Lies point us to the truth #2

[Eddie99]

There is a default tendency to make claims about malfeasance & cover ups, when cases go unsolved.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

I have a problem with this kind of reasoning. It assumes (correctly) that calls made from the house during the night would be incriminating, but then when the records come back and show no such activity, the absence of the calls become suspicious, enough that people start making ridiculous conspiracy theories? Phone records can't just be erased - the data would still be there - so the only explanation would be if AirTouch was in on it, at which point we've left reality far behind.

Of course, the "missing" December minutes for John's cell phone could have a far more prosaic explanation:

And

So, John had a cell phone bought a few years ago (confirmed as 94 by Thomas). Patsy says he lost it, at a time when she felt a new one as a Christmas present in 1996 would be convenient. And we see no activity on said cell phone for December, meaning it makes sense for John to have lost his phone in late November or early December.

I also think the last paragraph from the Thomas quote is... bizarre (not to mention petulant) and goes some way to explain why he was such a failure in the role as lead investigator.

Reply to your reasoning MCDuck:

VOR,

Here's the way I read this cell phone thing:

John had been using an older phone, but eventually lost it. So Patsy bought John a new phone and was going to give it to John as a surprise. But as she had it on the window charging it, John walked in. That ruined the surprise so she kept the new phone for herself. In the meantime John's secretary had bought John a new company cell phone to go along with a company phone he already had.

The score on December 26: one cell phone in the possession of Patsy (which she had just purchased for John but gave to herself as a present from John and which had no calls on it); two cell phones in the possession of John (both of them company phones and likely loaded with December calls, including calls made on the 26th).

It appears the cops may not have obtained the cell phone records of one or both of the Access Graphics phones that John had been using. If this is correct, then IMO the solution to the JonBenet murder and coverup may be in those Access Grahics cell phone records for December 26.

BlueCrab

And there is this:

Okay, so Patsy is charging a phone that she bought for herself ("he walked in and found it, I said okay fine, I will just take this one.") She does not put those words in John's mouth. She was, instead, busted! I, Patsy, buy a phone and do not tell you, John, who will not know that there will be a bill for it because I, Patsy,will pay the bill out of the household allowance you give me and thus hide it from you, but you, John, having discovered this phone, know that I will be committed to a contract for at least a year or two, and you therefore know that some of the money you allow to me will be going for this phone, so I will admit that I bought it, or, in other words, "I will just take this one."

Meanwhile, John has his own phones through Access Graphics. ("Access Graphics, yes. I mean there were a couple of phones and they were both relatively new and I don't know what the number was.")

We can infer certain reasonable facts from all this. John had a couple of new-ish cellphones as part of his job with Access. These phones would have been paid for by Lockheed-Martin. His secretary Denise, in her capacity as an employee of Lockheed-Martin, recently got him one of these new ones, which makes sense, because Lockheed-Martin would have wanted John, as a fairly important employee of theirs, to be accessible on-the-go. In 1996, the communication protocols by which cellphones technically worked were not unified across America and Europe, there were several different kinds (GSM, CDMA, etc.), and John traveled often to foreign countries, so he needed Lockheed to pay for a phone that worked domestically, and one that worked overseas. Patsy, separately, bought John a cellphone years before 1996, and at some unspecified time, John lost Patsy's gift to him.

In sum: In December of 1996, John had at least two phones, and Patsy had a new one, a Panasonic.

Edited to add: Of course, this all begs the question of whether warrants were obtained to get the Access Graphics cellphone records. If John made calls on his Access phone on the morning of the 26th, BPD could have asked all day long for the Ramsey records and would find no calls made.

Three calls the day after the murder and two more a few days later came from the home phone of the lieutenant governor of the State of Colorado, Gail Schoettler.

Treating her like any other witness simply didn't work. The lieutenant governor strutted her political power and stonewalled me until she was damned good and ready to answer questions. Her husband, Don Stevens, a friend of John Ramsey for thirty-five years, had made the calls merely to convey sympathy, Schoettler told me.

Thomas really tries to imply a conspiracy here. Vague hints at nefarious connections, with absolutely no evidence - which is about the same as he did with the JonBenet case.


So, like I said, baseless gossip.

Everyone that has a child that is murdered gets ”A call” the day after she is murdered from the lieutenant governor of your state. No political connections here. Not to speak of ML exonerating them?Sure thing MCDuck! I’m not convinced!

 

[FergusMcDuck]

And



Reply to your reasoning MCDuck:

Well, as Thomas himself admits, they got the records for the home phones and cell phones. BlueCrab's speculation seems off. But I think the whole thing is fairly moot. Consider this: what calls could the Ramseys have made on that night (between midnight and 6) and what would their purpose have been? We have no pre-6 movements that needs to be accounted for, no unexplained knowledge that pre-dated the 911 call from anyone.

It just seems like we're fabricating a whole scenario of suspicion literally based on nothing. It would be suspicious if the Ramseys made calls that night, but the phone records say they don't, so now it's the absence of calls that night that's suspicious somehow... In fact, that is the sole purpose of the whole thing - not to explain anything about that night, but just to raise generic suspicion.

And there is this:


Three calls the day after the murder and two more a few days later came from the home phone of the lieutenant governor of the State of Colorado, Gail Schoettler.

Treating her like any other witness simply didn't work. The lieutenant governor strutted her political power and stonewalled me until she was damned good and ready to answer questions. Her husband, Don Stevens, a friend of John Ramsey for thirty-five years, had made the calls merely to convey sympathy, Schoettler told me.

Everyone that has a child that is murdered gets ”A call” the day after she is murdered from the lieutenant governor of your state. No political connections here. Not to speak of ML exonerating them?Sure thing MCDuck! I’m not convinced!

