
lives can be damaged irreparably by the lingering specter of suspicion. In a
highly publicized case, the detrimental impact of publicity and suspicion on
people's lives can be extreme. The suspicions about the Ramseys in this case
created an ongoing living hell for the Ramsey family and their friends,
which added to their suffering from the unexplained and devastating loss of
JonBenet.
For reasons including those discussed above, we believe that justice
dictates that the Ramseys be treated only as victims of this very serious
crime. We will accord them all the rights guaranteed to the victims of
violent crimes under the law in Colorado and all the respect and sympathy
due from one human being to another. To the extent that this office has
added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any
degree, I offer my deepest apology.
We prefer that any tips related to this ongoing investigation be submitted
in writing or via electronic mail to BoulderDA.org, but they can also be
submitted to our tip line at (303) 441-1636.
This office will make no further statements.
http://kdka.com/national/ramsey.jonbenet.dna.2.767139.html
Poe
So the same DNA from inside her underwear was also on both sides of the
waist of her long-johns, and they were from a male. I have always
thought Patsy did this based on that damn note and some other things,
but this revelation gives me pause. I can't think of why a male would
have his hands on a little girl's waistband and in her undies - 4 is old
enough to pull your own pants down to go to the bathroom, and certainly
there is no reason for such hands in her undies (except the reason we
all know). Even if someone gave her a hand getting the long-johns all
the way up, again, no need to touch more than for a quick yank-up.
The only other thing I'd say is, maybe she was molested by someone, and
then later murdered by another. Seems pretty unlikely, though, for a
little girl with no known enemies to have such a cursed Xmas eve.
Poe
>
>
> So the same DNA from inside her underwear was also on both sides of the
> waist of her long-johns, and they were from a male. I have always
> thought Patsy did this based on that damn note and some other things,
> but this revelation gives me pause. I can't think of why a male would
> have his hands on a little girl's waistband and in her undies - 4 is old
And actually I meant 6 years old, not 4... not sure what else I was
thinking when I typed 4 above.
metspitzer
wrote:
>So the same DNA from inside her underwear was also on both sides of the
>waist of her long-johns, and they were from a male. I have always
>thought Patsy did this based on that damn note and some other things,
>but this revelation gives me pause. I can't think of why a male would
>have his hands on a little girl's waistband and in her undies - 4 is old
>enough to pull your own pants down to go to the bathroom, and certainly
>there is no reason for such hands in her undies (except the reason we
>all know). Even if someone gave her a hand getting the long-johns all
>the way up, again, no need to touch more than for a quick yank-up.
>
Are you saying that touching a pair of panties will leave enough DNA
to be able to test? That is very surprising to me. Of course, I know
little about the subject.
Wild Monkshood
Me, too. I don't even know if a large payment into a bank account can
affect DNA results and the schedules of tests. :)
WM
nj
Poe
Not the panties, but apparently there is a relatively new way harvest
DNA left on surfaces called "scraping" that wasn't available back in the
JBR heyday. It sounds like it can pick up very small amounts left
sitting atop a surface, if you will, that older techniques couldn't get
at, and it is how the DNA from the long-johns was obtained in 2007. At
least that's how I read the article.
Paralle...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:20:38 -0400, Poe <haun...@terrible-thought.com>
All they need now are a few skin cells, which is both revealing
and confusing.
How could someone strangle this girl with the rope and
paintbrush handle and NOT leave DNA there, but leave
a few skin cells on the waistband of clothing...and an
amount of DNA equal to a sneeze, in her panties?
Paralle...@gmail.com
You read it right. But why are there minor bits on that
clothing, and not on the instruments of death -- which
would have left a lot more DNA.
tiny dancer
"Poe" <hau...@terrible-thought.com> wrote in message
news:6dklbiF...@mid.individual.net...
> Poe wrote:
>>
>>
>> So the same DNA from inside her underwear was also on both sides of the
>> waist of her long-johns, and they were from a male. I have always thought
>> Patsy did this based on that damn note and some other things, but this
>> revelation gives me pause. I can't think of why a male would have his
>> hands on a little girl's waistband and in her undies - 4 is old
>
>
> And actually I meant 6 years old, not 4... not sure what else I was
> thinking when I typed 4 above.
My three year old grandsons insist upon pulling their clothes up and down
themselves. A six year old certainly wouldn't need 'help in the bathroom',
from someone other than their parents, especially.
td
Wild Monkshood
nj wrote:
> That vigilante shrew Nancy Grace will ignore this news, I'm sure.
Shrew news? Odgen Nash is whirling in the grave....
WM
Sharonpo
news:3Dadk.31881$s77....@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
> "Poe" <hau...@terrible-thought.com> wrote in message
> news:6dklbiF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Poe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> So the same DNA from inside her underwear was also on both sides
>>> of the waist of her long-johns, and they were from a male. I
>>> have always thought Patsy did this based on that damn note and
>>> some other things, but this revelation gives me pause. I can't
>>> think of why a male would have his hands on a little girl's
>>> waistband and in her undies - 4 is old
>>
>>
>> And actually I meant 6 years old, not 4... not sure what else I
>> was thinking when I typed 4 above.
> My three year old grandsons insist upon pulling their clothes up
> and down themselves. A six year old certainly wouldn't need 'help
> in the bathroom', from someone other than their parents,
> especially.
>
>
> td
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.true-crime/2006-
06/msg03144.html
[...]"in "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" it was revealed
that JonBenet had asked people other than her mom--moms of her
friends while attheir homes playing or people who they were
visiting--to help wipe her after she used the bathroom. Kind of
weird, I agree, for a child of 6--not not unheard of.
Back when the case was in full-swing, I, too, heard that
JonBenét had asked other people to help her in the bathroom."
Bradley K. Sherman
Sharonpo <_Shar...@cox.nettle> wrote:
>
>[...]"in "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" it was revealed
>that JonBenet had asked people other than her mom--moms of her
>friends while attheir homes playing or people who they were
>visiting--to help wipe her after she used the bathroom. Kind of
>weird, I agree, for a child of 6--not not unheard of.
>
I never heard of it.
--bks
Paralle...@gmail.com
> "tiny dancer" <tinydancer...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote innews:3Dadk.31881$s77....@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Poe" <haun...@terrible-thought.com> wrote in message
Thanks for reminding me (and everyone else).
IIRC, she even asked Fleet White to do that for her, at the
party (I don't have my book handy -- it's at home and I'm
not). I also remember Patsy's sister (Paugh) talking
about that, on TV....like it wasn't a problem.
dillydally
jurisprudence has, apparently, concluded, with the prime suspects in
the JonBenet Ramsey murder "cleared" of charges.
From the moment the girl's murder was discovered, high-priced LAWYERS
shielded the Ramseys from any possibility they might be questioned --
much less charged -- in the case. Huge amounts of money spent by the
family ensured they, unlike any ordinary family, would be able to
continue their opulent lifestyle, while the police and district
attorneys at several levels seemed oddly powerless to conduct a valid
investigation.
And, always sheltered, JonBenet's brother Burke, still is shielded
from law's prying eyes and technology.
Why?
---------------------------------
"Family cleared in JonBenet Ramsey’s death""
"New DNA test finds no link, DA says in letter to Colorado girl’s
father"
John Ramsey with his wife, Patsy, had been under an "umbrella of
suspicion" in the death of their daughter, JonBenet. New DNA evidence
has cleared the family of the crime. In this 1996 image, the parents
appealed for the killer's arrest. Patsy Ramsey died in 2006.
