Lies point us to the truth #2

[UKGuy]

Hitec Footprint in the WC belongs to BR.

Atlanta 2000 Patsy Interview excerpt

14 Q. Do you recall a period of time,

15 prior to 1996, when your son Burke purchased

16 a pair of hiking boots that had compasses on

17 the shoelaces? And if it helps to

18 remember --

19 A. I can't remember.

20 Q. Maybe this will help your

21 recollection. They were shoes that were

22 purchased while he was shopping with you in

23 Atlanta.

24 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that

25 as a fact?

0123

1 MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as

2 a fact.

...

MR. WOOD: You are stating that

19 Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec

20 shoes?

21 MR. LEVIN: Yes.

22 MR. WOOD: He used the phrase

23 Hi-Tec?

24 MR. LEVIN: Yes.

 

[dgfred]

Patsy trying to re-answer as she finds out information. Why in the world would the size 12s be already opened?

 

[UKGuy]

With BR being asked if he owned a pair of Hi-Tec shoes and, from memory, DS confirms this.

Then Its possible Burke realizes he can be placed in the wine-cellar, AFTER the Pughs had been in there and removed the Christmas decorations, tree etc.

So he relates the truth or invents a Christmas Day afternoon stroll through the basement.

So Kolar has three criteria for BR opening the gifts: The CS Statement, the footprint and his touch-dna on the nightgown.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Patsy trying to re-answer as she finds out information. Why in the world would the size 12s be already opened?

dgfred,
Its likely Patsy was completely unaware that JonBenet was wearing size-12s.

Just about everything she says about the size-12's appears ad-hoc, complete with contradiction.

Suggesting someone else redressed JonBenet in the size-12's without her knowledge.

Patsy would know the size-12s were a red flag, why would she ever dress JonBenet in them to effect staging?

.

 

[dgfred]

Super-like. That is the whole deal for me.

 

[Eddie99]

dgfred,
Its likely Patsy was completely unaware that JonBenet was wearing size-12s.

Just about everything she says about the size-12's appears ad-hoc, complete with contradiction.

Suggesting someone else redressed JonBenet in the size-12's without her knowledge.

Patsy would know the size-12s were a red flag, why would she ever dress JonBenet in them to effect staging?

.

Why are the size 12s a red flag?

I don't know what I'm not getting here, but I'm not getting it.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

Why are the size 12s a red flag?

I don't know what I'm not getting here, but I'm not getting it.

Eddie99,
Jonbenet was 6 years old and wore a size 6 underwear. A size 12 is for a 12 year old. They were so big without the long johns; they would have fallen off of her.
JB wouldn’t have dressed herself in a size 12, nor her mom? So who dressed her? PR states she bought them for her niece but ended up putting the package of size 12’s in JB bathroom drawer. No other size 12’s we’re found in the home. There were a pair for each day of the week in the bloomie package. Where did the rest of them go?

 

[UKGuy]

Why are the size 12s a red flag?

I don't know what I'm not getting here, but I'm not getting it.

Eddie99,
The size-12s are a red flag because JonBenet should NOT be wearing them at all !

Since JonBenet is wearing size-12 Bloomingdales, purchased for Patsy's niece while JonBenet was present, this tells everyone and their dog that JonBenet was redressed and placed into the wine-cellar.

i.e. The wine-cellar represents a staged crime-scene.

An intruder is ruled out as the parents under interview were asked where did the size-12's originate from.

This was done to specifically rule out an intruder bringing the size-12's into the house.

Bottom line: JonBenet's homicide was staged in the wine-cellar to fling you off the scent. It usually works until you can see through it?

.

 

[UKGuy]

Patsy trying to re-answer as she finds out information. Why in the world would the size 12s be already opened?

dgfred,
The size-12's are already OPENED because either Burke or John opened them and redressed JonBenet in them, while removing her bloodstained SIZE-6 underwear!

Read the posts above where John and Patsy both claim to open the size-12's. John by inference as he claims Patsy NEVER knew there were gifts in the wine-cellar.

Patsy claims she opened the size-12s, after wrapping them up, just to peek.

Duh, she would know what they were ...

Kolar reckons Burke opened the size-12s as Burke said he strolled through the basement Christmas Day afternoon.

Just like any normal milionaires son might do.

.

