Blue Fibers

[10ofRods]

10ofRods,
Both your statements might be 100% correct, yet they may only apply to the past?

It is possible that JonBenet's acute internal injuries result from staging?

JonBenet underwent two physical examinations and the second examination agreed with Coroner Meyer's initial Autopsy findings.

i.e. JonBenet was Digitally Penetrated and that she was subject to Sexual Contact.

BPD describe the above as Vaginal Trauma, suggesting they think it might represent staging?

The latter phrase is repeated in Steve Thomas' book and the book Perfect Murder Perfect Town where it might be intended to either mask any Sexual Assault or be a phrase to avoid litigation from the Ramsey's?

.

I'm not sure what you're asking? Of course it's possible that the person who inflicted the vaginal injuries on Dec 25-26 was a different person than the person or persons who abused JBR prior to that date. However, it seems entirely too coincidental that said person (the person staging her abuse on Dec 26th) knew nothing about the prior abuse. But of course it's possible that it's two different people (or three or more different people, but in my view, the more people added to this scenario, the more unlikely it is - but not impossible).

Anything is possible. Since both Patsy and John's behavior (of covering up something) seems united, then seeking an explanation for what might have united them is appealing as an explanation. If in fact some investigators had a sense, early on, of what that explanation might be, then even the behavior of the DA's office could be explicable.

What explanation do you think is most likely? I personally am no longer working with intruder theories but still have an open mind. The redressing, the Barbie nightie, and many other things are telling me that the perp was very familiar with the Ramsey household. I can think of reasons why both adult Ramseys could be united in staging and cover-up, but we're in an area where people do see the evidence differently.

I do believe that whoever assaulted JBR vaginally that night was either the groomer/chronic abuser OR knew of the abuse and wanted to frame/point to that person who is the actual abuser. If it was the abuser who did all of it, then that person must have feared being found out (or had just been found out). If JBR's therapy was working and she was starting to talk about her abuse, it was a scary time for the abuser.

The parts of this case that interest me have to do with explaining some unusual and forever puzzling facts (the 911 call that had to have been made from the house phone on the 23rd still troubles me; the fact that someone took the time to build an odd tool like a garrote when something more simple would have done; the extreme length of the ransom note; Patsy's abandonment of manuscript "a's" after the event; JAB's bedding in the suitcase; the abandonment of the house and the dog immediately after the murder; the lack of immediate and thorough forensic investigation into the premises; the throwing of friends like the Whites under the bus...all of this and more is still puzzling. I've been following this case since Dec 26,1996 (was already involved in some forensic work myself and am the mother of two kids not far from the Ramsey kids in age, grew up in a similarly religious family and community, at the time did not know much about pageants or Southern pageants anyway).

Is it possible that only one adult Ramsey was involved that night? Yes, but that means the other one was capable of powerful amounts of denial and an acute grief phase that involved a lot of repression and disassociation. If no Ramsey was involved, and the Ramseys were dealing with both their daughter's murder and the fact that she had been sexually abused (if that was new to them), their actions regarding the investigation are unusual.

To think that a stranger had somehow had access to JBR over a period of time leading up to her murder, and was sexually abusing/grooming her...poses so many questions that you'd like the Ramseys would have been demanding answers from the police and DA, and would be cooperating fully in the goal of catching that person.

The fact that two DA's clearly did not understand the nature of the DNA in this case and that DNA was used to exonerate people who cannot be cleared by incomplete DNA sequences does not surprise me, but it does make me think.

 

[Beltonian]

Great post, 10ofRods, looking forward to read your other thoughts...

 

[UKGuy]

I'm not sure what you're asking? Of course it's possible that the person who inflicted the vaginal injuries on Dec 25-26 was a different person than the person or persons who abused JBR prior to that date. However, it seems entirely too coincidental that said person (the person staging her abuse on Dec 26th) knew nothing about the prior abuse. But of course it's possible that it's two different people (or three or more different people, but in my view, the more people added to this scenario, the more unlikely it is - but not impossible).

Anything is possible. Since both Patsy and John's behavior (of covering up something) seems united, then seeking an explanation for what might have united them is appealing as an explanation. If in fact some investigators had a sense, early on, of what that explanation might be, then even the behavior of the DA's office could be explicable.