MSNBC's Milissa Rehberger reports.
DENVER - Newly discovered DNA evidence in the notorious JonBenet
Ramsey murder case does not match any Ramsey family members or anyone
in law enforcement DNA databases, NBC affiliate KUSA reported
Wednesday.
The discovery, from a new testing method, prompted the Boulder
district attorney’s office to release a letter officially clearing the
Ramsey family, including John, Patsy and their immediate relatives, of
any involvement in the December 1996 death of 6-year-old JonBenet.
John and Patsy Ramsey, who died in 2006, had been the subject of
intense suspicion in the disappearance of their daughter, a beauty
queen whose innocent face smiled out at Americans in countless news
reports for a dozen years.
But in a letter to John Ramsey, Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy,
who met with Ramsey and his defense attorneys Wednesday morning,
declared that “we do not consider your immediate family, including
you, John, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke Ramsey, to be under
any suspicion in the commission of this crime.”
“I wish we could have done so before Mrs. Ramsey died,” Lacy wrote,
adding: “We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this
crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you
suffered.”
In a separate statement, Lacy offered her “deepest apology” for the
family’s ordeal.
“In a highly publicized case, the detrimental impact of publicity and
suspicion on people’s lives can be extreme,” she said. “The suspicions
about the Ramseys in this case created an ongoing living hell for the
Ramsey family and their friends, which added to their suffering from
the unexplained and devastating loss of JonBenet.”
JonesieCat
<Paralle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:676e3f86-7303-4656...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
-------------------------
It's nonsense. The Boulder DA's office...? Well, the mind boggles.
One of those pieces of clothing - or some other item entirely - a drawer, a
doll - was llikely the source of the mystery DNA. IOW, some guy somewhere
touched something which later wound up in the Ramsay house, and left his
skin cells behind. Or JonBenet (or her mother et al) picked up some object
at a friend's house perhaps, and got those cells on her hands or clothes.
The possibilities are endless. Then either JonBenet herself or her mother
transferred those cells to the crotch and
waist of JonBenet's clothing items, probably in the bathroom, and then
washed hands. For all we know those cells were on other the waistband of
Patsy's own underpants too, another transfer after helping JonBenet in the
bathroom. Later on JonBenet was murdered. This DNA finding is mildly
interesting, but a waste of taxpayers' money, because it in no way clears
the Ramsays and doesn't ID anybody else. If it were earlier in time, perhaps
they could test other objects or clothing in the home for the same DNA, and
eventually track it to its source. But it's an investigative dead end, so no
conclusions can be drawn. For the DA to ignore that, and draw such sweeping
a sweeping conclusion of innocence, well it is simply advancing their same
old agenda. Unbelievable. (I also find it extremely doubtful that they were
able to ID every person who had access to the evidence even in the very
earliest days, despite their declaration to the contrary.) But hey, it got
the DA's name in the paper again.
jc
Sharonpo
news:9302a6ee-5d07-484a...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
:
> On Jul 9, 4:36 pm, Sharonpo <_Sharon...@cox.nettle> wrote:
>> "tiny dancer" <tinydancer...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote
>> innews:3Dadk.31881$s77....@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>> > My three year old grandsons insist upon pulling their clothes
>> > up and down themselves. A six year old certainly wouldn't need
>> > 'help in the bathroom', from someone other than their parents,
>> > especially.
>>
>> > td
>> http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.true-crime/2006-
>> 06/msg03144.html
>>
>> [...]"in "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" it was revealed
>> that JonBenet had asked people other than her mom--moms of her
>> friends while attheir homes playing or people who they were
>> visiting--to help wipe her after she used the bathroom. Kind of
>> weird, I agree, for a child of 6--not not unheard of.
>>
>> Back when the case was in full-swing, I, too, heard that
>> JonBenét had asked other people to help her in the bathroom."-
> Thanks for reminding me (and everyone else).
I had only been participating in atc for a short while when this case
broke; the shock factor for a newbie was significant. I read far more
on this case than I have on probably any since then.
That little tidbit stuck in my mind as one more WTF factoid.
> IIRC, she even asked Fleet White to do that for her, at the
> party (I don't have my book handy -- it's at home and I'm
> not). I also remember Patsy's sister (Paugh) talking
> about that, on TV....like it wasn't a problem.
If Patsy had been arrested immediately, this case would never have
become a "mystery."
I believe she killed her daughter, and I think she could have either
been coaxed into admitting it or diagnosed with whatever pathology
drove her into denying it. I don't think why she *did* it is as
important as why she had no problem *excusing* herself for doing it.
This has been just a wierd spin on the Murderin' OJ case.
Paralle...@gmail.com
> ParallelCoo...@gmail.com wrote innews:9302a6ee-5d07-484a...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
Definitely. I've always thought it an accident in the bathroom,
with Jonbenet hitting her head and then an elaborate coverup.
Once the coverup began, it trapped the murderer. Just think:
if someone had called 911 immediately, and reported that
their daughter had somehow fallen in the bathroom and
cracked her head on the bathtub? No one would suspect
a mother of doing *that* - would they?
I think the reason she wanted help from adults in the bathroom,
is because she wore those pull-ups. There was probably more
soil on her than she could handle, and she knew an adult
could clean it up. Obviously, many parents go through
that all the time, but normally-raised kids are not wetting
the bed and wearing pull-ups at age 6.
It was my first a.t-c case, too. I was covering it for an
online service at the time, and the discussions here were
invaluable.
Paralle...@gmail.com
> <ParallelCoo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Spot on.
I understand Mary Lacey's faces a re-election vote in November.
What better way to put your face out there, then to exonerate
the Ramseys for the first (wait, second....or third?) time?
Sharonpo
news:7e353437-7cab-45cd...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.co
m:
> On Jul 9, 5:20 pm, Sharonpo <_Sharon...@cox.nettle> wrote:
>> ParallelCoo...@gmail.com wrote
>> innews:9302a6ee-5d07-484a-a88c-560f9f89903
> e...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
Hmmmm... I think it was a lot more insidious than that.
I think Patsy clobbered Jonbenet, didn't realize she'd fatally
wounded her, and took her to the "punishment" room. That child was
subjected to a very ritualistic torture which killed her this time.
> I think the reason she wanted help from adults in the bathroom,
> is because she wore those pull-ups. There was probably more
> soil on her than she could handle, and she knew an adult
> could clean it up. Obviously, many parents go through
> that all the time, but normally-raised kids are not wetting
> the bed and wearing pull-ups at age 6.
And bed-wetting can be a sign of .........?
> It was my first a.t-c case, too. I was covering it for an
> online service at the time, and the discussions here were
> invaluable.
Yup - I particularly remember Doug Case discussing the garrotte knots
and how sophisticated and specialized they were. I don't remember
whether or not anything ever came of those observations.
jerry warner
Poe wrote:
> So the same DNA from inside her underwear was also on both sides of the
> waist of her long-johns, and they were from a male. I have always
> thought Patsy did this based on that damn note and some other things,
> but this revelation gives me pause. I can't think of why a male would
> have his hands on a little girl's waistband and in her undies - 4 is old
> enough to pull your own pants down to go to the bathroom, and certainly
> there is no reason for such hands in her undies (except the reason we
> all know). Even if someone gave her a hand getting the long-johns all
> the way up, again, no need to touch more than for a quick yank-up.
