Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Science fiction? Thats not really a good argument. I assume you have some kind of evidence that anything more than a paintbrush assault happened that night, because I've never seen it.

Apparently you do not understand sexual assault. That is a broad term that describes many kinds of acts. He could be one that did not want to have sex with her but just touch her or assault her with the brush and that would be enough to have him ejaculate which he did in her underwear and probably on her body since she was cleaned up. Thankfully he did not get it all and left his signature right there. But nevertheless there is DNA in her underwear that coincides with a sexual assault. It is factual and it is reality.

 

[Anti-K]

I believe it was determined that the abrasions in her vagina were not yet healed and also not fresh. I don't recall the actual time frame but it was certainly at least 48 hours. And the condition of her hymen did not come from childs play. Do not try to insult us, you are smarter than that.



Do you consider an intruder coming in to the house, writing a 2.5 page ransom note AFTER killing the victim to be more than "barely believable"



Okay, we both know that John paid his lawyer a hell of a lot to get the testimony of those two analysts thrown out. Those analysts have both testified in trials before and after the Ramsey case, so I guess there is a different standard for the rich. At the very least you have to admit that the note is NOT proof of an intruder.



Was Burke searched when he left that house? Was John searched before he disappeared for 45 minutes? Were any of the Ramseys searched when they left that house? And Patsy's sister had ample opportunity to remove whatever the Ramseys didn't take with them. Another luxury for the rich only. I hope John made a big donation to the policeman ball!



Again see above



We do know Patsy made a purchase for the same amount as the cord from the hardware store that it was likely purchased from. These things don't do anything to prove an intruder. The Ramseys could have (and would have) removed all that stuff for the same reasons an intruder would have.




Again, I have never seen any evidence, none whatsoever, that points specifically to an intruder. The whole "no prior history" thing is a crock. Burke sent her to the hospital haver he hit her, not once but twice with a golf club. Patsy was becoming increasingly more full of rage towards JB in the weeks leading up to the murder (from her housekeeper). And the ongoing sexual abuse isn't and indication? The 911 call two nights previous isn't strange? The fact that the Ramseys lied about JB being awake when they got home from the Whites isn't strange? The fact that they lied about Burke being awake in the morning isn't strange? The fact that they didn't cooperate with police isn't strange? The fact that they hired some of the most powerful lawyers in the country within 24 hours isn't strange? The fact that John wanted to go to his business meeting minutes after finding his dead daughter isn't strange? The fact that they made up a story about their best friend, Fleet White, going nuts in Atlanta isn't strange?

I could go on and on, but whats the point, you have fragments of DNA right?



The case is only weak because like the guilty cowards they are, the three of them barricaded themselves away and refused to talk about it, unless they could pick the interviewer and have their lawyers present.

On prior abuse: sorry if you feel insulted, but none of what I stated originated with me; for example, the idea of corporal punishment comes from Steve Thomas. In fact, I don’t think that you will find any consensus on the issue of prior abuse amongst those associated with the investigation of this case, never mind amongst RDI posters!
.

You’ve raised far too many points for me to address at once, so I’m not going to try. However, I will take a moment to address the ransom note, absurdities and contradictions.

If the Ramseys (if RDI) had disposed of the body before recalling 911, than there would be some reason for the note’s existence, but they decided to keep the body (or, never even considered disposing of it). This presents no reason for them to even consider a fake kidnapping. Faking a kidnapping is the answer to a question that would not have been asked.

Within the context of what the Ramseys would have needed to do (explain dead body in house) the ransom note becomes an absurdity. It contradicts their intent (explain dead body in house).

The note itself presents another absurdity and contradiction of intent (if RDI).

The note is on paper easily traced to the house and to an individual. It’s Christmas with all manner of not-so-easily-traceable wrapping paper, envelopes, cards, cardboard, and scraps everywhere and only a scrap of something was needed.

In addition to the absurdity of using their own identifiable notepad we have the unnecessary length of the note with (supposed) “inside information” unnecessarily created almost as if they intentionally wanted to provide investigators with self-incriminating evidence.