What explanation do you think is most likely? I personally am no longer working with intruder theories but still have an open mind. The redressing, the Barbie nightie, and many other things are telling me that the perp was very familiar with the Ramsey household. I can think of reasons why both adult Ramseys could be united in staging and cover-up, but we're in an area where people do see the evidence differently.

I do believe that whoever assaulted JBR vaginally that night was either the groomer/chronic abuser OR knew of the abuse and wanted to frame/point to that person who is the actual abuser. If it was the abuser who did all of it, then that person must have feared being found out (or had just been found out). If JBR's therapy was working and she was starting to talk about her abuse, it was a scary time for the abuser.

The parts of this case that interest me have to do with explaining some unusual and forever puzzling facts (the 911 call that had to have been made from the house phone on the 23rd still troubles me; the fact that someone took the time to build an odd tool like a garrote when something more simple would have done; the extreme length of the ransom note; Patsy's abandonment of manuscript "a's" after the event; JAB's bedding in the suitcase; the abandonment of the house and the dog immediately after the murder; the lack of immediate and thorough forensic investigation into the premises; the throwing of friends like the Whites under the bus...all of this and more is still puzzling. I've been following this case since Dec 26,1996 (was already involved in some forensic work myself and am the mother of two kids not far from the Ramsey kids in age, grew up in a similarly religious family and community, at the time did not know much about pageants or Southern pageants anyway).

Is it possible that only one adult Ramsey was involved that night? Yes, but that means the other one was capable of powerful amounts of denial and an acute grief phase that involved a lot of repression and disassociation. If no Ramsey was involved, and the Ramseys were dealing with both their daughter's murder and the fact that she had been sexually abused (if that was new to them), their actions regarding the investigation are unusual.

To think that a stranger had somehow had access to JBR over a period of time leading up to her murder, and was sexually abusing/grooming her...poses so many questions that you'd like the Ramsey's would have been demanding answers from the police and DA, and would be cooperating fully in the goal of catching that person.

The fact that two DA's clearly did not understand the nature of the DNA in this case and that DNA was used to exonerate people who cannot be cleared by incomplete DNA sequences does not surprise me, but it does make me think.

10ofRods,,

What explanation do you think is most likely? I personally am no longer working with intruder theories but still have an open mind.

The most likely explanation is JDI, but it is not the most consistent of all the explanations and theories, that is BDI, the least likely and the least consistent explanation is PDI. That said there is no smoking gun so any RDI theory might be correct. IDI as a probability estimate must be close to zero.

I can think of reasons why both adult Ramseys could be united in staging and cover-up, but we're in an area where people do see the evidence differently.

All Three surviving Ramsey's colluded to stage JonBenet's postmortem crime-scene and verbal version of events, Burke Ramsey continues to this day making the same claims he did as a 9-year old, with a few exceptions, e.g. being awake during the 911 call, It Sounds Like My Voice, and as Dr Phil elicited from Burke, that he returned back downstairs on the night of JonBenet's death, once everyone else was in their bedroom?

I do believe that whoever assaulted JBR vaginally that night was either the groomer/chronic abuser OR knew of the abuse and wanted to frame/point to that person who is the actual abuser. If it was the abuser who did all of it, then that person must have feared being found out (or had just been found out). If JBR's therapy was working and she was starting to talk about her abuse, it was a scary time for the abuser.

Possibly, the vaginal assault might have been staged by Patsy or John with the case being PDI as Patsy lost it with JonBenet and whacked her, Burke has to be counted in, since the postmortem version of events has been fabricated? Also any chronic abuse was undertaken by other person(s) at an earlier date?

the fact that someone took the time to build an odd tool like a garrote when something more simple would have done; the extreme length of the ransom note; Patsy's abandonment of manuscript "a's" after the event;

All signatures of amateur staging. Patsy patently projected her *advertiser censored* Laude degree dramatisation techniques into the Ransom Note thinking this would persuade people, not realizing a real ransom note would just say We Have JonBenet, We Want One Million Dollars, Will Phone At Ten AM, similar with the garrote, a hand over the mouth would be sufficient.