 

[Eddie99]

Are you saying they would have just swapped her underwear and nothing else? I'm assuming to get rid of body fluids or something that could be traced back to them?

If that assumption is correct:
1. Where did the other underwear go?
2. Why didnt they get rid of everything; if they were cunning enough to dispose of that, why not everything?
3. This is the same question as #2, but different aspect. I'm trying to imagine myself in the position the Rs would be in if they just killed their daughter. I don't think changing her underwear, written a note, and leaving her, in a room they would have specifically staged for the police to discover, only to have them overlook her, and then deciding to purposely "find her" hours later. Would make any sense.

Bonus. People parce every word the Rs say. But why not the police, and this kolar guy. The woman sitting with them all day went on national TV, and said she didn't think they would all be alive when back up came. Well the plain I'll fact of the matter is she was demonstrably wrong. They were all alive, and there were no flare ups of violence. That day, or since.

Some of these statements quoted from kolar, really stretch the general idea of the transcript notes.

The language he chooses is all pejorative. Like saying "patsy "admitted".......

The word "Admitted" being an example of pejorative language. She didn't admit anything, she was answering questions.

To me it's biased.

The family was doing well. They had some cash. This allowed patsy to stay home, and do lavish things. Like shop, travel.

A lot of folks really seem to loath those things.

That said, if I were police/ grand jury I would give them a really hard look. And BPD did. They also ran down lots of other leads. I really don't think they would have kept investigating other parties if they were 100% sure it was Rs.

Especially when they know the whole case is so poorly done they probably won't ever be able to convict anyone.

Lastly, the DA said they find other samples that didn't match the R family.

I don't know what samples they have or where they got them. But that's from three da herself.

 

[proust20]

Patsy said that JonBenet wanted to keep the size 12s? That doesn't jibe with them being gift-wrapped at Christmas. It isn't known if the 12s were wrapped. PR had the option to send them directly to Jenny from the store in NYC.

If Burke did find a gift wrapped set of 12s Christmas Day, how they wound up on JB still has to be explained. BR could not foresee how they could be used to coverup his sister's murder, unless he premeditated. If finding the 12s were a random act earlier on the 25th, his remembering them later to substitute for the incriminating 6s, just in the nick of time, is highly coincidental; but, not impossible.

The staging involves the removal of items (size 6s) and addition of items (size 12s). Why, in this process, the size 12s and long johns were left on is another puzzle of this case. The white blanket was brought from the dryer as a comforting gesture for JB; yet, the grotesque display was left intact. The intention may have been to humiliate her? JB was conditioned as a victim by her abuser well before Christmas. While sifting through the data, the question of motive for such a brutal murder has to be considered as well.

Patsy wrote the RN with her Sharpie and pad. She placed the 911. "I'm the mother." Her fibers were found in the garrote and paint tray. Her paintbrush was used for the garrote, and perhaps for the final assault. "Two people out there know what happened."

 

[UKGuy]

Are you saying they would have just swapped her underwear and nothing else? I'm assuming to get rid of body fluids or something that could be traced back to them?

If that assumption is correct:
1. Where did the other underwear go?
2. Why didnt they get rid of everything; if they were cunning enough to dispose of that, why not everything?
3. This is the same question as #2, but different aspect. I'm trying to imagine myself in the position the Rs would be in if they just killed their daughter. I don't think changing her underwear, written a note, and leaving her, in a room they would have specifically staged for the police to discover, only to have them overlook her, and then deciding to purposely "find her" hours later. Would make any sense.

Bonus. People parce every word the Rs say. But why not the police, and this kolar guy. The woman sitting with them all day went on national TV, and said she didn't think they would all be alive when back up came. Well the plain I'll fact of the matter is she was demonstrably wrong. They were all alive, and there were no flare ups of violence. That day, or since.

Some of these statements quoted from kolar, really stretch the general idea of the transcript notes.

The language he chooses is all pejorative. Like saying "patsy "admitted".......

The word "Admitted" being an example of pejorative language. She didn't admit anything, she was answering questions.

To me it's biased.

The family was doing well. They had some cash. This allowed patsy to stay home, and do lavish things. Like shop, travel.

A lot of folks really seem to loath those things.

That said, if I were police/ grand jury I would give them a really hard look. And BPD did. They also ran down lots of other leads. I really don't think they would have kept investigating other parties if they were 100% sure it was Rs.

