Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[Junebug99]

i think the behaviors of the parents tell more than the messed up evidence in the house. i can understand patsy not ratting out john because of his money. why wouldnt john rat out patsy if she did it.

I'm not going to judge someone based on their reaction to their Childs death, especially when it's becoming clear they are the prime suspects.

 

[runsdeep]

I'm not going to judge someone based on their reaction to their Childs death, especially when it's becoming clear they are the prime suspects.

i dont judge people. i will suspect someone based on their reactions to a child's death. and i can detect differences in reactions to a child's death and reactions to police suspicion.

 

[Junebug99]

i dont judge people. i will suspect someone based on their reactions to a child's death. and i can detect differences in reactions to a child's death and reactions to police suspicion.

Do you also take into consideration that they realize they are prime suspects in the murder of their child? I have know clue how I would act and I hope to god I never find out.

 

[Roy23]

It was tested against the several people in the BPD, and in the coroners office. The fact that it was under her fingernails, on both sides of her long johns where they would be pulled down and commingled with blood in her underwear, plus the bpd have cleared people based on it tells me the DNA evidence it's a lot more important than you RDI theorist care to admit.

They have cleared folks based on DNA. I am glad somebody other than me is reading between the lines. RDI is correct that many issues with the DNA will have issues in court. The fingernail DNA especially. This is where common sense comes in. It matches. That means with all the problems in court, they used techniques to validate it in comparison to the rest of DNA.

 

[runsdeep]

Do you also take into consideration that they realize they are prime suspects in the murder of their child? I have know clue how I would act and I hope to god I never find out.

yes, that consideration is stated in my post.

 

[madeleine]

i dont judge people. i will suspect someone based on their reactions to a child's death. and i can detect differences in reactions to a child's death and reactions to police suspicion.

I agree with this.
Their first TV appearance still makes me go very mmmm hhhhmmmm mmmm

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/01011997ramseysoncnn.htm

only a FEW days after the brutal death of their daughter

And we want to thank them, to let them know that we are healing,

RAMSEY, P: And if anyone knows anything, please, please help us. For the safety of all of the children, we have to find out who did this.

RAMSEY, J: Not because we're angry, but because we have got to go on.

CABELL: Do you take some comfort in believing that JonBenet Ramsey is in a better place.

RAMSEY, J: Yes. That's the one thing we want people dealing with us to know, to believe that, we know that in our heart.

RAMSEY, P: She'll never have to know the loss of a child . She will never have to know cancer or death of a child.

 

[madeleine]

btw,one of many reasons why I always thought that IF IDI,JR knows exactly who it was or at least suspected but kept his mouth shut.

this kind of attitude:

RAMSEY, J: But the other -- the other reason is that -- for our grief to resolve itself we now have to find out why this happened.


RAMSEY, J: This -- we cannot go on until we know why. There's no answer as to why our daughter died.



almost never "who".......just "why"....

 

[madeleine]

what I mean is......if it was for the money it's obvious WHY she died.....it went wrong,she screamed,etc
if it was a sick pedo it's obvious WHY,he's a sick evil person....
if it was revenge it's obvious why,JR ticked someone off....

in order for justice to be done the most important thing would have been WHO
and they never seemed to care......or?

 

[Junebug99]

JR hired his own investigators until he went broke, some still continue to work pro bono, if he didn't care WHO, why bother hiring someone to find out?

 

[UKGuy]

Why has the touch DNA cleared people? If it's not reliable evidence they wouldn't clear so many people based on it. JMK freaking confessed and was cleared because his DNA wasn't a match. Why was there only Red fibers? She had on a black and grey sweater, why no fibers from them? What about the fibers found not linked to anything in the house? Your so Hell bent on the fibers proving guilt, explain those. We really don't know if the fibers have been linked to John or not. Cops lie if they think it will get their suspects to confess. On top of that, no forensic criminalist is going to get on the stand and state that any fibers came from specific items unless those items are so differentiated from other similar fibers as to make them unique. It was Christmas, Patsy is not the only person wearing a red sweater, and unless she had on a one of kind sweater no one can say 100% that they came from PR's sweater.