Now, let’s say that the Ramseys disposed of certain items (as, if RDI, they must have). The intent would have been to prevent investigators discovery of incriminating evidence. Creating THIS ransom note contradicts that intent. Retaining the pen and the notepad (and, handing it to the police!) contradicts that intent. Unnecessarily incorporating the paint brush into the garrote, breaking it and putting the broken end in the paint tote contradicts that intent. Wiping (if wiped) the flashlight, but leaving it on the counter contradicts that intent.

But, the biggest contradiction and absurdity of all (if RDI) is the ransom note.

I don’t mean to ignore any of the other points you’ve raised. Feel free to ask me anything, if you want to. Just not so much at once, please.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I believe it was determined that the abrasions in her vagina were not yet healed and also not fresh. I don't recall the actual time frame but it was certainly at least 48 hours. And the condition of her hymen did not come from childs play. Do not try to insult us, you are smarter than that.



Do you consider an intruder coming in to the house, writing a 2.5 page ransom note AFTER killing the victim to be more than "barely believable"



Okay, we both know that John paid his lawyer a hell of a lot to get the testimony of those two analysts thrown out. Those analysts have both testified in trials before and after the Ramsey case, so I guess there is a different standard for the rich. At the very least you have to admit that the note is NOT proof of an intruder.



Was Burke searched when he left that house? Was John searched before he disappeared for 45 minutes? Were any of the Ramseys searched when they left that house? And Patsy's sister had ample opportunity to remove whatever the Ramseys didn't take with them. Another luxury for the rich only. I hope John made a big donation to the policeman ball!



Again see above



We do know Patsy made a purchase for the same amount as the cord from the hardware store that it was likely purchased from. These things don't do anything to prove an intruder. The Ramseys could have (and would have) removed all that stuff for the same reasons an intruder would have.




Again, I have never seen any evidence, none whatsoever, that points specifically to an intruder. The whole "no prior history" thing is a crock. Burke sent her to the hospital haver he hit her, not once but twice with a golf club. Patsy was becoming increasingly more full of rage towards JB in the weeks leading up to the murder (from her housekeeper). And the ongoing sexual abuse isn't and indication? The 911 call two nights previous isn't strange? The fact that the Ramseys lied about JB being awake when they got home from the Whites isn't strange? The fact that they lied about Burke being awake in the morning isn't strange? The fact that they didn't cooperate with police isn't strange? The fact that they hired some of the most powerful lawyers in the country within 24 hours isn't strange? The fact that John wanted to go to his business meeting minutes after finding his dead daughter isn't strange? The fact that they made up a story about their best friend, Fleet White, going nuts in Atlanta isn't strange?

I could go on and on, but whats the point, you have fragments of DNA right?



The case is only weak because like the guilty cowards they are, the three of them barricaded themselves away and refused to talk about it, unless they could pick the interviewer and have their lawyers present.

On prior abuse: sorry if you feel insulted, but none of what I stated originated with me; for example, the idea of corporal punishment comes from Steve Thomas. In fact, I don’t think that you will find any consensus on the issue of prior abuse amongst those associated with the investigation of this case, never mind amongst RDI posters!
.

You’ve raised far too many points for me to address at once, so I’m not going to try. However, I will take a moment to address the ransom note, absurdities and contradictions.

If the Ramseys (if RDI) had disposed of the body before recalling 911, than there would be some reason for the note’s existence, but they decided to keep the body (or, never even considered disposing of it). This presents no reason for them to even consider a fake kidnapping. Faking a kidnapping is the answer to a question that would not have been asked.

Within the context of what the Ramseys would have needed to do (explain dead body in house) the ransom note becomes an absurdity. It contradicts their intent (explain dead body in house).

The note itself presents another absurdity and contradiction of intent (if RDI).

The note is on paper easily traced to the house and to an individual. It’s Christmas with all manner of not-so-easily-traceable wrapping paper, envelopes, cards, cardboard, and scraps everywhere and only a scrap of something was needed.

In addition to the absurdity of using their own identifiable notepad we have the unnecessary length of the note with (supposed) “inside information” unnecessarily created almost as if they intentionally wanted to provide investigators with self-incriminating evidence.