Especially when they know the whole case is so poorly done they probably won't ever be able to convict anyone.

Lastly, the DA said they find other samples that didn't match the R family.

I don't know what samples they have or where they got them. But that's from three da herself.

Eddie99,

1. Where did the other underwear go?

It vanished.

2. Why didnt they get rid of everything; if they were cunning enough to dispose of that, why not everything?

JonBenet was redressed, DO YOU GET THAT?

Initially she may have been naked so to facilitate a SA?

After JonBenet was whacked on the head and asphyxiated she might have been Partially/Fully Dressed, lets suggest in her BEDROOM to simulate an intruder attack?

Later JonBenet was MOVED down to the basement to break the link with her bedroom.

At this point further staging was undertaken, e.g. paintbrush, ligature, wrist-restraints, longjohns, size-12s, etc.

The exact sequence is uncertain but specific action wrt JonBenet were enacted, e.g. some consider the use of the paintbrush to assault JonBenet potentially ritualistic.

3. This is the same question as #2, but different aspect. I'm trying to imagine myself in the position the Rs would be in if they just killed their daughter. I don't think changing her underwear, written a note, and leaving her, in a room they would have specifically staged for the police to discover, only to have them overlook her, and then deciding to purposely "find her" hours later. Would make any sense.

Of course, with hindsight, it does not make any sense, but they were in a panic and not only engaged in staging a homicide but periodically returning to it to tweak it here and there.

The language he chooses is all pejorative. Like saying "patsy "admitted"

I'm assuming you mean Kolar is biased, well if his interpretation of the evidence is consistent with his theory, then he is entitled to put it forward.

If you think the Ramsey's are 100% innocent you should just say so.

The thing about that opinion is not many people are going to want to comment on it, as it will be anyone's position when facing a potential homicide charge.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Here is another author's take on the murder of JonBenet. Its summary based and a bit dated, i.e. some of the evidential claims, e.g. dna, no longer stand up as the dna was an admixture. Epstein's very LAST sentence tells you what you need to know, as touch-dna was found in the wine-cellar belonging to one or two of the Ramsey's.

THE KILLING OF JONBENET RAMSEY
by Edward Jay Epstein, 2013

In 1996, the reported kidnapping of JonBenet Ramsey, a six-year-old star in the world of child beauty pageants, set off a month long media feeding frenzy reminiscent of the 1932 Lindbergh kidnapping. In both cases, a high-profile child was taken from its bed while the parents were at home, and was then found dead. And in both cases, police could find no signs of forced entry, identifiable fingerprints, or credible witnesses to the putative intruder except for a handwritten ransom note. With Lindbergh, who was a national hero, the police focused on the intruder, but in the Ramsey case, the police focused on the family.


The JonBenet Ramsey investigation began on the morning of December 26, 1996, after her father, John Ramsey, reported her missing from her home in Boulder, Colorado. He told police that the last time the child star was seen by anyone in the family was when he carried her to bed at 10:00 on Christmas night. He showed them a handwritten ransom note that he had found in the house that said that JonBenet had been abducted by a “group” representing a “foreign faction.” It demanded that $118,000, the exact size of John Ramsey’s annual bonus, be delivered to the kidnappers. At 1:05 p.m. that day, before the ransom money could be paid, Ramsey found his daughter’s body covered in a white blanket in the wine cellar.


The medical examination established that her wrists had been tied above her head, and her mouth covered by duct tape, and that she had been garroted by a nylon cord. From the advanced state of rigor mortis, the time of death was between 10:00 p.m. on December 25 and 6:00 a.m. on December 26. The autopsy determined that she was killed by either strangulation or a skull-fracturing blow to the head, and that there were indications that she had been sexually assaulted.

The only solid clue for the investigators was the ransom note. Forensic experts found that the three sheets of paper used in it, as well as the pen with which it was written, came from a table near the kitchen in the Ramsey home. This meant that someone inside the house had taken the time to write a lengthy letter before or after the strangling of JonBenet.


Police found a footprint made by a hiking boot in dust and a palm print on the door of the wine cellar that could have come from an outsider, but they could not date them to the night of the kidnapping. They also found a pubic hair in the blanket in which JonBenet was wrapped that could not be matched to any family member, but it also could have been left in the blanket at an earlier time or resulted from the accidental contamination of the crime scene, which was not initially sealed off.

So, even with modern DNA tests, there was no certain evidence of an intruder.
The investigators were also unable to find an escape route. There was an opened basement window, but there were no footprints in the snow outside the window. So the investigation homed in on the activities of the three family members who were in the house—John Ramsey; JonBenet’s mother, Patsy; and JonBenet’s brother, Burke. Despite an intensive effort, however, the police were unable to match the handwriting samples of any family member to the ransom note, or to find any other evidence implicating them.


Meanwhile, the family hired lawyers to protect their interests and file lawsuits against the media outlets that were reporting police “leaks.” So the investigation ground to a halt.
It took nearly twelve years for the district attorney’s office to officially exonerate the family members on the basis of the DNA. Even though the investigation officially resumed, the Boulder police chief observed, “Some cases never get solved.” There were a number of false confessions, such as that of John Mark Karr in 2006, but none of these confessors matched the DNA profile established by the FBI.


The theories fall into either the domestic-violence category or the unknown-intruder category. The former theories raise the suspicion, which is common when a murder occurs in a household and there are no witnesses, that the ransom note was fabricated to cover the involvement of a Ramsey family member in the death of JonBenet. It was alleged that Patsy Ramsey may have altered her handwriting to avoid it being matched to the note, but this is hardly evidence. The intruder theories posited that some outsider who knew the layout of the Ramsey house, possibly a neighbor, business associate, or relative, murdered JonBenet as an act of revenge or anger against her parents and wrote the ransom note to divert police attention.

Finally, there is the sexual-predator theory. Because JonBenet appeared in beauty pageants, there is the possibility that a sexual predator stalked her, cased the house, broke in somehow, and assaulted her.
My assessment is that the abduction and murder were committed by an outsider. As the district attorney explained: “The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items.”

This lack of a match convinces me that someone broke into the house. It turns out that there were thirty-eight registered sex offenders within a two-mile radius of the Ramsey home, and, with the attention that JonBenet received as a child star, it is likely that the unknown DNA came from a sexual predator. If he was a known sex offender, he may well have left the note not to collect a ransom but to mislead the police investigation.


DNA is a double-edged sword. It can prove the innocence of an outsider, as it did in the case of the bogus confessor John Mark Karr, but its presence cannot serve as evidence for insiders, such as the Ramsey family members, whose DNA would be expected to be found in the house. While DNA analysis provides a substantial advance over fingerprints in identifying individuals at a crime scene, it still requires a positive match to a person who is not expected to be at the scene of the crime.

.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

Here is another author's take on the murder of JonBenet. Its summary based and a bit dated, i.e. some of the evidential claims, e.g. dna, no longer stand up as the dna was an admixture. Epstein's very LAST sentence tells you what you need to know, as touch-dna was found in the wine-cellar belonging to one or two of the Ramsey's.



.

UKGuy,
Yes, Indeedee

 

[Eddie99]

I think its worth noting that the ramseys lived in the home. It's not shocking that their dna and fingerprints are around the place.

In contrast, I don't think a unknown palm print is exculpatory. Or even a boot print. Those could be quite old.

One thing that is exculpatory to me, is foreign dna on the underwear. I just don't see any way to explain that finding.


On a different note.

I remember years ago when they released the ransom note. It seemed to me, as if someone was trying to channel a "silence of the lambs" vibe.

** to answer your question - I don't belive the parents or the 9 year old brother were involved.

This thing was tried in the court of public opinion. And most of the public hates successful people, unless they are in music, movies, or sports.

One look at patsy and jb in the western cowgirl outfit..... and it was over for them.

 

[proust20]

DNA per se cannot determine the killer. The abuser and killer can be different people. Which left a sample? The R's DNA being expected about the house worked to their advantage. As IDI is without merit, Team R must resort to distraction and distortion. Instead of dealing with available evidence, for which they still offer no explanations, they chase phantoms down rabbit holes.

DNA testing was not required to match Patsy's fibers to the WC, nor to discover that JonBenet ate pineapple, shortly before the murder. DNA did not figure into the chronic SA findings.

 

[UKGuy]

I think its worth noting that the ramseys lived in the home. It's not shocking that their dna and fingerprints are around the place.

