Forensic evidence

[coloradokares]

Thanks so much for this post! I changed my signature to say Louisadelmar, instead of charlie. That REALLY makes me mad that Loisadelmar would do that. I remember him/her (I think she is a she), from the courttv boards. Thanks for pming me, I will go and check out my post that was copied and pasted...and then replied to. GEESH.....

I meant every single word. I have always treated all IDI or fence sitters with courtesy and respect for their opinion. I also see that is our standard here. That is as it should be. Your post here was in response to Charlie...if that makes sense hopefully you can see for your self what transpired. I am so grateful to be a part of this forum where everyone is treated respectfully by each other regardless of ideology or diversity of opinion. That is why this forum has the honor of being asked their opinion as recently occured WS ROCKS!!

 

[Ames]

I meant every single word. I have always treated all IDI or fence sitters with courtesy and respect for their opinion. I also see that is our standard here. That is as it should be. Your post here was in response to Charlie...if that makes sense hopefully you can see for your self what transpired. I am so grateful to be a part of this forum where everyone is treated respectfully by each other regardless of ideology or diversity of opinion. That is why this forum has the honor of being asked their opinion as recently occured WS ROCKS!!

I think that it is quite funny that they are still talking about me....I must have hit a nerve with my RDI theory, and all of my posts. At least they took a break from talking about the same old IDI theory over and over and over again.

 

[JMO8778]

I meant every single word. I have always treated all IDI or fence sitters with courtesy and respect for their opinion. I also see that is our standard here. That is as it should be. Your post here was in response to Charlie...if that makes sense hopefully you can see for your self what transpired. I am so grateful to be a part of this forum where everyone is treated respectfully by each other regardless of ideology or diversity of opinion. That is why this forum has the honor of being asked their opinion as recently occured WS ROCKS!!

I second that !!!

 

[JMO8778]

I am wondering if that note pad was IMMEDIATELY taken into evidence (since it was a crucial piece) ...and if PP could have even gotten her hands on it if Patsy had told her to.

I'd have to look in my ST book to be sure,but I beleive he said something like,(re: the notepad), 'thank goodness PP didn't haul it off in her raid of the house'.

 

[JMO8778]

I've also heard that about the WC - that is blocked up and walled off, so no one can gain access to it anymore.

ST notes in his book (page 25) that Patsy was shown a second generation copy of the RN and remarks to one of her friends that it looks like it was written on the same paper she has in her kitchen. Police wondered how she could tell since they saw no similarities.

I believe John Ramsey himself handed the note pad to police when they asked. Police took at least two notepads, labeling one John and one Patsy (also from ST). They figured out it was Patsy's pad the RN came from by matching up the tear lines.

Check this out:

http://www.acandyrose.com/04112000thomas-pg73-74.htm

Steve Thomas book, "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey murder investigation"
Quotes from Page 73-74

"Chet Ubowski at the CBI had pulled startling information from the tablet belonging to Patsy Ramsey. By comparing tear patterns, Ubowski had determined that the first twelve pages were missing and the next four - pages 13 through 16 - contained doodles and lists and some miscellaneous writing."

"But the next group of pages, 17 through 25, were also missing from the tablet. The following page, 26, was the practice ransom note (Mr. and Mrs. I), and that page showed evidence of ink bleedthrough from the missing page 25."

"Comparisons of the ragged tops of the ransom note pages with the remnants left in the tablet proved that it had come from pages 27, 28, and 29."

"Furthermore, the ink bleedthrough discovered on page 26 indicated that perhaps still another practice note could have been writtenon page 25 and been discarded. Two possible practice notes and one real one covering three pages led me to believe that the killer had spend more time in the house composing the ransom note than we originally thought."

"But even more significant, it seemed clear that whoever wrote it was unafraid of being caught in the house. We never found the missing pages."

k,thx,it must have been something else he was talking about that PP didn't take.I need to look thru my book again.

 

[JMO8778]

Odd I have never heard that before. :waitasec:

I'll see if I can find anything on it online.I think the house was being sold and that info was brought up.I just remember I was glad to read it,as I have always thought that some idiot might come along and turn it into a B and B (bed n breakfast) and claim it was 'haunted'.(maybe I watch the travel channel too much,lol).Or rent out JB's room at an exorbitant price. (unknowingly to a pedo at that?!). JMO that JB and the whole case have been exploited enough.