Why has the touch DNA cleared people?

You are repeating the same error and expect the rest of us to agree with you, which we do not.

The clearing of the Ramsey's because their dna does not match the touch-dna is a subjective decision, because there is no proof that the touch-dna belongs to an intruder. That is you can exclude the owner of the touch-dna once you identify him, but you cannot exclude the Ramsey's just because they do not match the forensic sample.

The point at which the Ramsey's should be cleared is once the touch-dna is matched to some individual and its shown that it did not arrive on JonBenet accidentally.

The reasoning you are pursuing is similar to that of dna found in semen or blood samples at crime-scene these can rule people in or out, but not touch-dna.

.

 

[UKGuy]

They have cleared folks based on DNA. I am glad somebody other than me is reading between the lines. RDI is correct that many issues with the DNA will have issues in court. The fingernail DNA especially. This is where common sense comes in. It matches. That means with all the problems in court, they used techniques to validate it in comparison to the rest of DNA.

Roy23,

They have cleared folks based on DNA.

Sure and the samples used are normally blood or semen dna. JonBenet's sample is touch-dna, so that cannot be used to clear the Ramsey's because you have not demonstrated that the touch-dna belongs to the person who killed JonBenet.

A Ramsey may have killed JonBenet and the touch-dna deposited at the autopsy.

Your reasoning is flawed, we expect better from websleuth's posters!



.

 

[Roy23]

Roy23,

Sure and the samples used are normally blood or semen dna. JonBenet's sample is touch-dna, so that cannot be used to clear the Ramsey's because you have not demonstrated that the touch-dna belongs to the person who killed JonBenet.

A Ramsey may have killed JonBenet and the touch-dna deposited at the autopsy.

Your reasoning is flawed, we expect better from websleuth's posters!



.

I am not talking about the Ramsey's. I don't think they should be CLEARED. talking about other people.

 

[madeleine]

JR hired his own investigators until he went broke, some still continue to work pro bono, if he didn't care WHO, why bother hiring someone to find out?

A. The investigators were retained by our

8 attorneys, and they stated to me that the

9 principal purpose of those investigators was to

10 prepare a defense in the case that the police

11 might bring a charge against me.

12 I hoped that they would also follow

13 up on leads that came to us, but I was

14 frequently reminded by our attorneys that their

15 principal role was to prepare a defense should

16 that be necessary.



http://www.acandyrose.com/12122001Depo-JohnRamsey.htm


hoped?!

 

[BBB167893]

Why would John and Patsy incriminate themselves and demand the amount of JR's bonus?

I think DD already answered that. They probably figured it was a good way of casting suspicion of someone either at AG or the maid.

What about the palm print and hi tech boot print?

You mean the palm print that was matched to Melinda and the boot print matched to Burke in 2002? Or are you referring to something else?

The DNA? Rumor has it Dna under her finger nails matched DNA on her long johns.

A rumor is ALL it is. You can't match something that only has 2 markers in it.

As far as previous abuse, I don't believe it for a second, Hell I completely broke my Hyman at the age of five riding a boy bike.

We're talking about quite a bit more than a broken hymen, Junebug. For one thing, her hymen wasn't broken. It had been worn down over time. For another thing, the surrounding tissues showed erosion as well.

There are certain criteria to look for to know if a child has been abused. JB fit just about all of them. And that's just from the PHYSICAL standpoint.

I 100% believe an idi, I wouldn't be surprised if was the same man who attacked another little girl (14) in Colorado while her mother slept. They went to the same dance studio iirc. The mother ended up scaring the intruder away.

IF it happened. I'm so sure that "Amy" WAS attacked. I wouldn't be surprised if the "attacker" was her boyfriend and they got caught and she went with the attack story to cover her tracks. It's not unheard of.

My heart goes out to the Ramsey's, I can't imagine the Hell they have been through.

Neither can I.

 

[BBB167893]

What about the DNA UNDER her fingernails, which matched DNA on her long johns exactly in the spot someone who was pulling them down would have touched, and let's not forget this DNA was also found in her underwear mixed with JBR's own blood.