>
> The only other thing I'd say is, maybe she was molested by someone, and
> then later murdered by another. Seems pretty unlikely, though, for a
> little girl with no known enemies to have such a cursed Xmas eve.
>
This case attracts all types! Especially wierdoz...
Nancy Rudins
Yeah, I remember reading about that and thinking that
was very strange. It seems most six-year-old girls
would be too modest to ask someone to wipe them after
using the bathroom.
Kind regards,
Nancy
--
E = F-flat
Musician's Theory of Relativity
nru...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
chatnoir
Ramseys - such as Peter Boyles!
Hunter
wrote:
>waist of her long-johns, and they were from a male. I have always
>thought Patsy did this based on that damn note and some other things,
>but this revelation gives me pause.
For the record, none of the five handwriting experts hired by the
Boulder Police Department said she wrote the letter, in fact they came
very close to eliminating her out right, saying collectively that
there is an equivalent to 90% chance that she DID NOT write the
letter:
Q. "You've read the testimony of Alex Hunter --
A. I have.
Q. --that is part of Defendant's Exhibit 9; have you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And you understand that from Alex Hunter's perspective, the sum
total of the handwriting analysis done by the investigation on Patsy
Ramsey was that she was somewhere at about a 4.5 on a 1 to 5 scale,
with 5 being elimination.
A. (Nods head).
Q. Do you not, sir?
A. That's what he says.
Q. Thus, that from Alex Hunter's perspective, Patsy Ramsey was not
eliminated by the experts chosen by the district attorney, but she was
close to elimination; correct?
A. That's what he says, yes."
http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/05172002Depo-GideonEpstein.htm
>
> I can't think of why a male would
>have his hands on a little girl's waistband and in her undies - 4 is old
>enough to pull your own pants down to go to the bathroom, and certainly
>there is no reason for such hands in her undies (except the reason we
>all know). Even if someone gave her a hand getting the long-johns all
>the way up, again, no need to touch more than for a quick yank-up.
----
Keep in mind that the foreign DNA that is mixed in with JonBenet's
blood is likely from male saliva and not skin flakes or hair.
>
>The only other thing I'd say is, maybe she was molested by someone, and
>then later murdered by another. Seems pretty unlikely, though, for a
>little girl with no known enemies to have such a cursed Xmas eve.
----
Why does it has to be two seperate things? It could very well be that
she was molested by the same person who killed her. Sadly, it happens
all the time.
------>Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
-L.
> Poe wrote:
>
> > So the same DNA from inside her underwear was also on both sides of the
> > waist of her long-johns, and they were from a male. I have always
> > thought Patsy did this based on that damn note and some other things,
> > but this revelation gives me pause. I can't think of why a male would
> > have his hands on a little girl's waistband and in her undies - 4 is old
>
> And actually I meant 6 years old, not 4... not sure what else I was
> thinking when I typed 4 above.> enough to pull your own pants down to go to the bathroom, and certainly
> > there is no reason for such hands in her undies (except the reason we
> > all know). Even if someone gave her a hand getting the long-johns all
> > the way up, again, no need to touch more than for a quick yank-up.
Even if someone helped her wipe her butt, it's likely JB would have
pulled up her own underpants and long pants. And any Mother will tell
you, helping a 6 year old to wipe after pooping isn't unusual. Her
asking a close family friend - her own friend's Daddy - to help, isn't
unusual either, especially if the children stayed at each others homes
frequently. Small children are often treated as family members when
they hang out with your own children frequently.
There's no reason for DNA to be in her underwear and for the *same*
DNA to be on her outer pants is quite odd. I have a four year old and
I can't say I touch the inside of his underpants, other than the waist
band.
>
> > The only other thing I'd say is, maybe she was molested by someone, and
> > then later murdered by another. Seems pretty unlikely, though, for a
> > little girl with no known enemies to have such a cursed Xmas eve.
Or the person took gloves off to molest her, which is pretty likely,
considering the act.
-L.
-L.
wrote:
>
> My three year old grandsons insist upon pulling their clothes up and down
> themselves. A six year old certainly wouldn't need 'help in the bathroom',
> from someone other than their parents, especially.
>
> td
>
Not true for all children. If they have a particularly messy bowel
movement, they might (and probably would) ask for help. Plus, a lot
of children and families aren't modest. In our family, almost anyone
might help my son wipe his butt (he's four) as well as a handful of
friends we consider "family". It's just not a big deal to us.
-L.
-L.
>
>
>
> I think the reason she wanted help from adults in the bathroom,
> is because she wore those pull-ups. There was probably more
> soil on her than she could handle, and she knew an adult
> could clean it up.
Kids often need help wiping after a BM - it's not unusual.
>Obviously, many parents go through
> that all the time, but normally-raised kids are not wetting
> the bed and wearing pull-ups at age 6.
Plenty of children have bladder control issues well past age 6. Their
bladders aren't developed well enough to have proper control. My step
sister peed at night until she was something like 10.
-L.
Poe
This has always been one of those cases where some things don't add up.
Maybe someday this DNA will match up to someone in the DNA database and
many will be stunned to find it really was an intruder. Or maybe it
never will match anyone, because maybe it is just contaminated evidence
and someone won't fess up to it. That damn note always stunk up the room
for me, though - just too strange what was in it, I keep going back to
Patsy. I think she did it, I think the speculation about her losing it
over a bed-wetting or some such was the trigger. It is safe to say, we
will likely never know for sure, and some of these wild hairs will
prolly never be explained.
Poe
Oh? Well gee, that sure is useful information.
I never heard that before, but I never really got into the JBR case as
much as others did. It was/is definitely interesting, but these botched
crime scene situations are always too frustrating for my tastes, because
the dots cannot be nicely connected.
Bradley K. Sherman
Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> ...
>For the record, none of the five handwriting experts hired by the
>Boulder Police Department said she wrote the letter,
Handwriting expert == charlatan.
<http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030418.html>
--bks
JonesieCat
That's what it comes down to isn't it? I am very cynical about long-term,
after-the-fact solutions, unless somebody confesses (and even then...).
Otherwise somebody has an agenda, full stop. This case will never be
"solved." And it is frustrating. There was a poster or two here at the time
who speculated that John may not have known Patsy dunnit. I didn't find that
plausible, but sometimes I wonder...
jc
Poe
He'd know, because she'd change after doing it. She'd become a basket
case in some way. So even if she did the deed without his knowledge,
he'd quickly figure out whodunit after the fact.
Btw, did you see John Mark Karr on one of the shows last night - I think
it was Greta? He's still trying to act all cagey, when she asked "did
you do it?", he answered something like "I can't admit to that..." in a
tone that hinted he did it. So transparent, what a loser.
Paralle...@gmail.com
>
> There's no reason for DNA to be in her underwear and for the *same*
> DNA to be on her outer pants is quite odd. I have a four year old and
> I can't say I touch the inside of his underpants, other than the waist
> band.
There's DNA all over your clothing, in very small amounts.
DNA from everyone who ever touched the clothing while it
was produced, people you brush against while shopping.,
Ever put your purse on a bathroom floor and then
pick it up?
If you touch a public light switch or doorknob, you'll
pick up someone's DNA.