A renowned business leader in a small town gets a call from the Dean of a local business college (and a personal friend for decades) when his daughter is found dead. How is that strange?

The political connections have never been demonstrated. Thomas certainly fails to do so, though membership in the Democratic Party seems to be enough for him - despite the fact that, again, Ramsey was a Republican! As for Lacy, she gave clear reasons for their exoneration, agree with them or not. <modsnip>

 

[Rain on my Parade]

It just seems like we're fabricating a whole scenario of suspicion literally based on nothing. It would be suspicious if the Ramseys made calls that night, but the phone records say they don't, so now it's the absence of calls that night that's suspicious somehow... In fact, that is the sole purpose of the whole thing - not to explain anything about that night, but just to raise generic suspicion.

The point is this:
JR cell phone calls associated w/Access Graphics/Lockheed Martin
would not/could not be requested by LE. That does not mean there weren’t any calls made that night/morning. Ask yourself, what is the likelihood that zero phone calls were logged for the month of December of 1996 by the R’s?

A renowned business leader in a small town gets a call from the Dean of a local business college (and a personal friend for decades) when his daughter is found dead. How is that strange?

The political connections have never been demonstrated. Thomas certainly fails to do so, though membership in the Democratic Party seems to be enough for him - despite the fact that, again, Ramsey was a Republican! As for Lacy, she gave clear reasons for their exoneration, agree with them or not. Vague hints and innuendos may be good enough for conspiracymongers on Reddit, but I expect a bit more.

It was the lieutenant governor of the State of Colorado, Gail Schoettler that called JR; in which I spoke. Which speaks of political connections, period. This ties in with money talks.

As for ML her reasoning is shallow for the exoneration. Ye of faith on the fact that minuscule dna will prove who is the killer. Can we just talk about John Mark Karr? <modsnip>

 

[FergusMcDuck]

The point is this:
JR cell phone calls associated w/Access Graphics/Lockheed Martin
would not/could not be requested by LE. That does not mean there weren’t any calls made that night/morning. Ask yourself, what is the likelihood that zero phone calls were logged for the month of December of 1996 by the R’s?

That's not really in evidence. Thomas says they didn't get "company phones", but that might be just the workplace landlines. They did get the private office line in his house, though, since that's the one the Dean called (again per Thomas), so they obviously could get work-related records. It's also not clear if there actually was a work cell phone in the house at the time. From Patsy's words, it could just as easily be implied that the lost cell phone was a work phone, that her bought Panasonic was intended to replace, but she kept it when it turned out John had ordered a new one through his work.

At the end of the day, the "empty" December is only for one single cell phone - the one John lost. It's hardly strange that there wouldn't be calls on a cell phone he didn't possess. Thomas does not - as far as I know - claim that any other phone had empty records for the month.

It was the lieutenant governor of the State of Colorado, Gail Schoettler that called JR; in which I spoke. Which speaks of political connections, period. This ties in with money talks.

Except it wasn't the lieutenant governor, it was her husband John Stevens, the Dean of the University of Colorado at Denver School of Business, who had every reason to know John Ramsey - who had also been his friend for 35 years, which Thomas never contradicts.

In this conspiracy chain, you leave far too many spaces blank. You haven't even established that the lieutenant governor was the one who talked to the Ramseys, and that would just be the first step. The next blank space is bigger and more serious - there is no identifiable action Schoettler or her office took in regard to the Ramseys.

As for ML her reasoning is shallow for the exoneration. Ye of faith on the fact that minuscule dna will prove who is the killer. Can we just talk about John Mark Karr?

The reasoning is actually quite solid. A DNA profile of a suspect had already been developed from a bodily fluid found mixed with JonBenet's blood in her panties. That is highly indicative of an intruder, and would likely have meant it would be impossible to convict the Ramseys, but it wasn't enough to exonerate on its own. But then Lacy ordered the touch DNA tests, and the same profile was found on the waistband of the longjohns. That makes any innocent explanation incredibly unlikely. If it was contamination, it had to have happened to two different garments with two different sources of DNA - one likely saliva, the other skin cells. Not to mention the saliva profile only being present in JonBenet's blood - other parts of the panties were tested and yielded only JonBenet's profile.

At the bare minimum, this means there will never be a successful prosecution of the Ramseys. Whether or not Lacy should have publicly cleared the Ramseys can be debated. Generally, I prefer erring on the side of presumption of innocence. Some LEOs seem to love having their suspects under a public cloud of suspicion - presumably so they'll eventually crack - but if their suspects are actually innocent it just becomes state-sanctioned harassment. <modsnip>

 

[Rain on my Parade]

That's not really in evidence. Thomas says they didn't get "company phones", but that might be just the workplace landlines. They did get the private office line in his house, though, since that's the one the Dean called (again per Thomas), so they obviously could get work-related records. It's also not clear if there actually was a work cell phone in the house at the time. From Patsy's words, it could just as easily be implied that the lost cell phone was a work phone, that her bought Panasonic was intended to replace, but she kept it when it turned out John had ordered a new one through his work.

At the end of the day, the "empty" December is only for one single cell phone - the one John lost. It's hardly strange that there wouldn't be calls on a cell phone he didn't possess. Thomas does not - as far as I know - claim that any other phone had empty records for the month.

What did Det. Arndt say in her deposition? Let’s see:

https://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/linda-arndt-jan-8-1997-report.pdf

Except it wasn't the lieutenant governor, it was her husband John Stevens, the Dean of the University of Colorado at Denver School of Business, who had every reason to know John Ramsey - who had also been his friend for 35 years, which Thomas never contradicts.