The DNA under her nails did NOT match any of the other DNA. It couldn't have.

Henry Lee himself tested unopened packages of children's underwear and found DNA in them, too. He also stated that the two DNA samples (JB's and this one) would not have to be deposited at the same time. (Indeed, this would explain why JB's DNA was found in a complete state, where the other DNA was so badly degraded they needed to amplify it just to get ten markers.

Cynic is better disposed to handle this than I am.

The suit case under the window, the packing peanut, I will say it again, two unidentified bootprints, you can't prove didn't belong to an intruder. The unidentified pubic/armpit hair on blanket.

Try getting your evidence from someplace OTHER than Lou Smit and those two hired-gun private detectives he was so close to. I'd trust them about as far as I'd trust a snake not to bite or a scorpion not to sting.

The suitcase was not originally under the window. Fleet White admitted he PUT it there. He shouldn't have done that.

Packing peanut? Are you kidding?

A hair that was matched to Patsy? Is that the one you mean?

 

[BBB167893]

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682463/DNA Evidence

*
Evidence Against Asian Factory Worker Source
Panty DNA Commingled with Blood. On November 19, 2002, an AP report(AP report from Internet poster Candy) stated: "But [Ramsey attorney Lin] Wood said the theory is meritless. The DNA was found commingled with blood, he said."
Possible Match with Fingernail DNA. The same AP report stated noted "its genetic markers may match evidence taken from fingernails on both of JonBenet's hands. 'There are common markers as to all three that would strongly suggest they are from the same source,' he [Lin Wood] said." According to CBS*News: "The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name. Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails [Emphasis added].
Panty DNA Much More Than Trace Amount. Moreover, in a November 30, 1996 letter to Westward, Carol Martin of Walnut Creek, CA, claims to have written and gotten a reply from the producer of 48 Hours to complain about their November 28 show involving Michael Tracey and Lou Smit. She asserted: "The most interesting thing the producer said was that while traces of DNA have been found in unopened packages of underwear, the foreign DNA in JonBenét's was ten to twelve times that amount."
Trip DeMuth. In a 48 Hours interview aired on November 25, 2006, Trip*DeMuth commented on the DNA evidence: "How likely is it that it would be anybody but the killer? I think it’s highly unlikely that it would be anybody else but the killer," he says.
*

In other words, your sources are Lin Wood, the two hired-gun detectives and Trip DeMuth. Have I got that right?

Wood is the Ramseys' attack lawyer, Augustin and Gray were hired to create reasonable doubt if charges were filed, and DeMuth was so deeply in the Ramseys' corner against the cops that Alex Hunter had to fire him. (And believe me, that's saying saomething! If you're so unobjective that ALEX HUNTER has to rein you in, you're practically from another planet!)

 

[BBB167893]

Oh and please stop telling me I should read up on the case. I have and I still find sources that say the palm print was never matched.

Those sources are wrong, Junebug. If you don't like that response, it's the only one I can give you. The fact that you still read it as if it were fact just shows what crummy shape the media is in these days.

 

[BBB167893]

Black Duct Tape. "The black duct tape used on JonBenet's mouth has also not been sourced to defendants. (SMF P 170; PSMF P 170.) Both ends of the duct tape found on her were torn, indicating that it came from a roll of tape that had been used before. (SMF P 171; PSMF P 171.) No similar duct tape was found in the house, nor is there evidence that defendants ever used or owned such duct tape. (SMF P 172; PSMF P 172.)" (Carnes 2003:18).
Cord. "sources for the....cord used in the crime were never located, nor sourced, to defendants' home." (Carnes 2003:10).
Animal Hair on Duct Tape. "Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF P 183; PSMF P 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF P 183; PSMF P 183.)" (Carnes 2003:19).
Animal Hairs on JBR's Hands. "Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF P 184; PSMF P 184.)" (Carnes 2003:19).
Footprints in Basement. "Several recently-made unidentified shoeprints were found in the basement, imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor. (SMF P 151; PSMF P 151.) In particular, a shoeprint of a "HI-TEC" brand mark on the sole of a shoe was found. (SMF P 152; PSMF P 152.) Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes, and none of the shoes found in their home match the shoeprint marks. (SMF P 153; PSMF P 153.) Another partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF P 155; PSMF P 155.) This shoeprint left only a partial logo. The owner of the "HI-TEC" shoe that made the shoeprints at the murder scene has never been identified. (SMF P 154, 155; PSMF P 154, 155.)" (Carnes 2003:19).
Palmprint on Wine-Cellar Door. "In addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a 20 palmprint that does not match either of defendants' palmprints. (SMF P 156; PSMF P 156.) The individual to whom it belongs had not yet been identified. (SMF P 156; PSMF P 156.)" (Carnes 2003:19-20). Internet poster Mame asserts: "the story suggesting the handprint is confirmed to be Melinda's is just that....a story. If I recall the report came via a reporter, Charlie Brennan. Remember his footprints in the snow story??? A totally false story."
Baseball Bat. "A baseball bat not owned by the Ramseys found on the north side of the house has fibers consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF P 185; PSMF P 185.)" (Carnes 2003:20).
Rope and Bag in JAR Bedroom. "a rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom on the second floor; defendants have indicated that neither of these items belonged to them. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.) Regardless of its ownership, there is no explanation why a bag containing a rope would be in the guest bedroom. Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the "vacuuming" of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181), thereby suggesting that either the bag had been near JonBenet or that someone who had touched the bag had also touched JonBenet." (Carnes 2003:93-94).
Brown Cotton Fibers. "Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.) (Carnes 2003:20).
Caucasian Hair on Blanket. "Likewise, an unidentified Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair, not *1357 matching any Ramsey, was found on the blanket covering JonBenet' body. (SMF P 179-180; PSMF P 179-180.)" (Carnes 2003:96).
*
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682468/Evidence of an Intruder

Unfortunately, Junebug, the Carnes ruling stipulates to a lot of things that aren't true. As Tricia and many others have pointed out in the past, the Ramseys and Lin Wood presented a lot of things as fact that were not fact, but were accepted because they were not challenged.

 

[BBB167893]

I sure hope you hang around. Please have thick skin and get ready for the RDI experience. Not many of us IDI's around these parts.

In other words, fresh meat!

In all seriousness, what he calls the "RDI Experience" is what we call actually debating. If you can't take a little bloody nose, you shouldn't be here.

 

[BBB167893]

I am shocked at outright lies on this board.

You've sure jumped in with both feet, though!

I don't understand why people continue to point fingers at the Ramseys when it's obvious that it was an intruder.

For one thing, it's NOT obvious that there was an intruder. In FACT (might want to get used to that word) it's obvious there ISN't one.

And as for not understanding it, that's what I'm here for: to help you understand.

The DA admits it,

Ugh, don't get me started on the DA.

a judge who looked at every single piece of evidence (true evidence) said it points to an intruder.

Wrong on both counts. The judge did NOT look at every single piece of evidence. She only looked at the evidence that the Ramseys presented, most of which was taken illegally. She NEVER got access to the actual police case file, not ONE PAGE. Mary Lacy made sure that didn't happen.

And as for it being "true" evidence, it certainly was not. A LOT of statements were taken as fact when they were not fact, but since they couldn't be challenged (because no one had access to the police file), they had to be accepted. Civil suits are not very useful for fact finding.

Lou Smit a well respected and successful crime solver said an intruder did it,

He may have well-respected once, but his conduct in this case was nothing short of shameful, and I'm glad that we have so much documentation of that conduct. Where would you like to start?

the only people who stated other wise was the Barney Fife like BPD, and the majority on this board.

A few things.

Number one, those two groups were NOT the only ones who stated otherwise. The FBI was very active in this case, and they said otherwise. That's just one of MANY sources I can think of.

Secondly, those "Barney Fife-like" cops and the majority on this board would walk through FIRE to get justice in this case. The only thing Smit cared about was his EGO. At least now he's in a spot where he can't harm this case anymore, not like he needs to. He did PLENTY to damage it.