The fact that JBR would have pulled down the pants
with the same hands that pulled down her underpants
and wiped herself....or that an adult performed the
same tasks for her, doesn't mean that anyone is
"cleared".
Show me the same DNA on the instruments of
the crime, and all over the scene, and we've got
a clearance....WHEN someone else is identified.
My main question is: IF this was an intruder, what
other crimes have they committed?
Paralle...@gmail.com
Every case has "wild hairs". If all the evidence in a crime
was scrutinized by scraping, there'd be so much DNA
that no one would ever be convicted.
We'll never know, unless the people who were there that night,
talk. Burke may be holding small memories that he's never
been asked about, and he was treated with kid gloves when
questioned.
Cooler heads are prevailing this morning, and realizing that
this "clearance" is just more of the same PR campaign that's
gone on for 11.5 years.
I don't really care *who* did it; it's fine to fly a guy across
the world as "the real killer" without much scrutiny, but
it's not fine to dig up JBR's body for more scrutiny.
Paralle...@gmail.com
Well-said, and it's good that the media is bringing in experts
to cool the situation down.
It makes no sense that an intruder can do all they did in that
house, and leave only a few skin cells on the victim.
Last night, someone asked a question I'd not thought
of before. IF the Ramseys gave their daughter
pineapple quite often, and Patsy's fingerprints were
on the bowl, why *deny* giving it to her?
JonesieCat
I rarely see such shows. As for Patsy changing afterwards - she'd change
IAC, doncha think? Her daughter dead in her home and all. I've alwalys
thought John at least participated in the cover up (and maybe worse). He
went straight to her body in that obscure basement room when he and Fleet
were asked to search the house. But I believe that we will never know what
happened in that house that night. I don't believe there were any outsiders.
Maybe after they did it, if they did, they did what they thought they had to
do to protect Burke. Or - who knows? I have considered the possibility that
Patsy, if innocent, was so warped as to behave in a way that perpetuated the
suspicion that she killed her own daughter. It sure got her heaps of
attention (HPD?!). We'll never know, IMO.
jc
JonesieCat
<Paralle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:91f7ff93-3bf0-4e1b...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
------------
What experts are cooling the sitch down? I haven't seen anything yet, but
then maybe I wouldn't, down here.
I've never been able to figure out the pineapple thing. The only thing I
could figure out was that maybe they gave LE a story, and hadn't accounted
for the pineapple. Then they were stuck with their story. Didn't they say
they carried her up to bed and that was that? I think they just wanted to go
with the easiest scenario. What really happened was probably complicated and
nutty, IMO.
jc
Paralle...@gmail.com
> ParallelCoo...@gmail.com wrote innews:7e353437-7cab-45cd...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.co
Now I remember what you said at the time...and it does
make sense. An angry Patsy could have hauled the kid
downstairs where it's "quiet", where punishment wouldn't
wake anyone up in the middle of the night. But why
carry her (hair caught in the stairway garland)?
As for the garotte: it may not have been quite as
sophisticated as lucky. Remember in the Yosemite
case, some said that the killer had to have known
the area well, to abandon the car just down *that*
road....and some of us said "he just turned off"
at a road that looked abandoned/quiet. "Some of
us" were right.
A talking head on MSNBC just said that "Ramsey
sources" say that they believe the suspect is dead.
Well, let's chip in and dig him up. There has to
be some loose DNA of all those "dead suspects"
(the best kind) lying around somewhere, if all
it takes is a touch-scrape to find it.
tiny dancer
"JonesieCat" <jonesi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Eupdk.18670$IK1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I have heard that the stomach contents revealed only that the matter in
JonBenets stomach was fiborous, 'could have been pineapple', could have been
any other fiborous material she'd eaten earlier that night. I'm not
'married to' the pineapple. Could be, could not be, just don't know.
>
>
Poe
I think she would change in any case, but a mother in mourning would not
be doing weird things that would appear to be cover-up behavior, and I
think it would come out PDQ why she was acting far stranger than a
mother in mourning - JMO. Plus as you point out, John went straight for
the body and ripped the tape off JBR's mouth. Sure, I know, instinctive
protection of his baby to remove the tape, idk for sure, but I think he
knew at least after the fact.
Hunter
----
They tested all of their friends and family and associates. No matches
were found to the male DNA on her underwear and leggings.
>
>> IIRC, she even asked Fleet White to do that for her, at the
>> party (I don't have my book handy -- it's at home and I'm
>> not). I also remember Patsy's sister (Paugh) talking
>> about that, on TV....like it wasn't a problem.
>
>If Patsy had been arrested immediately, this case would never have
>become a "mystery."
----
And based on what you would had arrested her on?
>
>I believe she killed her daughter, and I think she could have either
>been coaxed into admitting it or diagnosed with whatever pathology
>drove her into denying it. I don't think why she *did* it is as
>important as why she had no problem *excusing* herself for doing it.
----
And what evidence do you have to show tht she did it? The ransom note?
The handwriting experts hired by the Boulder PD all but ruled her out.
She has no history of abusing anyone. One what are you basing your
opinion on.
>
>This has been just a wierd spin on the Murderin' OJ case.
---
There is far far far more things linking OJ to the murder of his
ex-wife and Goldman than there ever was linking Patsy to the murder of
JonBenet. Virtually nothing in fact.
JonesieCat
"tiny dancer" <tinyda...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iQpdk.24048$Xe.2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Oh. I'm just not remembering clearly then. I'm tempted to go back an re-read
about this case, but not sure I have the energy! Anyway, I thought that what
was significant about her stomach contents was that it had to have been
eaten after she got home. Not digested enough to have been eaten at the
party. But the Ramseys said she didn't eat when they got home?
jc
Paralle...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "JonesieCat" <jonesiecac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Eupdk.18670$IK1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Except an open can was in the refrigerator, a bowl was in
the sink (with Patsy's fingerprints on it), and the "fibrous"
was in the upper intestine/stomach.
I dunno about "other fibrous material". Pineapple's pretty
specific, if you think about it. An autopsy, without testing
the material for specificacy, will say "could have been" or
"consistent with".
Paralle...@gmail.com
>
> Oh. I'm just not remembering clearly then. I'm tempted to go back an re-read
> about this case, but not sure I have the energy! Anyway, I thought that what
> was significant about her stomach contents was that it had to have been
> eaten after she got home. Not digested enough to have been eaten at the
> party. But the Ramseys said she didn't eat when they got home?
>
Yup. The pineapple/fibrous was undigested and pretty
identifiable. Even though Patsy's fingerprints were on
the bowl in the sink (with a spoon and some juice, IIRC),
she denied having fed pineapple to JBR.
If you think about it, that'd be suspicious on another
level. The bowl in the sink, if eaten from before they
went to the party, would have dried/congealed. If
the pineapple/fibrous had been eaten by JBR before
the party, it'd be digested. No one can recall any
pineapple being served at the Christmas party (and
why would canned pineapple be present at a Christmas
party attended by wealthy people trying to impress
each other)?
Therein lies the rub. John says he took JBR upstairs, asleep
and put her directly to bed. Yet, when found, she was in completely
different clothing.
Chocolic
speculated that maybe that room was the punish room when JonBenet pissed off
Patsy. If John were aware of that, maybe that's why he headed there first.
Patsy changing afterwards wouldn't be a red flag for me because of the death
of her daughter, and the accusations and publicity. Also, Reference her
changing afterwords, I'm the kind of person that if somebody thinks I'm
guilty of something, and I know somebody thinks I'm guilty, and I think it
looks like I could be guilty, then I will act like I'm guilty.
I prolly shouldn't be butting in to these threads. I read them more now
than I did when it first happened. I'll prolly say something that has
already been hashed over a bazillion times.
Chocolic
Poe
I can't keep up with them, either, not reading most - mainly just this
thread I posted to. I guess I should have paid more attention to this
case back in the day, is is definitely an interesting one.
I know what you mean about acting guilty if you think someone thinks you
are. I used to feel like I was acting guilty of, say, shoplifting, when
in a store and doing not shoplifting at all. It's a funny thing I forgot
about, but now that you mention it, I have a few friends who have
described having the same self-conscious quirk.
Sharonpo
news:34c1bebe-276a-4b20...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.co
m:
> On Jul 9, 7:01 pm, Sharonpo <_Sharon...@cox.nettle> wrote:
>> Yup - I particularly remember Doug Case discussing the garrotte
>> knots and how sophisticated and specialized they were. I don't
>> remember whether or not anything ever came of those
>> observations.-
> Now I remember what you said at the time...and it does
> make sense. An angry Patsy could have hauled the kid
> downstairs where it's "quiet", where punishment wouldn't
> wake anyone up in the middle of the night. But why
> carry her (hair caught in the stairway garland)?
Because she was (near) unconscious from the blow to the head.
> As for the garotte: it may not have been quite as
> sophisticated as lucky. Remember in the Yosemite
> case, some said that the killer had to have known
> the area well, to abandon the car just down *that*
> road....and some of us said "he just turned off"
> at a road that looked abandoned/quiet. "Some of
> us" were right.
Sophisticated was the wrong word choice. Without attempting to look
it up (GACK!!!), I'd rather backpedal and say instead that I recall a
fair amount of discussion on the *type* of the knot.
> A talking head on MSNBC just said that "Ramsey
> sources" say that they believe the suspect is dead.
>
> Well, let's chip in and dig him up. There has to
> be some loose DNA of all those "dead suspects"
> (the best kind) lying around somewhere, if all
> it takes is a touch-scrape to find it.
But, the "Ramsey sources" are right :-)
Sharonpo
news:48764f45...@news.optonline.net:
> On 9 Jul 2008 23:20:31 GMT, Sharonpo <_Shar...@cox.nettle>
> wrote:
>>If Patsy had been arrested immediately, this case would never have
>>become a "mystery."
> ----
> And based on what you would had arrested her on?
Whatever it took to get her alone for a few hours.
>>I believe she killed her daughter, and I think she could have
>>either been coaxed into admitting it or diagnosed with whatever
>>pathology drove her into denying it. I don't think why she *did*
>>it is as important as why she had no problem *excusing* herself
>>for doing it.
> ----
> And what evidence do you have to show tht she did it? The ransom
> note? The handwriting experts hired by the Boulder PD all but
> ruled her out. She has no history of abusing anyone. One what are
> you basing your opinion on.
The evidence.
There were 6! handwriting experts used:
http://www.timescall.com/ramsey/storyDetail03.asp?ID=26
[...]"four hired by police and two hired by the Ramseys. All six
excluded John Ramsey as the author of the note, and none identified
Patsy Ramsey as the writer."
[...]"Wolf and Hoffman, however, hired their own handwriting experts,
Gideon Epstein and Cina Wong, who said they were “100 percent
certain” Mrs. Ramsey wrote the ransom note."
I think seeing is believing, so here is a link to Cina Wong's
analysys.
http://www.acandyrose.com/11141997cinawonganalysis.htm
[...]" It is not uncommon for some people to have 2 or 4 of the
similar characteristics I have listed, since they may have learned to
write in the same "copybook" method in grade school.
"The relatively large number of distinctive similarities (32) found
in both the "ransom note" and exemplars allegedly written by Patsy
Ramsey, however, cannot be ignored."
>>This has been just a wierd spin on the Murderin' OJ case.
> ---
> There is far far far more things linking OJ to the murder of his
> ex-wife and Goldman than there ever was linking Patsy to the
> murder of JonBenet. Virtually nothing in fact.
>
> ------>Hunter
I have no problem with you believing that; someone has to.
Chocolic
I have to admit, that for a long time I didn't think Patsy was guilty. I
mean, how can a mom who so doted and seemed to idolize her daughter, spoiled
her rotten with everything that child ever wanted (or so it seemed), and she
sort of lived her childhood thru her daughter, do something that horrific.
I had a real hard time believing that. She wasn't known to be a nutso
woman. I don't mean just losing it and accidentally killing her (lots of
so-called otherwise good moms are capable of doing that, I don't think any
of us are 100% immune, except td of course), but staging it so coldly
afterwards, so to speak, I found hard to believe. Most of us normal people
would fess up to it and die from the guilt.
But now that I'm reading "these recent" threads, esp the ones from Poe,
Cori, Kris, and a few others, I'm beginning to see it. She seems to be a
mom who thrived on appearances, obsessed by it IMO. If her beautiful
perfect daughter was peeing or crapping the bed, and she was obsessively
trying to clean up after it day after day and trying to keep up appearances,
and frustrated because her daughter wasn't living up to what she wanted her
to be, who knows. Maybe she did snap and "accidentally" kill her and
frantically try to cover it up in a stoopid way.
I know when my daughters wet the bed (way younger than 6 yo though, but it
was still frustrating as hell). I always hated the weekly chore of washing
and changing sheets, imagine having to do that daily, or every couple of
days. I love a clean house and keep it the way I want it, but it doesn't
mean I like doing it like a lot of my friends do. I hate it.
Chocolic
Chocolic
"Chocolic" <chatt...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7HOdk.112389$102....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Actually I meant Po, not Poe. Poe is sort of a quandary like me.
Chocolic
Poe
I know I am not a thought leader on this topic. Anyway, I like the word
"quandary", the shoe fits...
I had doubts about Patsy, too. When I saw the death photos of JBR and
how tight that rope was around her neck, making it all pinched in, and
her mouth looked open for a last gasp, I could not believe a mother
could to that to her baby, but as we know, they do. And that damn note.
Chocolic
OMG, I didn't see those photos, told you I didn't follow it all. Death
photos? How the frick did they get released. That is so sad.
A nutso mom could do that, but I didn't think she was nutso. Was it proven
that the death rope was before or after death? Gawd, I hate when I start
getting into something when everybody has already hashed it over. Kris? Be
patient with me.
Chocolic
Poe
http://zyberzoom.com/JonBenet.html if you dare. When I saw those I
thought no way a mom could do that to their own baby.
Betsy
"Chocolic" <chatt...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7HOdk.112389$102....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
Not to mention the high stress of the Holiday season, and the stress of
preparing for a trip the next day, dealing with serious health issues, and
(probably) lack of sleep over the last few days. Anyone could snap given
the right trigger.
Betsy
tiny dancer
There are other autopsy photo's that show even more clearly that JonBenet
used her fingernails to try and loosen the rope around her neck. The
photo's also show that the garrote was loosened and tightened in a torture
manner. And that head injury wasn't accidental either.
td
Iarnrod
> I had doubts about Patsy, too. When I saw the death photos of JBR and
> how tight that rope was around her neck, making it all pinched in, and
> her mouth looked open for a last gasp, I could not believe a mother
> could to that to her baby, but as we know, they do.