In this conspiracy chain, you leave far too many spaces blank. You haven't even established that the lieutenant governor was the one who talked to the Ramseys, and that would just be the first step. The next blank space is bigger and more serious - there is no identifiable action Schoettler or her office took in regard to the Ramseys.

You are correct it was her husband that phoned JR. In defense of my statement:

Former friends of John and Patsy Ramsey are raising... - UPI Archives

Former friends of John and Patsy Ramsey are raising the prospect that Democratic influence has blocked prosecution of JonBenet's killer. In the second open...

www.upi.com

The reasoning is actually quite solid. A DNA profile of a suspect had already been developed from a bodily fluid found mixed with JonBenet's blood in her panties. That is highly indicative of an intruder, and would likely have meant it would be impossible to convict the Ramseys, but it wasn't enough to exonerate on its own. But then Lacy ordered the touch DNA tests, and the same profile was found on the waistband of the longjohns. That makes any innocent explanation incredibly unlikely. If it was contamination, it had to have happened to two different garments with two different sources of DNA - one likely saliva, the other skin cells. Not to mention the saliva profile only being present in JonBenet's blood - other parts of the panties were tested and yielded only JonBenet's profile.

DNA evidence on JB underwear and long Johns:

DNA in doubt: A closer look at the JonBenét Ramsey case

The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case doesn't support a pivotal and controversial development in Colorado's most vexing unsolved murder — a former Boulder prosecutor's decision to clear th...

www.wcnc.com

At the bare minimum, this means there will never be a successful prosecution of the Ramseys. Whether or not Lacy should have publicly cleared the Ramseys can be debated. Generally, I prefer erring on the side of presumption of innocence. Some LEOs seem to love having their suspects under a public cloud of suspicion - presumably so they'll eventually crack - but if their suspects are actually innocent it just becomes state-sanctioned harassment.

I doubt there R’s will ever be prosecuted either. Perhaps, but unlikely. The coverup is to deep. In so saying … I realize you are in the IDI camp. There is no IDI evidence.

This case does not rest on the dna evidence alone. There is much more to this case than meets the eye. We do not know what goes on behind closed doors. <modsnip>

 

[FergusMcDuck]

What did Det. Arndt say in her deposition? Let’s see:

https://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/linda-arndt-jan-8-1997-report.pdf

So there was one cell phone in the house belonging to John (perhaps the one that replaced the lost one?). I must say, I still see no evidence they didn't get the records for it, or that there was anything odd about it.

We're at a point where we don't know if there were any pre-911 calls made, to whom they were made or for what reason they could possibly be made and no evidence in the records that they existed or any hint that there was something wrong with the records - so the whole thing seems to rest on the mere assertion.

It seems to have gone from "if they had made such calls, it would have been suspicious" to "they are suspicious, so they must have made such calls."

You are correct it was her husband that phoned JR. In defense of my statement:

Former friends of John and Patsy Ramsey are raising... - UPI Archives

Former friends of John and Patsy Ramsey are raising the prospect that Democratic influence has blocked prosecution of JonBenet's killer. In the second open...

www.upi.com

That seems like meaningless shade from the Whites. They're not adding anything that we haven't already seen, it's just assertions. The Ramseys had a friend who was married to a Democratic politician. However, John was Republican and there's no evidence that the lieutenant governor did anything on their behalf. The Whites, in their public letters, just seem bitter and tinfoil-hatty.

DNA evidence on JB underwear and long Johns:

DNA in doubt: A closer look at the JonBenét Ramsey case

The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case doesn't support a pivotal and controversial development in Colorado's most vexing unsolved murder — a former Boulder prosecutor's decision to clear th...

www.wcnc.com

And I still maintain that the experts at Bode, who were willing to testify in court that UM1 was a single profile, rank higher here. If the experts hired by the paper want to sway me (a desire I can only assume consumes their every waking hour), they need to explain why there is no single tested locus that yielded more than four alleles. Seriously. The process with which UM1 was derived is clear and logical, and these experts just said "nope".

I doubt there R’s will ever be prosecuted either. Perhaps, but unlikely. The coverup is to deep. In so saying … I realize you are in the IDI camp. There is no IDI evidence.

I realize pretty much every aspect of this case can be argued, but as long as UM1 exists and is in CODIS, that last sentence is factually false. It may end up having another explanation - every piece of evidence can have another explanation - but it is unquestionably a piece of evidence for an intruder.

This case does not rest on the dna evidence alone. There is much more to this case than meets the eye. We do not know what goes on behind closed doors.

I go where the evidence takes me. So far everything I've seen leads me to believe an intruder committed the crime. The theories involving the family are all contrived and unrealistic in my view.

To me, finding DNA belonging to a stranger in a blood spot in the victim's panties will require a really good explanation if I am to not believe it belonged to the killer. Touch DNA on a separate garment matching that profile means I would need a spectacular explanation. I've yet to see one. Not saying one may never come along, but it hasn't so far.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

So there was one cell phone in the house belonging to John (perhaps the one that replaced the lost one?). I must say, I still see no evidence they didn't get the records for it, or that there was anything odd about it.

US West apparently was the company they were with for their home line and Air Touch was the company that provided at least some of their cell phone coverages. A list of what phones the Ramseys had around the time of the murder were:

1. the landline to the family home
2. John’s office landline
3. John’s cell phone that he claimed he had lost
4. the new cell phone that had been ordered by John’s secretary Denise Wolf to replace his lost one
5. the new Panasonic pre-activated one Patsy had bought intending to give to John as a Christmas present to replace his lost one but that John started using pretty soon after he had lost his and found the new one lying around
6. Patsy’s cell phone

We're at a point where we don't know if there were any pre-911 calls made, to whom they were made or for what reason they could possibly be made and no evidence in the records that they existed or any hint that there was something wrong with the records - so the whole thing seems to rest on the mere assertion.

It seems to have gone from "if they had made such calls, it would have been suspicious" to "they are suspicious, so they must have made such calls."

Peter Boyles Show - Dec 18, 2014 - Hr 3 - Peter Boyles Show

Fleet and Priscilla White along with Alan Prendergast of Westword on the JonBenet Ramsey case - why the investigation got derailed and why it still matters

omny.fm

• Start at the 37 mark:
• How did Mike Bynum know to contact
• not only the R’s on legal advice
• but also contact the Whites
• if there were no prior calls before
• the 911 on the 26th?

Jonbenet still was laying in front of the Christmas tree for heavens sake!

I realize pretty much every aspect of this case can be argued, but as long as UM1 exists and is in CODIS, that last sentence is factually false. It may end up having another explanation - every piece of evidence can have another explanation - but it is unquestionably a piece of evidence for an intruder.

Here is the thing about the UM1. Dna can now determine what a person looks like. DNA Facial recognitio. Why don’t they just go there with it and not just CODIS?

I go where the evidence takes me. So far everything I've seen leads me to believe an intruder committed the crime. The theories involving the family are all contrived and unrealistic in my view.

Would you mind showing the UM1 in JB panties and long johns are the same UM1?

I did find this: that the presence of DNA from an unknown male was indicated in both a bloodstain on JonBenet's panties and in the scrapings from underneath the fingernails of both her left and right hands.

And this:
At the crux of the evidence is the DNA profile referred to as Unknown Male 1.

That profile was first developed in late 1998 and early 1999 from tests on JonBenet’s panties — but analysts couldn’t at that time identify sufficient genetic markers. Sending it to the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System— the national genetic database commonly known as CODIS — requires at least 10 markers.

Further lab work in 2003 yielded an additional marker, and the profile, featuring the required minimum of 10 genetic markers, was entered into CODIS that December.

“People believed back in those days almost all mixtures are two-person mixtures — that was like gospel truth,” said Phillip Danielson, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Denver and science adviser to the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center.

In the ensuing years, as the “kits” used to detect DNA became ever more sensitive, scientists came to realize that many mixtures contained genetic markers from more than two people.

“You know,” Danielson said, “looking at the profiles in this case, it seems pretty clear that their idea of this ‘unknown male’ — this could easily be a composite profile. Meaning that we have multiple contributors. But because of the low sensitivity of the kit, they interpreted those multiple contributors as being just one extra person.”

 

[FergusMcDuck]

US West apparently was the company they were with for their home line and Air Touch was the company that provided at least some of their cell phone coverages. A list of what phones the Ramseys had around the time of the murder were:

1. the landline to the family home
2. John’s office landline
3. John’s cell phone that he claimed he had lost
4. the new cell phone that had been ordered by John’s secretary Denise Wolf to replace his lost one
5. the new Panasonic pre-activated one Patsy had bought intending to give to John as a Christmas present to replace his lost one but that John started using pretty soon after he had lost his and found the new one lying around
6. Patsy’s cell phone

Is there confirmation 5 and 6 aren't the same one? After all, Patsy said she'd use it. Not important in either case, since Thomas did say he got the records for their cell phones.

Peter Boyles Show - Dec 18, 2014 - Hr 3 - Peter Boyles Show

Fleet and Priscilla White along with Alan Prendergast of Westword on the JonBenet Ramsey case - why the investigation got derailed and why it still matters

omny.fm

• Start at the 37 mark:
• How did Mike Bynum know to contact
• not only the R’s on legal advice
• but also contact the Whites
• if there were no prior calls before
• the 911 on the 26th?

Jonbenet still was laying in front of the Christmas tree for heavens sake!

Did he contact them on legal advice on the 26th? As far as I know, he arrived at the Fernies in the afternoon/evening (before 7 pm at least, per Schiller), and that John asked him for help. They already had a professional relationship as Bynum was his corporate lawyer, so there's nothing odd here. The Whites... they don't say when on the 26th the supposed call from Bynum came, and the rants about "powerful democratic operatives" makes it hard to take them seriously.

Point being, there was nothing here that has to be explained by pre-911 calls.

Here is the thing about the UM1. Dna can now determine what a person looks like. DNA Facial recognitio. Why don’t they just go there with it and not just CODIS?

I am 100% with you on this. DNA facial recognition, genealogical DNA analysis, they should all be performed. Of course, to do that, the BPD would have to release the remaining DNA to a facility capable of performing such procedures. And so far they've shown little interest in doing so, despite the Ramsey family begging them.

Would you mind showing the UM1 in JB panties and long johns are the same UM1?

The Bode report. Compare the alleles in the "unknown male 1" column on page 3 with the 2S07-101-05A column on page 4.

I did find this: that the presence of DNA from an unknown male was indicated in both a bloodstain on JonBenet's panties and in the scrapings from underneath the fingernails of both her left and right hands.

The tests from the fingernail scrapings are consistent with UM1's alleles, but there are too few of them to make a positive match. The best you can say it is not impossible for them to have the same origin.

And this:
At the crux of the evidence is the DNA profile referred to as Unknown Male 1.

That profile was first developed in late 1998 and early 1999 from tests on JonBenet’s panties — but analysts couldn’t at that time identify sufficient genetic markers. Sending it to the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System— the national genetic database commonly known as CODIS — requires at least 10 markers.

Further lab work in 2003 yielded an additional marker, and the profile, featuring the required minimum of 10 genetic markers, was entered into CODIS that December.

Actually, most of the markers were yielded during the 2003 testing phase. The Cellmark test used before in the late 90s had only targeted a maximum of 7 loci. As you can see from the Bode report, UM1 has alleles in 14 loci, though not all are used in the CODIS database. And as you also can see, the matter I keep bringing up, there are places in the touch DNA tests where there are as many as five alleles in one loci - so there is definitely some extra source of DNA on the longjohns, though there are far too few loci to connect them to a specific individual. Touch DNA is of course easy to deposit, and if the DNA evidence in the case relied on it alone I'd not put much stock in it.

But it doesn't. UM1 isn't touch DNA and there is no evidence or even indication of a third contributor to the JonBenet/UM1 mix.

“People believed back in those days almost all mixtures are two-person mixtures — that was like gospel truth,” said Phillip Danielson, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Denver and science adviser to the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center.

Sure, but that still doesn't explain the consistency in the number of alleles per loci.

In the ensuing years, as the “kits” used to detect DNA became ever more sensitive, scientists came to realize that many mixtures contained genetic markers from more than two people.

Like the ones from the longjohns.

“You know,” Danielson said, “looking at the profiles in this case, it seems pretty clear that their idea of this ‘unknown male’ — this could easily be a composite profile. Meaning that we have multiple contributors. But because of the low sensitivity of the kit, they interpreted those multiple contributors as being just one extra person.”

So the idea here is that there are a bunch of hidden alleles, that distribute perfectly evenly across the loci to create the illusion of only two contributors? And this pattern replicates over the touch DNA tests performed years later on a different garment?

I don't doubt Danielson's expertise, but I do doubt that of the reporters. An expert is only as good as the data they have, and unlike the Bode experts, they had to rely on second-hand information from reporters - including one with a not-too-great track record.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

I wanted to touch on this for a minute:
October 4, 2002 8pm DST CBS 48 Hours Investigates - Searching for a Killer

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "But what about the fibers from Patsy Ramsey's jacket that police say were in the paint tray and on the sticky side of duct tape covering JonBenet's mouth"

Erin Moriarty: "Is there a fact that there were fibers consistent with Patsy Ramsey's jacket incrementing?"

Lou Smit: "Sure."

Erin Moriarty: "But does that shake your faith that the Ramsey's were not involved?"

Lou Smit: "No, you just can't rely on fiber evidence because fibers could come off the jacket or something similar to the jacket."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Once more says Smit there were also dozens of unidentified fibers that didn't come from the Ramsey's and Smit is unaware of a single case where a parent used a garrote like this to kill a child."

Lou Smit: "This is one of the best clues left behind by the killer. This shows what's going on in his mind. This is a sexual device. He's a pedophile who's a sexual sadist. That's what Lou Smit's looking for."

The last sentence speaks of coverup. Whether directly or indirectly pertaining to the R’s. Maybe JR was molesting JB and PR caught him in the act. This would help explain why John and Patsy distanced themselves during this horrific time from one another. Or was their relationship in that bad of shape? We should conclude that JB was being SA by someone that had access to her.

According to Dr. McCann: There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. Least of all let’s not forget the scream heard by the neighbor across the street. McCann stated that this injury would have been very painful because the area of the injury as indicated by the bruise was at the base of the hymen were most of the nerve endings are located. Such an injury would have caused a six year old child to scream or yell. The doctor also stated that he assumed the object did not have jagged edges because there were no evidence of tears in the bruised area.

And then as a reminder, we find JB sitting on the spiral staircase during the Christmas party on the 23rd, crying. Asked why she was crying JB replied because I don’t feel pretty. So we find ourselves asking why did a 6 yr. old little girl, not feel pretty? I find this highly unusual.

I do believe Smit makes a very good point when he states the fibers found in the ligature could have come off something similar to PR jacket. Perhaps a Santa Claus suit? We do not know if it was tested and if so what were the fibers; polyester?

Do we believe that somebody slipped into a Santa suit on Christmas night? Quietly took JB down to the basement, read her a book and then tortured, SA her and then murdered her?

What do you believe happened? Was it the foreign faction that had access to JB on a consistent basis? Just an FYI we know that flight records aren’t always reported. Look at the JFK Jr. case if in doubt.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

I do think the intruder put on a (partial) Santa suit at some point. My guess is that the red fibers (which were plenty), the beaver fur and the mysterious cotton originated from this. Since Patsy says her jacket was "kind of a black and red and gray fleece." So the red fibers would be polyester if they matched. The brown cotton fibers could have been from work gloves, whereas the black and/or blue fibers could have been from whatever he wore underneath.

There is of course JonBenet's comment about a secret visit from Santa after Christmas. The scenario where she was approached by UM1 at the pageant circuit makes sense to me, and that he would want to put her at ease with a benign outfit - since there doesn't appear to be signs of struggle in the bedroom.

Regarding abuse before I don't think there is solid evidence, and the two doctors who physically examined the body - Meyer and Sirotnak - haven't claimed there was signs of abuse prior to the night of the murder. I have to check to be sure, but one of the documentaries said that at least one of the experts who claimed to see signs of abuse (based on photos and the autopsy report) hadn't been informed of JonBenet's medical history, which included vaginitis.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

I do think the intruder put on a (partial) Santa suit at some point. My guess is that the red fibers (which were plenty), the beaver fur and the mysterious cotton originated from this.

I do believe there was a Santa suit sitting inside of a trash bad to take to Colorado. As I recall it was sitting in the back hallway on the floor.
Do you have a source that states ”that in fact: the fur coat PR walked out of the house in, on 12/26/96; was indeed a mink as rumor goes“? It is odd how it is never mentioned. Her coat I mean. It’s always her jacket that was ‘Christmasy’. This was a fad in 1996 amongst women. JB had one like it laying at the foot of her bed.

Since Patsy says her jacket was "kind of a black and red and gray fleece."

But what we see is a red, black and gray fleece?

" So the red fibers would be polyester if they matched. The brown cotton fibers could have been from work gloves, whereas the black and/or blue fibers could have been from whatever he wore underneath.

Yes, the red fibers could have come from the Santa suit. As I recall there was a Santa suit sitting in a trash bad in the back hallway to take to Michigan. Maybe somebody just couldn’t wait to put it on?
Makes one wonder about that Red turtleneck PR originally stated she put JB to bed in. She was going to force her to wear that thing. So they would match. Like mother, like daughter.
The brown cotton fibers could have come from the body of the AG doll or work gloves. The black fibers came from either the black velvet duvet or JR sweater. The blue fibers could have come from JR bath robe, BR pajamas, etc.

There is of course JonBenet's comment about a secret visit from Santa after Christmas. The scenario where she was approached by UM1 at the pageant circuit makes sense to me, and that he would want to put her at ease with a benign outfit - since there doesn't appear to be signs of struggle in the bedroom.

Yes, JB was expecting a visit from Santa after Christmas. The Santa suit IMO was to put her at ease w/out defense. After all, she loved and trusted Santa Claus.
There was something hiding behind her headboard on the left side (Same material as the sheets). Also the drape behind her bed on the right side was in disarray. What makes this stand out is PR had a party on the 23rd. The house was on show (during the Christmas season 1996). So, LHP probably worked double time to produce all that! I doubt this detail was overlooked.
There are those here that are convinced the crime started in JB bedroom.

Regarding abuse before I don't think there is solid evidence, and the two doctors who physically examined the body - Meyer and Sirotnak - haven't claimed there was signs of abuse prior to the night of the murder. I have to check to be sure, but one of the documentaries said that at least one of the experts who claimed to see signs of abuse (based on photos and the autopsy report) hadn't been informed of JonBenet's medical history, which included vaginitis.

Vaginitis doesn’t cause this:

There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. Least of all let’s not forget the scream heard by the neighbor across the street. McCann stated that this injury would have been very painful because the area of the injury as indicated by the bruise was at the base of the hymen were most of the nerve endings are located. Such an injury would have caused a six year old child to scream or yell. The doctor also stated that he assumed the object did not have jagged edges because there were no evidence of tears in the bruised area.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

I do think the intruder put on a (partial) Santa suit at some point. My guess is that the red fibers (which were plenty), the beaver fur and the mysterious cotton originated from this.

I do believe there was a Santa suit sitting inside of a trash bag to take to Colorado. As I recall it was sitting in the back hallway on the floor.
Do you have a source that states ”that in fact: the fur coat PR walked out of the house in, on 12/26/96; was indeed a mink as rumor goes“? It is odd how it is never mentioned. Her coat I mean. It’s always her jacket that was ‘Christmasy’. This was a fad in 1996 amongst women. JB had one like it laying at the foot of her bed.

Since Patsy says her jacket was "kind of a black and red and gray fleece."

But what we see is a red, black and gray fleece?

" So the red fibers would be polyester if they matched. The brown cotton fibers could have been from work gloves, whereas the black and/or blue fibers could have been from whatever he wore underneath.

Yes, the red fibers could have come from the Santa suit. As I recall there was a Santa suit sitting in a trash bad in the back hallway to take to Michigan. Maybe somebody just couldn’t wait to put it on?
Makes one wonder about that Red turtleneck PR originally stated she put JB to bed in. She was going to force her to wear that thing. So they would match. Like mother, like daughter.
The brown cotton fibers could have come from the body of the AG doll or work gloves. The black fibers came from either the black velvet duvet or JR sweater. The blue fibers could have come from JR bath robe, BR pajamas, etc.

There is of course JonBenet's comment about a secret visit from Santa after Christmas. The scenario where she was approached by UM1 at the pageant circuit makes sense to me, and that he would want to put her at ease with a benign outfit - since there doesn't appear to be signs of struggle in the bedroom.

Yes, JB was expecting a visit from Santa after Christmas. The Santa suit IMO was to put her at ease w/out defense. After all, she loved and trusted Santa Claus.
There was something hiding behind her headboard on the left side (Same material as the sheets). Also the drape behind her bed on the right side was in disarray. What makes this stand out is PR had a party on the 23rd. The house was on show (during the Christmas season 1996). So, LHP probably worked double time to produce all that! I doubt this detail was overlooked.
There are those here that are convinced the crime started in JB bedroom.

Regarding abuse before I don't think there is solid evidence, and the two doctors who physically examined the body - Meyer and Sirotnak - haven't claimed there was signs of abuse prior to the night of the murder. I have to check to be sure, but one of the documentaries said that at least one of the experts who claimed to see signs of abuse (based on photos and the autopsy report) hadn't been informed of JonBenet's medical history, which included vaginitis.

Vaginitis doesn’t cause this:

There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. Least of all let’s not forget the scream heard by the neighbor across the street. McCann stated that this injury would have been very painful because the area of the injury as indicated by the bruise was at the base of the hymen were most of the nerve endings are located. Such an injury would have caused a six year old child to scream or yell. The doctor also stated that he assumed the object did not have jagged edges because there were no evidence of tears in the bruised area.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

Sorry folks, double post.

 

[UKGuy]

And



Reply to your reasoning MCDuck:

And there is this:


Three calls the day after the murder and two more a few days later came from the home phone of the lieutenant governor of the State of Colorado, Gail Schoettler.

Treating her like any other witness simply didn't work. The lieutenant governor strutted her political power and stonewalled me until she was damned good and ready to answer questions. Her husband, Don Stevens, a friend of John Ramsey for thirty-five years, had made the calls merely to convey sympathy, Schoettler told me.

Everyone that has a child that is murdered gets ”A call” the day after she is murdered from the lieutenant governor of your state. No political connections here. Not to speak of ML exonerating them?Sure thing MCDuck! I’m not convinced!

 

[UKGuy]

The absence of phone records does not demonstrate that there were NO phone calls made from the Ramsey household.

The cell phone allegedly purchased by Patsy was apparently never recovered. I've never seen it cited in any evidence logs.


.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

The absence of phone records does not demonstrate that there were NO phone calls made from the Ramsey household.

The cell phone allegedly purchased by Patsy was apparently never recovered. I've never seen it cited in any evidence logs.


.

Thank you UKGuy!
I have been thinking about the R’s and their actions after the kidnapping/murder of their daughter. It’s something I need some time to sit down and write about. Just busy at the moment. Seems fingers are always pointing at BPD as incompetent when the R’s left that house FREELY (with their baby girl laying by herself under the Christmas tree); without going down to the police department to be interviewed. Much less, be able; to be interviewed. Why? Stuff like that just gets me; in this case!
Thanks for being here!

 

[UKGuy]

Thank you UKGuy!
I have been thinking about the R’s and their actions after the kidnapping/murder of their daughter. It’s something I need some time to sit down and write about. Just busy at the moment. Seems fingers are always pointing at BPD as incompetent when the R’s left that house FREELY (with their baby girl laying by herself under the Christmas tree); without going down to the police department to be interviewed. Much less, be able; to be interviewed. Why? Stuff like that just gets me; in this case!
Thanks for being here!

Rain on my Parade,​

Yes, I understand we are all busy, busy. So just contribute whatever you can can, you offer some significant insights. This might help others to see why justice for JonBenet matters.

The postmortem actions are a good way to get a handle on the crime-scene, as these were structured, i.e. not chaotic and random, why?

I reckon it was due to the parents evolving a game plan and executing it, although it fell down when John phoned his pilot to request assistance in fleeing interstate.

For John to find the body, then to be allowed to walk away from the crime-scene suggests some degree of collusion with BPD, otherwise why not let him flee using his private plane?

It appears to me as if the parents used John's new cell phone prior to dialing 911. Patently they would seek advice on how to deal with the then, contentious situation, i.e. a Kidnapping?

Like, how would Patsy or John know to phone those guests over, before the Boulder detectives arrived?

Why would they stay with the Stines, and not book into an expensive hotel with a security detail on hand?

You can tell that the BPD were not incompetent, they did undertake most of the mandatory procedures, yet they never seemed to completely do the requisite follow up.

The simplest answer is that the case is really BDI, which BPD knew prior to arriving, so they knew due to Colorado's Child Protection Statutes that the case would never really ever be resolved, so they just played ball at being investigators.

The fact that the parent's postmortem behavior is structured tells us a lot, add in the revelation that Burke was wide awake during the 911 call, possibly even present as Patsy dramatised her discovery of the ransom note to the 911 responder, all suggests what is ironically known in the UK as a Cunning Plan!

The Grand Jury Charge that both parents were guilty of Child Neglect, i.e. they knew what was going on and failed to prevent it, tell us minimally that aspects of the staging which some think was unconscious, e.g. being wrapped in the white blanket, was actually intended to hide the fact that JonBenet was a familial victim?

.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

Rain on my Parade,​

Yes, I understand we are all busy, busy. So just contribute whatever you can can, you offer some significant insights. This might help others to see why justice for JonBenet matters.

The postmortem actions are a good way to get a handle on the crime-scene, as these were structured, i.e. not chaotic and random, why?

I reckon it was due to the parents evolving a game plan and executing it, although it fell down when John phoned his pilot to request assistance in fleeing interstate.

For John to find the body, then to be allowed to walk away from the crime-scene suggests some degree of collusion with BPD, otherwise why not let him flee using his private plane?

It appears to me as if the parents used John's new cell phone prior to dialing 911. Patently they would seek advice on how to deal with the then, contentious situation, i.e. a Kidnapping?

Like, how would Patsy or John know to phone those guests over, before the Boulder detectives arrived?

Why would they stay with the Stines, and not book into an expensive hotel with a security detail on hand?

You can tell that the BPD were not incompetent, they did undertake most of the mandatory procedures, yet they never seemed to completely do the requisite follow up.

The simplest answer is that the case is really BDI, which BPD knew prior to arriving, so they knew due to Colorado's Child Protection Statutes that the case would never really ever be resolved, so they just played ball at being investigators.

The fact that the parent's postmortem behavior is structured tells us a lot, add in the revelation that Burke was wide awake during the 911 call, possibly even present as Patsy dramatised her discovery of the ransom note to the 911 responder, all suggests what is ironically known in the UK as a Cunning Plan!

The Grand Jury Charge that both parents were guilty of Child Neglect, i.e. they knew what was going on and failed to prevent it, tell us minimally that aspects of the staging which some think was unconscious, e.g. being wrapped in the white blanket, was actually intended to hide the fact that JonBenet was a familial victim?

.

UKGuy,
Why didn’t the R’s stay at the apartment they owned that DP stayed at? They needed to protect/portray themselves as victims. Isn’t that what JR has been stating all these years? JB wasn’t the victim here?

Considering all this why didn’t the R’s seek medical help for JB? Because they needed the SA covered up I.e. true bills. The white blanket wrapping up JB in a papoose makes me see this as a familial event no doubt.

I suspect that BDI and then the parents took it further by staging. The cracking of JB skull is so overkill. Who did this? Why? Since PR fiber evidence links her to the garrote; was she also capable of bashing in her daughters skull? Why would JR cover for PR if that was the case?