Now, let’s say that the Ramseys disposed of certain items (as, if RDI, they must have). The intent would have been to prevent investigators discovery of incriminating evidence. Creating THIS ransom note contradicts that intent. Retaining the pen and the notepad (and, handing it to the police!) contradicts that intent. Unnecessarily incorporating the paint brush into the garrote, breaking it and putting the broken end in the paint tote contradicts that intent. Wiping (if wiped) the flashlight, but leaving it on the counter contradicts that intent.

But, the biggest contradiction and absurdity of all (if RDI) is the ransom note.

I don’t mean to ignore any of the other points you’ve raised. Feel free to ask me anything, if you want to. Just not so much at once, please.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

apologies for double post. i have no explanation; chrome glitched out and.. uh.

...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

There are many cases where meaningless foreign DNA is found. How did I twist it like it doesn't exist? I'm offering explanations as to why it does exist.

Do you know of any case in which a "meaningless", male DNA profile was found in a victim's underwear and at least two other locations, either on the victim's clothing or on the body, AND in which the actual perpetrator's DNA was absent?...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

On prior abuse: sorry if you feel insulted, but none of what I stated originated with me; for example, the idea of corporal punishment comes from Steve Thomas. In fact, I don’t think that you will find any consensus on the issue of prior abuse amongst those associated with the investigation of this case, never mind amongst RDI posters!
.

You’ve raised far too many points for me to address at once, so I’m not going to try. However, I will take a moment to address the ransom note, absurdities and contradictions.

If the Ramseys (if RDI) had disposed of the body before recalling 911, than there would be some reason for the note’s existence, but they decided to keep the body (or, never even considered disposing of it). This presents no reason for them to even consider a fake kidnapping. Faking a kidnapping is the answer to a question that would not have been asked.

Within the context of what the Ramseys would have needed to do (explain dead body in house) the ransom note becomes an absurdity. It contradicts their intent (explain dead body in house).

The note itself presents another absurdity and contradiction of intent (if RDI).

The note is on paper easily traced to the house and to an individual. It’s Christmas with all manner of not-so-easily-traceable wrapping paper, envelopes, cards, cardboard, and scraps everywhere and only a scrap of something was needed.

In addition to the absurdity of using their own identifiable notepad we have the unnecessary length of the note with (supposed) “inside information” unnecessarily created almost as if they intentionally wanted to provide investigators with self-incriminating evidence.

Now, let’s say that the Ramseys disposed of certain items (as, if RDI, they must have). The intent would have been to prevent investigators discovery of incriminating evidence. Creating THIS ransom note contradicts that intent. Retaining the pen and the notepad (and, handing it to the police!) contradicts that intent. Unnecessarily incorporating the paint brush into the garrote, breaking it and putting the broken end in the paint tote contradicts that intent. Wiping (if wiped) the flashlight, but leaving it on the counter contradicts that intent.

But, the biggest contradiction and absurdity of all (if RDI) is the ransom note.

I don’t mean to ignore any of the other points you’ve raised. Feel free to ask me anything, if you want to. Just not so much at once, please.
...

AK

Sorry, you are making very vague points. "the Ramsey's wouldn't have done this" and "an intruder would have done that" just don't cut it. Patsy was identified by more than one expert as having written the note. Patsy was identified by every other expert as maybe writing the note.

And although my point were many, the underlying theme is that they have lied like thieves throughout this investigation and they have been extremely uncooperative. That is not how innocent people act. Why? Answer that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Do you know of any case in which a "meaningless", male DNA profile was found in a victim's underwear and at least two other locations, either on the victim's clothing or on the body, AND in which the actual perpetrator's DNA was absent?...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I knew exactly when the last time she was sexually assaulted and by who, and if I knew exactly what was used to wipe her down, I might have a better explanation for that DNA. As it sits, it may belong to the killer or it may not belong to the killer. As all the other evidence points in one direction, i'll wager the DNA came from someone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Apparently you do not understand sexual assault. That is a broad term that describes many kinds of acts. He could be one that did not want to have sex with her but just touch her or assault her with the brush and that would be enough to have him ejaculate which he did in her underwear and probably on her body since she was cleaned up. Thankfully he did not get it all and left his signature right there. But nevertheless there is DNA in her underwear that coincides with a sexual assault. It is factual and it is reality.

