Happenings of December 26

[2 percent]

But that is just you. And what someone else would do does not mean because it is different it would lead to anything nefarious. It could just be as simple as they already knew those clothes were not fresh, And had some stuff to do before getting dressed later so they just put those clothes back on for a short time. It is not like she was running a marathon in them. She was at a party.

There is no evidence in these clothes or make up. It is just irritation with her choice.. IMO

I live in a cold climate too and there is no way I would get up on a cold morning, change out of my body temp pjs into cold, dirty party clothes. Personal preference or not, I can't conceive of anyone else doing the same. Unless she was expecting someone, and then she'd dress and put makeup on. Which is an intriguing possibility.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Lucky? How are they lucky?

There is a big theory about all this cover up. They got rid of the rope, the tape, the flashlight, left no dna on her, And then left the writing pad upstairs, The pens, The clothes that would contain the evidence of a murder... ??



There are many days I don't wash my hair but I shower.



If you are trying to cover up a murder, You don't wear the clothes you murdered someone in. IMO

They are lucky that LE screwed up so badly from the start and their lawyers were able to run all over the investigation and direct the interviews.

The tape? Was pure staging added after she wasn't capable of screaming or moving, same with the rope.
The flashlight was there, golf clubs were there and a bat....(so were the rest of the package of size 12 panties)
Take your pick. All were free of prints.

We have never seen written reports from labs stating Ramsey DNA was not present anywhere on her body. If that were true...how could that be? She hadn't bathed in days!

Why wasn't the rope tested and found a match to the long John tdna? How could the rope be void of Ramsey DNA? John claimed he tried to remove it. Surely his would be there...right?

How did Patsy fibers get in that paint tote in the basement?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Garnett wrote that a district attorney's job is to seek justice, not to forgive, "and rarely to 'exonerate.' "

He said he believes "straying from this role can be very confusing to the public and can create false impressions of certainty about uncertain evidence, subject to conflicting inferences, that has never been presented and tested in open court."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/27/us/jonbenet-ramsey-district-attorney/?c=&page=2

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Frigga]

Didn't Patsy's sister leave the house with a backseat full of items from the house at one point, early on?

 

[gramcracker]

Didn't Patsy's sister leave the house with a backseat full of items from the house at one point, early on?

back seat, front seat and trunk. luckily, there wasn't a roof rack

for years and years, before the truth about the True Bills was revealed, the GJ was widely regarded by IDIs as being the epitome of wise and well-reasoned judgment. the GJ voting "no indictment" was proffered as the last word in numerous discussions on various topics. the frequent fall-back in IDI vs RDI debates was No True Bill

now that THE LIE has been exposed, GJs are viewed as artifacts of a less evolved system and GJ verdicts are viewed as meaningless

:waitasec:

 

[Tawny]

So, just curious, why do you think her make up looked freshly applied? And why weren't the same cothes in some sort of disarray? If she was up all night in the same clothes she wore the day before and either killing her daughter and staging, or simply participating in the staging, doesn't it seem like:

1. The clothes would be a little worse for wear? I mean, maybe it's just me, but I can come home from work in business clothes, feed the dogs and tidy up the house and note a stain on my dress that wasn't there when I left work. Yet Patsy participated in all that staging, at the very least, and her clothes were fine?

2. The make up bothers me. Unless you are one of the very few who believe that the murder was premeditated by Patsy, wouldn't you assume she would have cried at some point in the night.? Either with the realization of what she had done, or that someone else had done, it doesn't seem like it would matter. I would still think there would be some emotion. But even if we assume that she just went into full "damage control" mode and didn't take the time for tears, her makeup wouldn't be messed up? Streaked, faded, smudged, etc.? After almost 24 hours it wouldn't look too good even if you exclude the murder and staging activities.

Or are we to believe that in the midst of all that staging and writing the War and Peace of Ransom notes she took the time to re-apply full make up? And if so, why not grab some different clothes?

That part of the puzzle has always bothered me.

I know people think the same clothes as the night before points to her guilt, or at least to Ramsey guilt, but that just doesn't fit for me. It never has.

For the sake of full disclosure I must admit, if I wore an outfit on Christmas Day that I would have selected as "Christmassy" and I only visited friends in it, so nothing strenuous, and I hadn't spilled anything on it, and I knew that aside from my hubby and kids, I would be not be seeing a single soul that I had seen on Christmas day and I was getting up at 5:00 A M that morning, I just might wear the same thing I had worn on Christmas.

Also full disclosure, while I am far from as rich as Patsy, a good portion of my income (according to my husband, too big a portion) has always gone to clothes which I love. But if I really, really liked a particular outfit for a particular occasion, and would be seeing different people, yep I'd wear it again.

Her make up was touched up because she called everyone on the planet to come over. She knew people were going to be in her house specifically looking at the grieving mother.

 

[otg]

(bbm)

back seat, front seat and trunk. luckily, there wasn't a roof rack

for years and years, before the truth about the True Bills was revealed, the GJ was widely regarded by IDIs as being the epitome of wise and well-reasoned judgment. the GJ voting "no indictment" was proffered as the last word in numerous discussions on various topics. the frequent fall-back in IDI vs RDI debates was No True Bill

now that THE LIE has been exposed, GJs are viewed as artifacts of a less evolved system and GJ verdicts are viewed as meaningless

:waitasec:

Exactly, gramcracker. You beat me to it. I was about to comment on how Woody, the Ramseys, all the Ramsey apologists, and almost every MSM pundit sang the same refrain about how the GJ heard all the evidence and refused a true bill. How wonderful (they said) that the GJ didn't see enough evidence to charge anyone in the family. Then when the perversion of truth was revealed -- it's, "the GJ decision means nothing," and then the old "ham sandwich" adage is served up over and over again. I'm tired of ham. It's time someone eat a little crow instead.

 

[Anyhoo]

Just do a quick google search. There are many law review articles on it. Basically a GJ is not the review it once was. It has become a rubber stamp.

Grand juries don't find guilt. It has nothing to do with guilt.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

back seat, front seat and trunk. luckily, there wasn't a roof rack

for years and years, before the truth about the True Bills was revealed, the GJ was widely regarded by IDIs as being the epitome of wise and well-reasoned judgment. the GJ voting "no indictment" was proffered as the last word in numerous discussions on various topics. the frequent fall-back in IDI vs RDI debates was No True Bill

now that THE LIE has been exposed, GJs are viewed as artifacts of a less evolved system and GJ verdicts are viewed as meaningless

:waitasec:

It's human nature to accept what supports ones pre existing views and to reject or dismiss what doesn't. The same is true for both IDI and RDI. The trick is to not have pre existing views so one assimilates all evidence with a completely open mind and without bias. Easier said than done.

 

[Frigga]

Didn't one of the detectives/police officer's on scene that morning say that Patsy was breaking down (appearing to cry or crying) with her hands over her face- peeking through her fingers to see his reaction or response?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

(bbm)Exactly, gramcracker. You beat me to it. I was about to comment on how Woody, the Ramseys, all the Ramsey apologists, and almost every MSM pundit sang the same refrain about how the GJ heard all the evidence and refused a true bill. How wonderful (they said) that the GJ didn't see enough evidence to charge anyone in the family. Then when the perversion of truth was revealed -- it's, "the GJ decision means nothing," and then the old "ham sandwich" adage is served up over and over again. I'm tired of ham. It's time someone eat a little crow instead.

It is served up because it is true. And sadly it is true. I wish it were not. The thing that also affects the GJ findings is that DNA was found later that excludes the R's. There is no DNA from the R's on this girl. And there is DNA that belongs to someone else.

I hope that a new DA will go through this case again and re investigate.

 

[Tawny]

Can someone explain to me how there was NO Ramsey DNA on this child? That BLOWS my mind.

JR said he carried her inside because she was supposedly sleeping, yet no DNA is on her. MmHmm. Forgive me if I don't believe for a second there was "NO RAMSEY DNA" on a Ramsey child.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Can someone explain to me how there was NO Ramsey DNA on this child? That BLOWS my mind.

JR said he carried her inside because she was supposedly sleeping, yet no DNA is on her. MmHmm. Forgive me if I don't believe for a second there was "NO RAMSEY DNA" on a Ramsey child.

You may not believe it but they were all excluded from the DNA, as were a lot of other people..

 

[Tawny]

So a child supposedly carried in by her father, didn't have a bath, went straight to bed, and has none of her father's DNA on her anywhere.

Ok.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So a child supposedly carried in by her father, didn't have a bath, went straight to bed, and has none of her father's DNA on her anywhere.

Ok.

If he carried her that means he only touched her clothes. she was not wearing those clothes when found. It seems logical. IMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

You may not believe it but they were all excluded from the DNA, as were a lot of other people..

Do you have a link to actual lab reports?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otg]

(bbm)

I haven't seen anyone saying the grand jury indictment is a guilty verdict.

A group of people, seeing and hearing evidence, were convinced there was enough evidence for John and Patsy to be tried for a crime. That is significant...more significant than you are allowing.

Don't disdain all grand juries and lump them into one. Not all grand juries are alike, some rubber stamp and some don't. Does anyone know the record of indictments from this specific grand jury?

More importantly, is there any touch DNA that links this grand jury to a really suspicious rubber stamp? :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

[I'm sorry Scarlett Scarpetta!!! I'm not really making fun of you...I just have a warped sense of humor :grouphug:]

This particular GJ was a "Special Grand Jury", convened specifically to hear evidence pertaining only to the sexual assault and death of JonBenet Ramsey. Alex Hunter didn't ask them to find a true bill. In fact, he most likely didn't want them to, because he didn't want to face the Ramsey defense team in a courtroom. He was forced to call the GJ by the governor at the time. He stalled until the case was about to be assigned to a Special Prosecutor over whom Hunter would have no control. By convening the GJ, he could at least try to sway the GJ away from a true bill. But it didn't work, because they agreed to some charges after all -- despite hearing from Smit, Douglas, and others who proclaimed Ramsey innocence. Hunter's hand was forced, so he announced that the proceedings would forever be sealed, and his office had decided there was not enough evidence to indict. Just a few months later, the statute of limitations on all possible charges except for the higher felonies expired.

 

[otg]

(bbm)

If he carried her that means he only touched her clothes. she was not wearing those clothes when found. It seems logical. IMO

Oh, but she was. She was wearing the same shirt/blouse that she wore to the party at the Whites' house, the same shirt/blouse that she had on when John supposedly carried her sleeping from the car to her room in, the same shirt she had on when he carried her up the basement stairs (at arm's length) holding her around her waist. Logic? GIGO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=185839&postcount=5"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Ramsey Case - DNA report & miscellaneous evidence[/ame]

At the bottom it says.. That JAR, MR, JR, PR,BR. and JEFF Ramsey are all excluded.

I don't have a complete list of all who were excluded but I know someone does and posted it before.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

(bbm)Oh, but she was. She was wearing the same shirt/blouse that she wore to the party at the Whites' house, the same shirt/blouse that she had on when John supposedly carried her sleeping from the car to her room in, the same shirt she had on when he carried her up the basement stairs (at arm's length) holding her around her waist. Logic? GIGO.

She was wearing a coat in the car, I suppose. yes? He touched her clothes.. Not her body.. There was no Ramsey DNA on her Body. It is a fact.

 

[2 percent]

(bbm)This particular GJ was a "Special Grand Jury", convened specifically to hear evidence pertaining only to the sexual assault and death of JonBenet Ramsey. Alex Hunter didn't ask them to find a true bill. In fact, he most likely didn't want them to, because he didn't want to face the Ramsey defense team in a courtroom. He was forced to call the GJ by the governor at the time. He stalled until the case was about to be assigned to a Special Prosecutor over whom Hunter would have no control. By convening the GJ, he could at least try to sway the GJ away from a true bill. But it didn't work, because they agreed to some charges after all -- despite hearing from Smit, Douglas, and others who proclaimed Ramsey innocence. Hunter's hand was forced, so he announced that the proceedings would forever be sealed, and his office had decided there was not enough evidence to indict. Just a few months later, the statute of limitations on all possible charges except for the higher felonies expired.

Interesting. I'm not surprised either.

It was a trick question anyway since grand jury proceedings are secret. Counting indictments won't tell us the ones they wouldn't indict. More complicated math would be required to know a grand jury's record of indictment v no indictment.