The biggest clue in the case is the Wine-Cellar and its contents which have all been staged including JonBenet herself!

Is it possible that only one adult Ramsey was involved that night? Yes,

Yet the other two participated in the postmortem staging.

The fact that two DA's clearly did not understand the nature of the DNA in this case and that DNA was used to exonerate people who cannot be cleared by incomplete DNA sequences does not surprise me, but it does make me think

They understood the dna, that it was used to exonerate the Ramsey's suggests the case has a darker side. The takeaway on the dna has to be that all of the dna profiles recovered have not been put in the public domain, and the reason for this links directly to the darker aspects of the case.

Alternatively there are no dark aspects, its simply that the case is BDI so BPD and the parents are legally compelled to disassociate Burke Ramsey from the death of JonBenet?


.

 

[10ofRods]

Great post, UKGuy. I only disagree on the two DA's understanding how to use potential composite DNA to include/exclude suspects (it can't be used that way). Are you saying that these two DA's knew they were deliberately allowing possible POI's to be cleared?

 

[UKGuy]

Great post, UKGuy. I only disagree on the two DA's understanding how to use potential composite DNA to include/exclude suspects (it can't be used that way). Are you saying that these two DA's knew they were deliberately allowing possible POI's to be cleared?

10ofRods,
Thanks, yes the DA's just wanted to use the dna to limit the suspect list.


Was it an administrative move in an attempt to close the case down, or did it reflect a darker side to the case, members have their opinions.

I used to think there was a conspiracy, consider John Ramsey selling his house to some property company that is owned by his friends and had shareholders who were legal eagles. This was a long time ago but looked dodgy back then, suggesting some corporate horse-trading was going with John Ramsey as the focus?

With Hunter not filing the True Bills in open court and the other DA exonerating the Ramsey's on the basis of the dna profiles, just made me wonder if the conspiracy more a legal requirement than backroom deals by John and his legal team?

The True Bills tell us the Ramsey's have a case to answer, yet neither parent was charged with Murder In The First Degree, that was reserved for the Person referred to many times in the True Bills, i.e. a third party.

Since IDI is off the table this leaves only one other person present in the Ramsey household the night JonBenet was killed?

.

 

[10ofRods]

The DA's clearly didn't understand DNA if they expected to be able to use it that way. Much of my career, however, has been consulting with/educating LE and lawyers about DNA, what kinds there are, and what can be used for what purposes. In the 1990's (when I first started doing that kind of work), juries also had to be educated on DNA and it still the case that the DNA evidence needs to be solid and complete for it to work in a trial.

I too see evidence of "horse-trading" and much else on the periphery of this crime, but the DA's office had a series of reasons for wanting the Ramseys to be left unaccountable - even when a Grand Jury disagreed.

In the course of charging John and Patsy with the lesser crime, they may well have uncovered evidence to charge one of them with murder. The "third person" is a John Doe at the time of the indictment, could be anyone. However, the way it is stated does imply that the Ramseys covered up for someone they knew.

The Ramseys of course could have been poised to implicate a third party and staged evidence that led the GJ to that conclusion. Since there was never a trial with true triers of fact, we don't know.

 

[UKGuy]

The DA's clearly didn't understand DNA if they expected to be able to use it that way. Much of my career, however, has been consulting with/educating LE and lawyers about DNA, what kinds there are, and what can be used for what purposes. In the 1990's (when I first started doing that kind of work), juries also had to be educated on DNA and it still the case that the DNA evidence needs to be solid and complete for it to work in a trial.

I too see evidence of "horse-trading" and much else on the periphery of this crime, but the DA's office had a series of reasons for wanting the Ramseys to be left unaccountable - even when a Grand Jury disagreed.

In the course of charging John and Patsy with the lesser crime, they may well have uncovered evidence to charge one of them with murder. The "third person" is a John Doe at the time of the indictment, could be anyone. However, the way it is stated does imply that the Ramseys covered up for someone they knew.

The Ramseys of course could have been poised to implicate a third party and staged evidence that led the GJ to that conclusion. Since there was never a trial with true triers of fact, we don't know.

10ofRods,

The DA's clearly didn't understand DNA if they expected to be able to use it that way.

Sure, but any lack of understanding would not prevent them from making claims about the dna, particularly if they thought the case will never go to court?

Way back then DNA was viewed as a silver bullet, those days are gone, i.e. the 10 billion to one odds, etc. The use of the dna was simply subterfuge, misinformation, or fake news, so they could say the Ramsey's were no longer suspects, even if the DA was ignorant regarding the technical aspects to dna profiles, wrt mixing, etc.

In the course of charging John and Patsy with the lesser crime, they may well have uncovered evidence to charge one of them with murder. The "third person" is a John Doe at the time of the indictment, could be anyone. However, the way it is stated does imply that the Ramseys covered up for someone they knew.

One of the Counts leveled at both parents is that they assisted, basically attempted to stage the Person out of the crime-scene.

The Ramseys of course could have been poised to implicate a third party and staged evidence that led the GJ to that conclusion. Since there was never a trial with true triers of fact, we don't know.

Its the GJ's conclusion that there was a third party, not that the parents staged themselves out of the case, by planting evidence linking to an unknown third party.

The takeaway is that the alleged unnamed third party is Burke Ramsey because Colorado's Child Safety Statutes required children beneath the age of 10 to be granted complete anonymity and privacy when taking part in criminal cases?

This would also explain why Hunter never filed in open court, i.e. the issue of the third party goes away?

.

 

[10ofRods]

You seem to be arguing that DA's can say anything they want about the facts (DNA). I suppose that's true. However, my point is that they were wrong. That wrong can, perhaps, be corrected by some method (reconvening Grand Jury,etc)

I live in a place where our DA does not ignore the fact that juries are ultimately triers of fact (not DA's). That's what we prefer and elect (conservative county, btw).

I am not willing to speculate on who the third person was. It obviously could be Burke. But we may never know because the DA failed to allow the BPD to have subpoenas for various records. Someone protected John Ramsey and his family from legal scrutiny (their names are Hunter and Lacey). Of course they can claim their case was "weak" but they ought not to have claimed that until the police were allowed their usual and typical mechanisms of investigation.

It's true that the Burke hypothesis explains the lack of vigor (but do recall that the police want actual evidence, not innuendo based on things said later) They also could have actually revealed all that they knew.

Poor JonBenet. No chance of justice in that world or the world today.

 

[Emerald2]

The parts of this case that interest me have to do with explaining some unusual and forever puzzling facts..... the throwing of friends like the Whites under the bus...all of this and more is still puzzling.

Why are you puzzled about the Ramseys throwing the Whites under the bus? After all, they threw their beloved child under the garrote. So it's natural for them to throw the Whites - or anyone else - under the bus if they feel it is in their interest to do so. They are only loyal to each other.

 

[UKGuy]

You seem to be arguing that DA's can say anything they want about the facts (DNA). I suppose that's true. However, my point is that they were wrong. That wrong can, perhaps, be corrected by some method (reconvening Grand Jury,etc)

I live in a place where our DA does not ignore the fact that juries are ultimately triers of fact (not DA's). That's what we prefer and elect (conservative county, btw).

I am not willing to speculate on who the third person was. It obviously could be Burke. But we may never know because the DA failed to allow the BPD to have subpoenas for various records. Someone protected John Ramsey and his family from legal scrutiny (their names are Hunter and Lacey). Of course they can claim their case was "weak" but they ought not to have claimed that until the police were allowed their usual and typical mechanisms of investigation.

It's true that the Burke hypothesis explains the lack of vigor (but do recall that the police want actual evidence, not innuendo based on things said later) They also could have actually revealed all that they knew.

Poor JonBenet. No chance of justice in that world or the world today.

10ofRods,
DA's can make claims about anything related to a case, only the judge or jury can reject them. Consider Hunter's position on the True Bills, i.e. he has nothing to say, and he will take the truth to the grave.

BPD may have furnished the DA with all the evidence required for conviction. The GJ thought there was a case for the parents to answer, except Hunter made sure the True Bills were derailed.