I suppose JR was busy making phone calls while BR and PR were initially staging. Otherwise, where is JR fiber/dna evidence here? Did he think to wear gloves? Even so what about the touch dna?

Yes, I totally agree that the R’s were told what to do by calling their friends over. Still why didn’t JR and PR console one another? Because this was the real picture of their relationship?

I do not believe JR ever read the RN. One point that makes this stand out is PR asking JR when she thought she had hung up the 911 call, “now what”? Or at the very least where is JR hand/fingerprints yet again! He was giving directives. There was no need for him to read the note; as he probably commanded it.

Where did the rest of the size 12 bloomies run off to? Why was JB dressed in this size? More than likely because they were handy. Mom and son spent parts of the day together down in the basement as the story goes. They also spent a good deal of time in the basement Christmas night as well as the early morning hours of the 26th. Their dna links them both to the longjohns and the Barbie nightgown.

This case speaks of coverup and dysfunction of the unit. They will continue to coverup as long as they can get away with it. Since BR can never be prosecuted; then what? All so BR can lead a normal life! Say what …

 

[UKGuy]

Why didn’t the R’s stay at the apartment they owned that DP stayed at? They needed to protect/portray themselves as victims. Isn’t that what JR has been stating all these years? JB wasn’t the victim here?

Considering all this why didn’t the R’s seek medical help for JB? Because they needed the SA covered up I.e. true bills. The white blanket wrapping up JB in a papoose makes me see this as a familial event no doubt.

I suspect that BDI and then the parents took it further by staging. The cracking of JB skull is so overkill. Who did this? Why? Since PR fiber evidence links her to the garrote; was she also capable of bashing in her daughters skull? Why would JR cover for PR if that was the case?

I suppose JR was busy making phone calls while BR and PR were initially staging. Otherwise, where is JR fiber/dna evidence here? Did he think to wear gloves? Even so what about the touch dna?

Yes, I totally agree that the R’s were told what to do by calling their friends over. Still why didn’t JR and PR console one another? Because this was the real picture of their relationship?

I do not believe JR ever read the RN. One point that makes this stand out is PR asking JR when she thought she had hung up the 911 call, “now what”? Or at the very least where is JR hand/fingerprints yet again! He was giving directives. There was no need for him to read the note; as he probably commanded it.

Where did the rest of the size 12 bloomies run off to? Why was JB dressed in this size? More than likely because they were handy. Mom and son spent parts of the day together down in the basement as the story goes. They also spent a good deal of time in the basement Christmas night as well as the early morning hours of the 26th. Their dna links them both to the longjohns and the Barbie nightgown.

This case speaks of coverup and dysfunction of the unit. They will continue to coverup as long as they can get away with it. Since BR can never be prosecuted; then what? All so BR can lead a normal life! Say what …

Rain on my Parade,

Why didn’t the R’s stay at the apartment they owned that DP stayed at? They needed to protect/portray themselves as victims. Isn’t that what JR has been stating all these years? JB wasn’t the victim here?

Nope, they needed to get the Stines on board, they knew stuff that could sink the R's, possibly via DS's friendship with BR?

Considering all this why didn’t the R’s seek medical help for JB? Because they needed the SA covered up I.e. true bills. The white blanket wrapping up JB in a papoose makes me see this as a familial event no doubt.

You nailed it, no medical help means the R's get to control the SA details.

I suspect that BDI and then the parents took it further by staging. The cracking of JB skull is so overkill. Who did this? Why? Since PR fiber evidence links her to the garrote; was she also capable of bashing in her daughters skull? Why would JR cover for PR if that was the case?

The overkill aspect might reflect Patsy's state of mind if it was her that whacked and asphyxiated JonBenet so to enact staging?

I suppose JR was busy making phone calls while BR and PR were initially staging. Otherwise, where is JR fiber/dna evidence here? Did he think to wear gloves? Even so what about the touch dna?

Sure, JR was making certain he was showered clean. There his shirt fibers on JonBenet on JonBenet's genitalia. They simply should not be there, particularly in the wine-cellar!

Yes, I totally agree that the R’s were told what to do by calling their friends over. Still why didn’t JR and PR console one another? Because this was the real picture of their relationship?

Most likely Patsy detested John given his repeated demands on her? If JonBenet was playing Daddy's Girl with Patsy's tacit permission, then she likely disliked him even more, public displays of mutual consolation was something they could never stage.

I do not believe JR ever read the RN. One point that makes this stand out is PR asking JR when she thought she had hung up the 911 call, “now what”? Or at the very least where is JR hand/fingerprints yet again! He was giving directives. There was no need for him to read the note; as he probably commanded it.

He does not want linked to any of the staged artifacts, quite possibly someone has told him to minimize is forensic links?

Where did the rest of the size 12 bloomies run off to? Why was JB dressed in this size? More than likely because they were handy. Mom and son spent parts of the day together down in the basement as the story goes. They also spent a good deal of time in the basement Christmas night as well as the early morning hours of the 26th. Their dna links them both to the longjohns and the Barbie nightgown.

Big mystery, her sister Pamela probably bailed out with them when she did her Supermarket Dive through the house?

Thats just the dna that has been released into the public domain. What's missing is which particular Ramsey DNA was found on JonBenet, and where, regardless of its origin being cited as environmental.

This case speaks of coverup and dysfunction of the unit. They will continue to coverup as long as they can get away with it. Since BR can never be prosecuted; then what? All so BR can lead a normal life! Say what …

There is more to come on the case. You reckon BR and DS are going to become Monks for the rest of their life, BTW has DS ever married, does he date etc?

Just because BR can never be prosecuted does not mean we can never establish the facts in the case.

Let's put it this way, if BR is innocent, then once JR leaves us I reckon BR will do one of these Oprah style confessionals, he will have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

.