In contrast, I don't think a unknown palm print is exculpatory. Or even a boot print. Those could be quite old.

One thing that is exculpatory to me, is foreign dna on the underwear. I just don't see any way to explain that finding.


On a different note.

I remember years ago when they released the ransom note. It seemed to me, as if someone was trying to channel a "silence of the lambs" vibe.

** to answer your question - I don't belive the parents or the 9 year old brother were involved.

This thing was tried in the court of public opinion. And most of the public hates successful people, unless they are in music, movies, or sports.

One look at patsy and jb in the western cowgirl outfit..... and it was over for them.

Eddie99,

In contrast, I don't think a unknown palm print is exculpatory. Or even a boot print. Those could be quite old.

The boot print might be recent or old. Knowing the Pugh family were walking in and out of the wine-cellar so to move the Christmas decoration, puts a limit on the age of the boot print.

Knowing that the bootprint matches that of Burke's Hi-Tec Boots, is that a coincidence?

One thing that is exculpatory to me, is foreign dna on the underwear. I just don't see any way to explain that finding.

The dna results are not absolute as they do not match to anyone outside of the house. The tag FOREIGN might simply be a correlation error.

DNA testing like everything else has error margins including those implicit in psychological expectation.

The foreign dna might simply represent surface transfer from the underwear packaging, or from the hand of the person redressing JonBenet.

Anyway it's not foreign dna it is technically an admixture with no determined analysis, so you can give it any name you want.

There is ZERO forensic evidence in the Ramsey household linking to anyone outside the house.

How many years is that?

The case is definitely RDI as its possible to demonstrate where the parents repeatedly lied and changed their version of events.

e.g. Burke says JonBenet walked into the house, the parents say they put her straight to bed sleeping!

The parents say Burke was asleep all night and only awoke the next morning when the 911 reponders arrived.

Later the parents changed that to Burke being awake prior to the 911 call as he can be heard talking to his parents.

Then you have the parents being hit with Grand Jury True Bills citing Child Abuse, and Assisting an Offender, i.e. the person who SA JonBenet!

What the court of public opinion and the forensic evidence says might be two completely different things.

IDI has been discounted on this board as there is no evidence to support it.

.

 

[UKGuy]

DNA per se cannot determine the killer. The abuser and killer can be different people. Which left a sample? The R's DNA being expected about the house worked to their advantage. As IDI is without merit, Team R must resort to distraction and distortion. Instead of dealing with available evidence, for which they still offer no explanations, they chase phantoms down rabbit holes.

DNA testing was not required to match Patsy's fibers to the WC, nor to discover that JonBenet ate pineapple, shortly before the murder. DNA did not figure into the chronic SA findings.

proust20,
The complete dna findings have never been made public. Only those that support a Ramsey interpretation.

When you request a dna test, you can tell the lab what to test for, i.e. just look for foreign dna, exclude familial dna.

The bottom line is that there is Ramsey touch dna on the bloodstained Barbie Gown, with John being excluded as a candidate.

The same dna might be distributed over other clothing worn by JonBenet, and it might be discounted as environmental dna, or simply not reported?

So the touch-dna sample on the bloodstained Barbie nightgown should not be there, certainly not at a crime-scene location made AFTER JonBenet's death.

the touch-dna, alike the bootprint, alike the knife, links you know who directly to the wine-cellar.

Not a good look.

.

 

[Eddie99]

How can a lab exclude and include dna upon request?

 

[proust20]

In fact, the Barbie nightgown itself should not be there in the WC. Touch DNA cannot explain why a bloody garment of the victim was left beside her. Perhaps, behind expectations for DNA evidence is an assumption that the abuser and killer are the same? JonBenet sustained dual lethal attacks.

Patsy lied about BR's boots, which indicates that they seemed significant to her. But when would Burke have put them on? He could not have worn them to the Whites', or she'd be caught out easily about them. After coming home makes no sense. Unless it was earlier when BR was prowling nosily around the basement? He could have dropped the knife then.

BDI does mesh with a lot of evidence, in a connect the dots sort of way. Although, his motive is vague for such a brutal crime. Patsy is the most linked to direct evidence, which is not a matter of inferences.

Conflicting accounts are a defensive strategy by Team R. The parents never testified under oath.