Ok,I found it.It's mid-section,more twds the bottom though.It says (in red)The small basement room where JonBenet's body was found has been walled off and is no longer accessible.

www.geocities.com/jonbenet_1990/jbnews.html

 

[Dru]

Hi, I'm relatively new here. Since this thread is about forensic evidence I thought someone could answer my question here.

Is it known definitely, as a fact, that the wound inflicted on JBR with the paintbrush occurred before her death? I've seen some people say it had to, because the wound bled, and it wouldn't have bled if she was dead when it happened.

Thanks!

 

[UKGuy]

Hi, I'm relatively new here. Since this thread is about forensic evidence I thought someone could answer my question here.

Is it known definitely, as a fact, that the wound inflicted on JBR with the paintbrush occurred before her death? I've seen some people say it had to, because the wound bled, and it wouldn't have bled if she was dead when it happened.

Thanks!

Dru,

Yes this is what many people assume, that the bleeding was caused prior to her death.

But this may be a separate matter from the alleged insertion of the paintbrush, since it may have simply been someone's finger, which had cellulose residue attached, caused by handling the paintbrush handle?

Part of the paintbrush handle is still missing and its possible it was left inside JonBenet and that this has been redacted from the autopsy?

Ask yourself why should part of the paintbrush handle be removed, leaving the other parts behind?

Since the wine-cellar is a wholly staged crime-scene the more interesting question is how credible do you consider those opinions that JonBenet had been the victim of prior abuse?

Then this is what may be being covered up and not the homicide since that was always going to be self-evident?


.

 

[BBB167893]

Since the wine-cellar is a wholly staged crime-scene the more interesting question is how credible do you consider those opinions that JonBenet had been the victim of prior abuse?

Then this is what may be being covered up and not the homicide since that was always going to be self-evident?

I'm leaning that way myself.

 

[Dru]

I agree, UKGuy and SuperDave. But that's part of what makes things so interesting, isn't it?

If abuse is being covered up here, does this mean the abuser is the killer?

Some say the killer knew about the abuse, and for reasons of his/her own, covered it up. But that would mean that the killer had to KNOW, beyond any doubt, that JBR was being abused, and the killer had to be willing to inflict a sexual injury on a still-living child, in order to cover abuse being committed by someone else.

I don't find that plausible, personally. I think JBR's abuser is her killer.

 

[BBB167893]

True, the killer and the abuser are not necessarily the same person, but the odds would make my bookie cringe!

 

[Dru]

SuperDave, can you help me out here? I know you've got tons of experience with this case.

I'm RDI, but the problem I'm having with the PDI scenarios is that if PR was abusing her daughter, then how do you explain the fact that PR was the one taking JBR to the doctor so frequently, and specifically for problems related to toiliting/vaginitis/etc.? She couldn't know, with certainty, that JBR's doctor wouldn't eventually just say, hey, I don't know what's going on here, let's get her to a specialist, could she? And then the game would be up.

I'm thinking about the possibility of JR's involvement, but maybe I'm just making a newbie error here.

 

[Eagle1]

I didn't realize when re-reading pg 5 this thread is now on pge 11 or I would have done a normal kind of quote and edited out all but this part. Anyway:

["Of course the Ramseys tried to stage a scene and remove some forensic evidence. They had to, because the wanted to save their hide. But the staging was so poorly done that the people most surprised that they got away with it were probably the Ramseys themselves." QUOTE]

We have absolutely no proof whatsoever that it was the R's doing the staging. Either way, Yep, they were probably surprised, as you say. But if the R's were the ones trying to remove forensic evidence, and did such a good job except for the dictionary, I certainly don't think they'd leave such a glaring EVIDENCE clue, as someone just said in another thread. Dru, I think, who's an RDI. That's probably in the Patsy's Clothing thread.

"Hence" nobody should make a rash statement such as "There's no forensic evidence." The dictionary certainly is forensic evidence.