When? Is there a case in which a parent has ever killed their child in
such a fashion?
Hunter
wrote:
>On Jul 9, 4:42=A0pm, metspitzer <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:20:38 -0400, Poe <haun...@terrible-thought.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >So the same DNA from inside her underwear was also on both sides of the
>> >waist of her long-johns, and they were from a male. I have always
>> >thought Patsy did this based on that damn note and some other things,
>> >but this revelation gives me pause. I can't think of why a male would
>> >have his hands on a little girl's waistband and in her undies - 4 is old
>> >enough to pull your own pants down to go to the bathroom, and certainly
>> >there is no reason for such hands in her undies (except the reason we
>> >all know). Even if someone gave her a hand getting the long-johns all
>> >the way up, again, no need to touch more than for a quick yank-up.
>>
>> Are you saying that touching a pair of panties will leave enough DNA
>> to be able to test? =A0That is very surprising to me. =A0Of course, I kno=
>w
>> little about the subject.
>
>All they need now are a few skin cells, which is both revealing
>and confusing.
>
>How could someone strangle this girl with the rope and
>paintbrush handle and NOT leave DNA there, but leave
>a few skin cells on the waistband of clothing...and an
>amount of DNA equal to a sneeze, in her panties?
-----
It is male saliva in the crotch of her panties that was mixed with her
blood and then the skin flakes on the leggings of her pajamas-which
she didn't wear at the Christmas party the night before-that matches
with what was in her crotch that makes this significant. Also, we
don't know of any "hold backs" that the police and the DA may have
like when the last time her underwear and pajamas were washed.
Sharonpo
> There are other autopsy photo's that show even more clearly that
> JonBenet used her fingernails to try and loosen the rope around
> her neck. The photo's also show that the garrote was loosened and
> tightened in a torture manner. And that head injury wasn't
> accidental either.
No, there aren't any such autopsy photo's [sic].
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Interpreting+the+Evidence#WhichCameF
irstHeadBloworStrangulation
[...]"Some argue that the ligature found around JBR's neck was used
as a sexual device; "sex-game-gone-awry" theories such as Cyril
Wecht's entail the garrote's being used as an erotic asphyxiation
(EA) device which is more consistent with her being killed by a
family member or close family friend. Conversely some intruder
theories posit a pedophile or other type of sex offender who used
the garrote as part of a sexual fantasy. A related question is
whether JBR struggled while being strangulated; evidence that she
did would argue against a voluntary "sex game."
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Interpreting+the+Evidence#WhichCameF
irstHeadBloworStrangulation
[...]
1. "I don't think she clawed at her neck while being strangled,
because Meyer did not find her skin under her nails. If she
scratched at her throat during strangulation enough to leave
fingernail marks, then her skin should have been under her nails.
It wasn't."
2. "Not only that, there is very little damage to the
interior of her neck, as if she didn't struggle at all. The hyoid
bone is still intact as were the thyroid and cricoid cartilages,
and her trachea. The strap muscles of her neck were not
hemorrhaged."
3. "Her tongue and the insides of her cheeks were
unblemished as well, and usually stragulation victims will bite
their tongue and cheeks during the strangling."
4. "JonBenet's neck gives no indication that she was struggling or
even conscious while she was being strangled, and when you
consider the killer tied the knot and the back of neck and
that her long johns were urine-stained in the crotch and in the
front, it sounds to me like she was strangled facedown from
behind, and she did not struggle against her killer at all."
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Evidence+of+Prior+Sexual+Abuse
[...] "Expert Opinion. Cyril Wecht, along with 4 other doctors
concurred that the injury to hymen "dated from an old injury,"
including Dr. David Jones, Professor of Preventative Medicine and
Biometrics at University of CO Health Sciences Center; Dr. James
Monteleone, Professor of Pediatrics at St. Louis University School
of Medicine (and Director of Child Protection Cardinal Glennon
Children's Hospital); Dr. John McCann (see below); and Dr. Ronald
Wright, former Medical Examiner, Cook County Illinois (Schiller
1999:437 according to Internet poster The Punisher). Forensic
pathologist Robert Kirschner also said that the injuries to JonBenet
were consistent with long-term sexual abuse. Virginia Rau of Dade
County, Florida said she believed JonBenet had been sexually abused
over time (Bonita Papers)."
[...] "If she had been taken to a hospital emergency room, and
doctors had seen the genital evidence, her father would have been
arrested"
[...] "Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, stated
had found fecal staining in all of JBR's panties on the 3rd day of
the investigation; in 2006 she stated: "There is this dynamic of
children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves
or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at
bay," explains Smith....While Smith points out there could be
innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised
questions."
Poe
I wish I paid more attention to this case back in the day. The more I
read the more I am surprised one or both the Ramseys were never charged
with anything.
Sharonpo
news:6ds12aF...@mid.individual.net:
> Sharonpo wrote:
>> "tiny dancer" <tinyda...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:HuSdk.23064$LL4....@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
>>> There are other autopsy photo's that show even more clearly that
>>> JonBenet used her fingernails to try and loosen the rope around
>>> her neck. The photo's also show that the garrote was loosened
>>> and tightened in a torture manner. And that head injury wasn't
>>> accidental either.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, there aren't any such autopsy photo's [sic].
> I wish I paid more attention to this case back in the day. The
> more I read the more I am surprised one or both the Ramseys were
> never charged with anything.
The DA was in bed with Team Ramsey.
Wild Monkshood
Sharonpo wrote:
Which may explain why Patsy was peering through her fingers whilst
pretending to cry. Maybe she was checking to see if the room was clear
and she could get some nod unmolested. The peering through the fingers
thing was one of the creepier aspects of this whole sorted mess....
WM
>
>
>
Hunter
>Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote in
>news:48764f45...@news.optonline.net:
>
>> On 9 Jul 2008 23:20:31 GMT, Sharonpo <_Shar...@cox.nettle>
>> wrote:
>>>If Patsy had been arrested immediately, this case would never have
>>>become a "mystery."
>> ----
>> And based on what you would had arrested her on?
>
>Whatever it took to get her alone for a few hours.
----
So you don't know. You only presume. They did question John Ramsey
alone on the 27th of December 1996. They also questioned Burke Ramsey
alone and without parental permission on December 26th and it was
taped recorded. Why they didn't interrogate Patsy when they had the
chance you will have to ask them but the Ramseys cooperated and she
would had very likely consented to be interviewed alone at the time as
her husband was..
>
>>>I believe she killed her daughter, and I think she could have
>>>either been coaxed into admitting it or diagnosed with whatever
>>>pathology drove her into denying it. I don't think why she *did*
>>>it is as important as why she had no problem *excusing* herself
>>>for doing it.
>> ----
>> And what evidence do you have to show tht she did it? The ransom
>> note? The handwriting experts hired by the Boulder PD all but
>> ruled her out. She has no history of abusing anyone. One what are
>> you basing your opinion on.
>
>The evidence.
>
>There were 6! handwriting experts used:
>
>http://www.timescall.com/ramsey/storyDetail03.asp?ID=26
>
>[...]"four hired by police and two hired by the Ramseys. All six
>excluded John Ramsey as the author of the note, and none identified
>Patsy Ramsey as the writer."
---
I know, I left out the two hired by the Ramseys deliberately. If you
include them then the figure is a 90% chance that she didn't write it
(4.5 on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being her not writing it) in stead of
80% (4.0 on the scale of 1-5) chance she did not write the not. I
also did not include them passing the lie detector test as I don't
believe in those things one way or the other. The Green River serial
killer passed with flying colors. He was nailed by DNA. A Husband
lived under an "umbrella of suspicion" for killing his wife for
something like 20 odd years especially after he failed TWO lie
detector test. Everybody claimed they "knew" he was guilty. Turns out
his wife was killed by the BTK serial killer. His guilt was confirmed
by DNA. So I don't believe in lie detector test so it doesn't impress
me that the Ramseys passed it, even if I do believe they are innocent.
>
>[...]"Wolf and Hoffman, however, hired their own handwriting experts,
>Gideon Epstein and Cina Wong, who said they were “100 percent
>certain” Mrs. Ramsey wrote the ransom note."
>
>I think seeing is believing, so here is a link to Cina Wong's
>analysys.
>
>http://www.acandyrose.com/11141997cinawonganalysis.htm
>[...]" It is not uncommon for some people to have 2 or 4 of the
>similar characteristics I have listed, since they may have learned to
>write in the same "copybook" method in grade school.
>
>"The relatively large number of distinctive similarities (32) found
>in both the "ransom note" and exemplars allegedly written by Patsy
>Ramsey, however, cannot be ignored."
----
Unlike Epstein, Wong is not qualified in handwriting analysis:
"The Court concludes that Mr. Epstein's background constitutes
sufficient qualifications to allow him to testify in the field of
forensic documents' examination."
Wong Qualifications
"In stark contrast to Epstein, Wong has never taken a certification
exam, completed an accreditation course in document examination, been
an apprentice to an ABFDE certified document examiner, or worked in a
crime lab. (Wong Dep. at 87-112.) She does, however, claim nearly ten
years of experience in the field. (PI.'s Br. In Opp. To Defs.' Mot. In
Limine [87] at 9.)
She, however, is not a member of the ABFDE, the sole recognized
organization for accreditation of qualified forensic document
examiners. Although she is the former vice president of the National
Association of Document Examiners ("NADE"), (PSDMF' 2), defendants
note that this organization does not meet ABFDE certification
requirements, has no permanent office and has no membership
requirements other than the payment of a fee. (Defs. ' Mot. In Limine
[68] at 6.)
Wong, herself, admits that NADE does not require specialized training
or experience forits certification. (Wong Dep. at 87-89.) Finally,
even Epstein, plaintiff's other expert, testified that Wong is not
qualified to render 'opinions in this case. (Epstein Dep. at 32-33.)
Accordingly, the Court concludes Ms. Wong is not qualified to provide
reliable handwriting analysis in this case. Therefore, the Court
GRANTS defendants' motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Ms.
Wong and the Court does not consider Ms. Wong's testimony in its
analysis of defendants' summary judgment motion.
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes41-50.htm
http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/05132002Depo-CinaWong.htm
Critique of Wong Methodology: No Originals Used.
"Ms. Wong received her copy of the Ransom Note and certain writings
alleged to be historical writings of Mrs. Ramsey from the tabloid The
National Enquirer. (SMF P 258; PSMF P 258.)" (Carnes 2003:27).
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes21-30.htm
But even with Epstein the far more qualified of the two, there are
problems:
"In contrast to the experts relied upon by defendants and by the
Boulder Police Department, however, neither of these experts [Epstein
and Wong] have ever seen or examined the original Ransom Note."
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes21-30.htm
"It is undisputed that a number of subtle and critical handprinting
features observable on examination of the original Ransom Note cannot
be observed from an examination of a machine copy of the Ransom Note."
And
"In particular, defendants argue that Epstein's opinions are not
reliable because he did not consult the original Ransom Note, original
handwriting exemplars of Mrs. Ramsey, nor original course-of-business
writings of Mrs. Ramsey. (Defs.' Mot. In Limine (68 at 8.) Epstein
acknowledges the importance of consulting original documents in an
article he coauthored, appearing in the 1971 edition of Identification
News, a publication of the International Association for
Identification. (SMF 220; PSMF 220.) In this text, Epstein writes
that:
All investigative agencies should be aware of the limitations that are
imposed upon the Questioned Document Examiner by the submission of
copies (Xerox, Photo, or Thermofax) in place of the original. By
having to use the copies, the examiner is being deprived of one of the
most important elements of scientific examination, the study of line
quality of the writing. Those breaks, pressure areas, and even
spacing, can often be attributed to the mechanical method of
reproduction and not to the actual writing itself. A qualified
conclusion based on examination of only copies is not rare. ATTEMPT TO
OBTAIN THE ORIGINALS WHENEVER POSSIBLE."
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes41-50.htm
Also Epstein doesn't explain why he is "100% certain.":
"Of more concern to the Court, however, is the reliability of
Epstein's ultimate conclusion concerning the identity of the writer of
the Note. As noted, Epstein claims that he is "100 percent certain
that Patsy Ramsey wrote the (R]anson [N]ote," and in his professional
opinion "there is absolutely no doubt she is the author." (Pl. 's
Stmt. Of Disp. Mat. Facts (88] 1.) (emphasis added)
Nowhere in the submissions provided by plaintiffs is there any attempt
to show by what methodology Mr. Epstein reaches a conclusion of
absolute certainty that a given person is, in fact, the writer of a
questioned document. 26 Defendants persuasively argue that Epstein was
unable to identify any unique."
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes51-60.htm
The point is that most of the handwriting experts, both those hired by
the DA and those hired by the Ramseys used the original documents to
come to their conclusions. Even one of the few qualified experts hired
by outside interest use Epstein is problematical because he doesn't
say why he is so certain. The experts hired by both the DA and the
Ramseys did explain their conclusions and how they arrived at such.
>
>>>This has been just a wierd spin on the Murderin' OJ case.
>> ---
>> There is far far far more things linking OJ to the murder of his
>> ex-wife and Goldman than there ever was linking Patsy to the
>> murder of JonBenet. Virtually nothing in fact.
>>
>> ------>Hunter
>
>I have no problem with you believing that; someone has to.
---
See above, Both the four experts hired by the DA and the two hired by
the Ramseys where those who actually examined the RN, Patsy's
exemplars and any documents like business letters she wrote before the
murder have said that is much more likely that she didn't write the
note than did. Most of the people who says that she did are
unqualified. Both a civil Court and a Criminal Grand Jury who didn't
indict heard the handwriting experts who actually were under oath give
their opinions and the Grand Jury refused to indict. The civil judge
determined that she most likely didn't write the note. If they both
believed she did, she would had been indicted and the civil Judge
would had found fo the plantiff (Chris Wolf the book writer ). That is
how important the RN is, so drawing on those two legal proceedings she
didn't write the note including the civil decision:
"Here, as noted, several factors necessarily reduce the weight a
reasonable juror could give to Epstein's conclusion. First, Epstein
did not consult the original Ransom Note nor obtain original exemplars
from Mrs. Ramsey. Second, as noted by defendants, Epstein deviated
from the very methodology that he has previously asserted was
necessary to make a reasoned judgment. Most significant to the Court
in its determination that Epstein's conclusion cannot carry the day
for plaintiff, however, is the unanimity of opinion among six other
experts that Mrs. Ramsey cannot be determined to have been the writer
of the Note. As noted supra, the Boulder Police Department and
District Attorney's Office had consulted six other handwriting
experts, all of whom reviewed the original Ransom Note and exemplars.
Supra at 21-22. Although two of these experts were hired by
defendants, four were independent experts hired by the police. None of
these six experts were able to identify Mrs. Ramsey as the author of
the Ransom Note. Instead, their consensus was that she "probably did
not" write the Ransom Note. Supra at n. 14.
Given the contrary opinion of six other experts, whose ability to
examine the documents was necessarily superior to Epstein's, and given
Epstein's failure to explain the methodology by which he can make
absolute pronouncements concerning the authorship of a document, this
Court does not believe that a reasonable jury could conclude that Mrs.
Ramsey was the author of the Ransom Note, solely on the basis of
Epstein's professed opinion to that effect."
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes81-93.htm
On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author
of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0.
(SMF P 203; PSMF P 203.)
The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of
the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF P 204; PSMF P 204.) (Carnes
2003:26).
At least these experts were tested in courts of law.
One last thing. Patrica Ramsey gave handwriting samples on several
different days over several months. That means she would had to fake
her hand writing on all the examplars on 12/28, then remember how she
did it on the 1/4/97, 2/28, 4/12, and 5/25. That disquised handwriting
not only had to have not match the note, it would have had to match
her known previous historical handwriting done before the murder. She
would had had done it on five different occasions over five months.
Then in 1998 or so she gave ANOTHER handwriting sample, this time with
*both* hands. If anything was new and Earth shaking about that test we
would had heard something.
As I said, there is far far far more evidence against O.J than their
ever was against Patsy and that evidence, tested under two different
legal proceedings is flimsy at best.
Oh and one more thing. Patsey and John-now only John-has never stopped
looking for the real killer. To bring him to justice and to clear
their names. Meanwhile, OJ has stopped looking for the real killer and
wrote a book of if he did kill Nicole Brown here is how he may had
done it.
Hmmmm.
Sharonpo
> On 11 Jul 2008 17:39:20 GMT, Sharonpo <_Shar...@cox.nettle>
> wrote:
>
>>Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote in
>>news:48764f45...@news.optonline.net:
>>
>>> On 9 Jul 2008 23:20:31 GMT, Sharonpo <_Shar...@cox.nettle>
>>> wrote:
>>>>If Patsy had been arrested immediately, this case would never
>>>>have become a "mystery."
>>> ----
>>> And based on what you would had arrested her on?
>>
>>Whatever it took to get her alone for a few hours.
> ----
> So you don't know. You only presume. They did question John
> Ramsey alone on the 27th of December 1996. They also questioned
> Burke Ramsey alone and without parental permission on December
> 26th and it was taped recorded. Why they didn't interrogate Patsy
> when they had the chance you will have to ask them but the Ramseys
> cooperated and she would had very likely consented to be
> interviewed alone at the time as her husband was..
So you don't know. You only presume :-) I think she would have
spilled the beans.
>>There were 6! handwriting experts used:
>>
>>http://www.timescall.com/ramsey/storyDetail03.asp?ID=26
>>
>>[...]"four hired by police and two hired by the Ramseys. All six
>>excluded John Ramsey as the author of the note, and none
>>identified Patsy Ramsey as the writer."
> ---
> I know, I left out the two hired by the Ramseys deliberately. If
> you include them then the figure is a 90% chance that she didn't
> write it (4.5 on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being her not writing it)
> in stead of 80% (4.0 on the scale of 1-5) chance she did not write
> the not.
<snip lie detector stuff>
>>[...]"Wolf and Hoffman, however, hired their own handwriting
>>experts, Gideon Epstein and Cina Wong, who said they were “100
>>percent certain” Mrs. Ramsey wrote the ransom note."
> ----
> Unlike Epstein, Wong is not qualified in handwriting analysis:
<snip>
> Accordingly, the Court concludes Ms. Wong is not qualified to
> provide reliable handwriting analysis in this case. Therefore, the
> Court GRANTS defendants' motion in limine to exclude the testimony
> of Ms. Wong and the Court does not consider Ms. Wong's testimony
> in its analysis of defendants' summary judgment motion.
LOL.....we're not in a Court of Law, you know. Here, in the Court of
Public Opinion, we get to see *all* the evidence "out there." It's
not up to you or anyone else what evidence I choose find credible.
Here is another great ransom note analysis which indicts Patsy, as do
the experts listed below:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6404
[...]
Independent Confirmation of the Handwriting Analysis
Michelle Dresbold - Handwriting Analysis Expert Trained by the U. S.
Secret Service:
“The chances that Patsy Ramsey did not write the ransom note are
about 2 percent.”
Gideon Epstein - Forensic Document Examiner:
“Based on the presently available documents, there are strong
indications that Patsy Ramsey is the author of the ransom note.”
David S. Liebman - Certified Document Examiner:
“There are far too many similarities and consistencies revealed in
the handwriting of Patsy Ramsey and
the ransom note for it to be coincidence. In light of the number of
comparisons and similarities between Patsy Ramsey and the ransom note
writer (51), the chances of a third party also sharing the same
characteristics is astronomical. In my professional opinion Patsy
Ramsey is the ransom note writer.”
Tom Miller - Attorney, Court Qualified Expert Witness in Questioned
Documents:
“Based upon available exemplars compared to the purported "ransom"
note in the JonBenét Ramsey murder, the handwriting is probably that
of Patsy Ramsey.”
Chet Ubowski - Colorado Bureau of Investigation Handwriting Expert:
Chet Ubowski wrote, "This handwriting showed indications that the
writer was Patsy Ramsey.'' He is said to have found 24 of 26 letters
in the ransom note which matched exemplars from Patsy Ramsey.
Cina L. Wong - Certified Document Examiner:
“I have made careful examination and comparison of the ‘ransom’ note
and the exemplars of Patsy Ramsey. I have reached the conclusion that
the handwritings and ‘ransom’ note were very probably written by the
same person…it is my professional opinion that Patsy Ramsey very
likely wrote the ‘ransom’ note.”
Larry F. Ziegler - Forensic Document Examiner:
“It was determined and is still determined by myself that Patsy
Ramsey is the writer of the ransom note.”
>>I have no problem with you believing that; someone has to.
> ---
> See above, Both the four experts hired by the DA and the two hired
> by the Ramseys where those who actually examined the RN, Patsy's
> exemplars and any documents like business letters she wrote before
> the murder have said that is much more likely that she didn't
> write the note than did.
The Ramseys and the DA *refused* to provide original exemplars,
despite plaintiff's discovery requests in the civil case.
There's no telling how many experts were paid before the six you
mention gave the desired results.
In other words, the Ramseys and the DA have no credibility with me.
<snip>
> At least these experts were tested in courts of law.
That doesn't make them right.
<snip>
> Oh and one more thing. Patsey and John-now only John-has never
> stopped looking for the real killer. To bring him to justice and
> to clear their names. Meanwhile, OJ has stopped looking for the
> real killer and wrote a book of if he did kill Nicole Brown here
> is how he may had done it.
>
> Hmmmm.
What is John doing to find the "real killer?" Importing one from
Thailand doesn't count :-)