Once John Ramsey leaves us people will be queuing up to tell us what they know, since the dead cannot be defamed.

Eventually, probably drip fed, we will find out what happened that fateful Christmas Night and justice will be served for JonBenet!

.

 

[10ofRods]

I hope to heck that municipalities take care in electing their DA's and demand transparency. I do believe BPD provided enough for the Ramseys to have been formally treated as POI's - from day 1. From Dec 26 onward.

You're right about John and his defamation suits. Once he's gone, people will talk. You've given me hope.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

I’ve been wondering about the blue fibers since it was pointed out that there was seminal fluid found on JR robe.
So in researching I found these things:

• Dr. Meyer stated that it appeared that JonBenet’s pubic area may have been cleaned, or at least wiped by someone using a towel or piece of clothing. Small dark blue fibers, consistent with a cotton towel, were recovered from the vaginal area."
• dark blue fibers were located on the back of the right shoulder of the JB shirt found at autopsy
  
• Dark-toned fabric. Police noticed navy blue pillings - or fuzzy balls from cloth - on JonBenet's lower body, sources said. Investigators later found John Ramsey's dark-colored bathrobe on the floor of his home office next to a desk, sources said. "Some of the police thought the pillings could have come from the robe," a source said. JR office was on the third floor, next to his bathroom.

Perhaps, it makes sense that after the staging he dropped his robe on the floor before heading to the showers. Maybe he made some phone calls here as well. I have never actually thought he was the groomer because he was seldom at home. But he very possibly could have been. JR obtained lawyers for his older (out of state children) whom were not allowed to discuss him. Makes you wonder!

 

[Tadpole12]

Eventually, probably drip fed...

Ah. Ever the optimist, UK.
I laughed so hard.
My bad.

 

[David Rogers]

Ah. Ever the optimist, UK.
I laughed so hard.
My bad.

Like the hints that they know the rope was from inside the house.

 

[fr brown]

.... [According to Dr. Meyer:]
"Small dark blue fibers, consistent with a cotton towel, were recovered from the vaginal area."

Are [the] 'small dark colored fibers' the same as the 'dark blue fibers' consistent with a cotton towel?
If yes, where does John Ramsey's black shirt come in, the fibers of which were allegedly found in JB's genital area too?

acandyrose says that jameson said that witnesses at the grand jury were asked about Patsy having navy and lavender gardening gloves, but nobody remembered them.

(John's black shirt was wool and those fibers were also found, as revealed in one of John's interviews.)

 

[Rain on my Parade]

acandyrose says that jameson said that witnesses at the grand jury were asked about Patsy having navy and lavender gardening gloves, but nobody remembered them.

(John's black shirt was wool and those fibers were also found, as revealed in one of John's interviews.)

Fr brown,
Some robes are made from terry cloth which JR robe could have been made of. And yes, his Israel wool sweater fibers were found in her labia.

 

[fr brown]

Fr brown,
Some robes are made from terry cloth which JR robe could have been made of. And yes, his Israel wool sweater fibers were found in her labia.

I thought people might be interested that such gloves were discussed in the grand jury. I wasn't aware of it until a few days ago.

I'm guessing you're implying that the presence of black wool fibers from John's shirt requires that John be wearing it when the fibers were deposited. It doesn't, though. It doesn't even necessarily mean the shirt was there. But it might have been.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

I thought people might be interested that such gloves were discussed in the grand jury. I wasn't aware of it until a few days ago.

I'm guessing you're implying that the presence of black wool fibers from John's shirt requires that John be wearing it when the fibers were deposited. It doesn't, though. It doesn't even necessarily mean the shirt was there. But it might have been.

What gloves do you speak of? And no his shirt could have been picked up PR to wipe JB but this seems improbable considering all the other facts of this case.

 

[fr brown]

What gloves do you speak of? And no his shirt could have been picked up PR to wipe JB but this seems improbable considering all the other facts of this case.

"acandyrose jonbenet glove"

 

[Rain on my Parade]

"acandyrose jonbenet glove"

I believe that gloves were worn in order to eliminate dna evidence, cleaning flashlight etc. but ....
gloves were never taken into evidence and I would suspect they were either latex or tan cotton.