Interpretation re who left it is the question. As I've said, we know Burke tended to hide in bed and pretend to be asleep, so he sure wouldn't want his dad to discover he'd been looking up "incest", suspecting his dad. He would not have left that clue. Neither would the parents, who the RDI's say were so efficient about cleaning up the scene. They wouldn't have missed that.
It's so much bigger than fingerprints, shoeprints, or most evidence. They weren't stupid, or uneducated enough to have to look up the word.

Let's face it, the dictionary is a huge clue. Question, anyone have any idea why ST would "gasp" when he saw it, before he'd had any time to think about it at all?

Editing to add, in the Big Bugaboo thread, Jayelles calls the pineapple "the only clue", so, I'll say the dictionary and the pineapple", having only read that much of her opening post.

So there were at least two glaring forensic clues. Okay, everyone? And we may eventually decide there were even more. We've only just begun, after all, it seems, these first ten years, maybe getting the hand of it now.

 

[coloradokares]

I didn't realize when re-reading pg 5 this thread is now on pge 11 or I would have done a normal kind of quote and edited out all but this part. Anyway:

["Of course the Ramseys tried to stage a scene and remove some forensic evidence. They had to, because the wanted to save their hide. But the staging was so poorly done that the people most surprised that they got away with it were probably the Ramseys themselves." QUOTE]

We have absolutely no proof whatsoever that it was the R's doing the staging. Either way, Yep, they were probably surprised, as you say. But if the R's were the ones trying to remove forensic evidence, and did such a good job except for the dictionary, I certainly don't think they'd leave such a glaring EVIDENCE clue, as someone just said in another thread. Dru, I think, who's an RDI. That's probably in the Patsy's Clothing thread.

"Hence" nobody should make a rash statement such as "There's no forensic evidence." The dictionary certainly is forensic evidence.

Interpretation re who left it is the question. As I've said, we know Burke tended to hide in bed and pretend to be asleep, so he sure wouldn't want his dad to discover he'd been looking up "incest", suspecting his dad. He would not have left that clue. Neither would the parents, who the RDI's say were so efficient about cleaning up the scene. They wouldn't have missed that.
It's so much bigger than fingerprints, shoeprints, or most evidence. They weren't stupid, or uneducated enough to have to look up the word.

Let's face it, the dictionary is a huge clue. Question, anyone have any idea why ST would "gasp" when he saw it, before he'd had any time to think about it at all?

Editing to add, in the Big Bugaboo thread, Jayelles calls the pineapple "the only clue", so, I'll say the dictionary and the pineapple", having only read that much of her opening post.

So there were at least two glaring forensic clues. Okay, everyone? And we may eventually decide there were even more. We've only just begun, after all, it seems, these first ten years, maybe getting the hand of it now.

If ST gasped I probably would have too....Lets see we have a sexually abused dead little girl and a dictionary open to incest. Normal reaction I'd say..... The pinapple is not a clue regarding an intruder as I see it. These are only my opinion but both squarely point back to the Ramseys in my humble opinion. I guess it would be on the interpretaion...?

 

[UKGuy]

I agree, UKGuy and SuperDave. But that's part of what makes things so interesting, isn't it?

If abuse is being covered up here, does this mean the abuser is the killer?

Some say the killer knew about the abuse, and for reasons of his/her own, covered it up. But that would mean that the killer had to KNOW, beyond any doubt, that JBR was being abused, and the killer had to be willing to inflict a sexual injury on a still-living child, in order to cover abuse being committed by someone else.

I don't find that plausible, personally. I think JBR's abuser is her killer.

Dru,

Its possible that the real motive behind the killing of JonBenet was sexual!

That is her abuser may actually be her killer, she may have been killed because her abuser flew into a sexual rage and attacked JonBenet, eventually strangling her?

But the person who enacted the staging down in the wine-cellar may be a different person from her abuser, but who was colluding with her abuser in the abuse of JonBenet.

That is both parties have a motive for masking the real circumstances of her death.

If both parties were not implicated, then all bets are off, and one of the pair would be at liberty to accuse the other of murder and abuse, to date this has not occurred.


.

 

[coloradokares]

Dru,

Its possible that the real motive behind the killing of JonBenet was sexual!

That is her abuser may actually be her killer, she may have been killed because her abuser flew into a sexual rage and attacked JonBenet, eventually strangling her?