Wrong. Under black light the coroner could see where she had been wiped. Swabs were taken, initially thinking it was semen, from various locations and it was found to only be blood. There is no evidence of a sexual assault (other than being jabbed with a paintbrush) happening that night. The damage to her hymen indicated a prior assault. Could the paintbrush assault have been some sort of perverse assault? Possibly, but if you take in to account the fact that the duct tape on her mouth was placed there whilst she was unconscious and that the bindings on her hands weren't even tight, its abundantly clear that much of what we see was staging, and that likely the paintbrush attack was done to mask the prior abuse. And lets not even go in to how on earth Patsy's sweater fibres got on that duct tape!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Wrong. Under black light the coroner could see where she had been wiped. Swabs were taken, initially thinking it was semen, from various locations and it was found to only be blood. There is no evidence of a sexual assault (other than being jabbed with a paintbrush) happening that night. The damage to her hymen indicated a prior assault. Could the paintbrush assault have been some sort of perverse assault? Possibly, but if you take in to account the fact that the duct tape on her mouth was placed there whilst she was unconscious and that the bindings on her hands weren't even tight, its abundantly clear that much of what we see was staging, and that likely the paintbrush attack was done to mask the prior abuse. And lets not even go in to how on earth Patsy's sweater fibres got on that duct tape!

Not wrong. There is evidence of sexual assault because being raped with a paint brush is SEXUAL ASSAULT.. Calling it being poked is offensive to every female alive. The evidence tells us he was there, That he left his DNA in her underwear and other places. It is that simple.
Your opinion is based on your theory. My opinion is based on clear and concise evidence that CODIS holds locked up waiting to be matched.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If I knew exactly when the last time she was sexually assaulted and by who, and if I knew exactly what was used to wipe her down, I might have a better explanation for that DNA. As it sits, it may belong to the killer or it may not belong to the killer. As all the other evidence points in one direction, i'll wager the DNA came from someone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

THe DNA explains itself. That is the problem. You are trying to make something up to fit the DNA but the DNA tells the story by itself.

 

[andreww]

Not wrong. There is evidence of sexual assault because being raped with a paint brush is SEXUAL ASSAULT.. Calling it being poked is offensive to every female alive. The evidence tells us he was there, That he left his DNA in her underwear and other places. It is that simple.
Your opinion is based on your theory. My opinion is based on clear and concise evidence that CODIS holds locked up waiting to be matched.

I really don't care if every woman alive is offended. If JB was dead at the time of the paintbrush assault (lack of tongue marks on the duct tape indicates she was at least unconscious) and the intent wasn't sexual, but a masking of evidence, then in my books that isn't a true sexual assault.

What I am getting at, that you IDI's seem to want to ignore, is that the true sexual assault, the one that stretched her hymen to twice its normal size, happened BEFORE that night. How long before? We don't know. Was the DNA from that assault? We don't know.

Beyond that, from what I can find on the subject, the DNA itself is suspect. The best sample as I understand it (please prove me wrong) had between 9 & 10 markers. That is LESS than the acceptable amount for CODIS (at least 10 markers). That in itself is not a huge deal, but the samples that it is being compared to had less than 3 markers. It seems to me that the reason CODIS requires 10 markers (out of a possible 13) is because that is a number that ensures an accurate result. If you have a sample that has one or two markers, how reliable is that sample? what are the probabilities of an error? Do you know that answer? because if you don't, then you cannot with any certainty say that any of that DNA matches.

 

[andreww]

THe DNA explains itself. That is the problem. You are trying to make something up to fit the DNA but the DNA tells the story by itself.

That is a very dangerous way of thinking.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That is a very dangerous way of thinking.

No it isn't. DNA found in the underwear of a murdered sexual assault victim is clear. The DNA is in CODIS. Even Beckner could not dismiss the DNA. No good cop would. That DNA is the key to the killer. There is no doubt. I hope and pray every day they will get a hit.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I really don't care if every woman alive is offended. If JB was dead at the time of the paintbrush assault (lack of tongue marks on the duct tape indicates she was at least unconscious) and the intent wasn't sexual, but a masking of evidence, then in my books that isn't a true sexual assault.

What I am getting at, that you IDI's seem to want to ignore, is that the true sexual assault, the one that stretched her hymen to twice its normal size, happened BEFORE that night. How long before? We don't know. Was the DNA from that assault? We don't know.

Beyond that, from what I can find on the subject, the DNA itself is suspect. The best sample as I understand it (please prove me wrong) had between 9 & 10 markers. That is LESS than the acceptable amount for CODIS (at least 10 markers). That in itself is not a huge deal, but the samples that it is being compared to had less than 3 markers. It seems to me that the reason CODIS requires 10 markers (out of a possible 13) is because that is a number that ensures an accurate result. If you have a sample that has one or two markers, how reliable is that sample? what are the probabilities of an error? Do you know that answer? because if you don't, then you cannot with any certainty say that any of that DNA matches.

No it doesn't. If someone duct tapes your mouth the first thing you are going to do is close it. That is a normal response. There is no way to know if she was conscious or not when she was duct taped.
DON'T use the term true sexual assault. This child was sexual assaulted and murdered.
You don't understand sexual assault and what it means to be sexually assaulted.

The DNA is not suspect. It is in CODIS because it is accepted by their standards. IT is not junk DNA, it is not made up DNA it is not DNA from workers in Asia, It is DNA left by the killer and until people start looking at the evidence and stop clouding themselves with made up scenarios that they add evidence into to make it fit, they will not see the truth of this horrible crime.
Have a great day.

 

[andreww]

No it isn't. DNA found in the underwear of a murdered sexual assault victim is clear. The DNA is in CODIS. Even Beckner could not dismiss the DNA. No good cop would. That DNA is the key to the killer. There is no doubt. I hope and pray every day they will get a hit.

He pretty much did dismiss it. Later he backtracked, probably fearing a call from Lin Wood.

 

[andreww]

No it doesn't. If someone duct tapes your mouth the first thing you are going to do is close it. That is a normal response.

So you know more than what the forensic people who do this for a living do?

There is no way to know if she was conscious or not when she was duct taped.

I beg to differ. Ill go with what the experts say. You wanna talk about dismissing fact to suit your theory?

You don't understand sexual assault and what it means to be sexually assaulted.

You have no clue as to what I do or don't understand. You certainly have no idea about things I've lived through.

The DNA is not suspect. It is in CODIS because it is accepted by their standards. IT is not junk DNA, it is not made up DNA it is not DNA from workers in Asia, It is DNA left by the killer and until people start looking at the evidence and stop clouding themselves with made up scenarios that they add evidence into to make it fit, they will not see the truth of this horrible crime.

If it met CODIS standards why have I never seen it stated that there were 10 markers. Between 9 & 10 markers means less than 10, thus NOT up to CODIS standards. And again, you dance around the point that the other samples had less than 3 markers. Can anybody say with certainty that 2 samples match with only one or two markers?

 

[Tawny]

I keep seeing people say the perpetrator's DNA is not present, but that may not be true. There is unsourced DNA, yes, but wasn't there also DNA from every other Ramsey? Are we only focusing on that one miniscule, unsourced sample because we refuse to consider that a Ramsey could have done this?

 

[andreww]

I keep seeing people say the perpetrator's DNA is not present, but that may not be true. There is unsourced DNA, yes, but wasn't there also DNA from every other Ramsey? Are we only focusing on that one miniscule, unsourced sample because we refuse to consider that a Ramsey could have done this?

Thats one of the advantages of killing your own 6 year old. Your DNA is supposed to be on her so it means nothing.

 

[elannia]

Could the DNA be of someone who was too young to be charged of her murder? Maybe thats why we know nothing about it. I know nothing about all this DNA stuff so forgive me if this statement is out there

 

[andreww]

Could the DNA be of someone who was too young to be charged of her murder? Maybe thats why we know nothing about it. I know nothing about all this DNA stuff so forgive me if this statement is out there

You cannot tell a persons age from DNA. It does tell us its a male, thats all. So yes it could have come from one of JBs playmates.