But the person who enacted the staging down in the wine-cellar may be a different person from her abuser, but who was colluding with her abuser in the abuse of JonBenet.

That is both parties have a motive for masking the real circumstances of her death.

If both parties were not implicated, then all bets are off, and one of the pair would be at liberty to accuse the other of murder and abuse, to date this has not occurred.


.

It has always been my belief if one spouse could legally be compelled to testify against another spouse....all bets would have been off and Alex Hunter would of had no choice but to prosecute.

 

[Eagle1]

It has always been my belief if one spouse could legally be compelled to testify against another spouse....all bets would have been off and Alex Hunter would of had no choice but to prosecute.

Coloradokares, I can't seem to find your post that I just read in an email notification, to the effect that the meaning of evidence depends on our pre-conceived impressions, or words to that effect, yesterday.

I wanted to say, "Exactly." Sometimes the Copy/Paste Address gets timed out.

To me the dictionary is very definitely evidence of someone other than family, for reasons we've already given, and so, then other things, such as the note and the pineapple also would be, even though family finger prints were on the bowl and a family handwriting was imitated.

Smit at one point mentioned a tupperware container in JBR's room, I believe, which had contained pineapple, they could probably deduce by the odor. Nothing was said about prints on that bowl, as far as I know. Anyone heard anything about that? I think this second bowl was mentioned in one of the books, probably Schiller. Not sure.

 

[UKGuy]

It has always been my belief if one spouse could legally be compelled to testify against another spouse....all bets would have been off and Alex Hunter would of had no choice but to prosecute.

coloradokares,

I agree, and this is probably why the case never ever went to court, also with no smoking gun, and the Ramsey's staying silent, the da likely reckoned they might have some sort of a case, but stood next to no chance of securing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, and non unique fiber evidence, etc.

Bear in mind everything said outside of the court is subject to revision inside the court-room, and it then becomes the evidence superceding prior versions, so the Ramsey's knew even in the event of a trial, they stood a good chance of acquittal!


.

 

[coloradokares]

Coloradokares, I can't seem to find your post that I just read in an email notification, to the effect that the meaning of evidence depends on our pre-conceived impressions, or words to that effect, yesterday.

I wanted to say, "Exactly." Sometimes the Copy/Paste Address gets timed out.

To me the dictionary is very definitely evidence of someone other than family, for reasons we've already given, and so, then other things, such as the note and the pineapple also would be, even though family finger prints were on the bowl and a family handwriting was imitated.

Smit at one point mentioned a tupperware container in JBR's room, I believe, which had contained pineapple, they could probably deduce by the odor. Nothing was said about prints on that bowl, as far as I know. Anyone heard anything about that? I think this second bowl was mentioned in one of the books, probably Schiller. Not sure.

Smit would not have known bo diddly about a container of pinapple in tupperware or otherwise in JB's room. He didn't come on to the case until on
down the road a bit. If this is truth and this is my first time hearing it. All
he'd know is some officer notation.

Since I am not sure what post your speaking of for sure ....I can't lead you to it. Sorry. But in essence everything that makes one person believe they couldn't possilby have done this ....serves I suppose to cement even more solidly anothers opinion that they at the least had to have participated in the staging, and ultimately after enough unexplained inconsistencies leads them to suspect that one or both of the Ramseys were involved in the death of JonBenet. Intentionally or otherwise. But everything you said points away from them is part of what points me to the conclusion that its entirely possible that something went horrible wrong that night in that house and its possible that one of the parents or both were in some way responsible and involved in this tragic death. As far as I am concerned it could be either way regarding the dictionary. However it is at least an even chance that the something that went terrible wrong that night might have had to do with page I in the dictionary and they simply forgot they'd looked that up and crimped the page. And you have no idea how hard I have tried to find a way to not suspect the Ramseys. Its even harder when your surrounded by good people who knew them who for their own reasons formed their opinions. But I totally respect your right to feel they couldn't have been responsible. I guess this means its okay to agree to disagree . I think at the end of the day if this ever is put before a special prosecutor and prosecuted there will be way to much evidence to dismiss parental involvement. But that is only my opinion.

 

[JMO8778]

k,thx,it must have been something else he was talking about that PP didn't take.I need to look thru my book again.

It was the pen used to write the note. :doh: