Members' Theories

[WHITEFANG]

More and more as time moves on the strength of the RDI arguments fade into oblivion.

 

[BBB167893]

More and more as time moves on the strength of the RDI arguments fade into oblivion.

Don't bet on it.

 

[DeeDee249]

She could have destroyed it.

Destroyed the photos or the jacket?

Doesn't matter anyway- a jacket Patsy sent was taken as evidence and whatever jacket that was matched the fibers at the crime scene. Photographic evidence show her to have been wearing the same jacket she gave police to the White's party. And no matter which jacket she actually gave police, they would be able to tell by the photo if it looked like the one she wore that day and was still wearing when police arrived the morning of Dec. 26.
Simply put- a jacket belonging to Patsy was found to be a match to fibers found at the crime scene.
It's pointless to argue that an intruder had the same jacket because an intruder didn't sent a jacket to police that matched. Patsy did. And Patsy is proven to have been in the home that night. And intruder has not.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Patsy, knowing full-well she wore that jacket the night she killed her daughter, and fully aware it could yield evidence that could send her to prison for life, (and though she and her husband had plotted and conducted a cover-up where she made a garrote, yanking it deeply into JB's neck, leaving her disfigured and with a grotesque red furrow in her neck, and a ransom note threatening to behead her) nevertheless, packaged and shipped this jacket from Atlanta to Boulder. She did not hide, destroy, substitute, or lose it, even though she had a year to do so.

 

[DeeDee249]

At that point she didn't know fibers had been found. And if she'd thought about it, she'd use the "I threw myself on the body" ploy. Which she did.

 

[BBB167893]

Destroyed the photos or the jacket?

Doesn't matter anyway- a jacket Patsy sent was taken as evidence and whatever jacket that was matched the fibers at the crime scene. Photographic evidence show her to have been wearing the same jacket she gave police to the White's party. And no matter which jacket she actually gave police, they would be able to tell by the photo if it looked like the one she wore that day and was still wearing when police arrived the morning of Dec. 26.
Simply put- a jacket belonging to Patsy was found to be a match to fibers found at the crime scene.
It's pointless to argue that an intruder had the same jacket because an intruder didn't sent a jacket to police that matched. Patsy did. And Patsy is proven to have been in the home that night. And intruder has not.

Exactly. "Why" doesn't make any difference now.

 

[BBB167893]

At that point she didn't know fibers had been found. And if she'd thought about it, she'd use the "I threw myself on the body" ploy. Which she did.

:clap: :clap:

 

[WHITEFANG]

Destroyed the photos or the jacket?

Doesn't matter anyway- a jacket Patsy sent was taken as evidence and whatever jacket that was matched the fibers at the crime scene.

Why would she send them "the jacket?" She didn't have to. The point is not that they matched fibers to it. The point is she never, ever, in a million years would send them anything that would incriminate her, ever. Not according to those who are adamant that they refused to cooperate and hid behind their lawyers.

Photographic evidence show her to have been wearing the same jacket she gave police to the White's party.

No. Not at all. photographic evidence did not and could not prove the jackets were the same. That's why they asked for it, to examine it.

And no matter which jacket she actually gave police, they would be able to tell by the photo if it looked like the one she wore that day and was still wearing when police arrived the morning of Dec. 26.

Absolutely, they could tell if it looked like the same one. And that's it. Nothing more. that's why they asked her to send it to them, so they could examine it.


But, you must think about something here, something absolutely critical. Why? Why in the world would she send them incriminating evidence when she didn't have to? She could say she lost it. She couldn't find it. She gave it to Goodwill. She could burn it and throw the ashes in the ocean. What could the cops do 2000 miles away?

Simply put- a jacket belonging to Patsy was found to be a match to fibers found at the crime scene.

Makes sense.

It's pointless to argue that an intruder had the same jacket because an intruder didn't sent a jacket to police that matched. Patsy did. And Patsy is proven to have been in the home that night. And intruder has not.

Bear with us. Let's say that an intruder is indeed the one who left behind matching fibers. That could be what actually occurred. What then?

 

[DeeDee249]

The only thing I can say is that to suggest he possibility an intruder came in THAT day wearing a jacket that was an exact match to a jacket owned by the mother of a child killed in her own home who ALSO wore that jacket on the same day is so remote as to be virtually impossible.
I understand it cannot be ruled out absolutely because it could never be known the exact whereabouts of every garment made from those fibers anywhere in the world.
But to suggest an intruder wore a dressy fleece jacket to a kidnapping/sexual assault/murder is pretty inane and to suggest it just happened to be an exact match to a jacket Patsy also owned is beyond reason.
There really is nothing more that can be said about it- we are at an impasse.

 

[WHITEFANG]

No. No impasse. We are closer now than ever.

But to suggest an intruder wore a dressy fleece jacket to a kidnapping/sexual assault/murder is pretty inane and to suggest it just happened to be an exact match to a jacket Patsy also owned is beyond reason.

Agree 100%. Makes no sense. Beyond reason, indeed.

The fibers consistent with fibers from that jacket could be common, so common that it is not unlikely whatsoever that the intruder carried them in on some piece of clothing he/she had on. That is what we don't know because no testing has been done to establish the mathematical odds on those fibers.

There really is nothing more that can be said about it- we are at an impasse.

 

[WHITEFANG]

:clap: :clap:

Pat could put 2 and 2 together folks. Come on. It isn't fair to regard them as imbeciles on the one hand and polished intelligent folks, too.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Pat could put 2 and 2 together folks. Come on. It isn't fair to regard them as imbeciles on the one hand and polished intelligent folks, too.

Madeline

This is not me defending the Ramsey's here but come on,your case is based on fibers but you ask for the clothes one year later?

I know that the cops wanted a lot but the DA didn't give them warrants.But here it's not the Ramsey's fault...
__________________
Sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground

 

[MurriFlower]

Except PW didn't have the SAME jacket. She had a similar one, which PW has not mentioned not being able to find or having been lent to Patsy. Besides, there is no need for Patsy to guess which jacket she wore. There are photos to show it.

Whitefang is absolutely correct. WHY would PR, if she was the killer, WILLINGLY give incriminating evidence to the Police? She didn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what they wanted the jacket for, it was to match with evidence from the crime scene. She gave them atr least two jackets and they found the evidence, no surprises there. BUT as Fang says, IF SHE WAS GUILTY why would she do this? She could have given them any similar jacket, they had no idea at all. Remember, she was rich, she was cunning, she had the world's best lawyers on her side. Any one of them could have sent an assistant out with a wad of notes and a photo of the jacket to buy one the same or similar. NO, the "Smartest Criminal of the Century" gave them her actual jacket she was wearing on the day (supposedly). But it's of no consequence, as the fibers were still found to be 'consistent', which of course, incriminates her. She seemed monumentally unimpressed by this. Why was that do you think?

9 MR. WOOD: Why characterize it.

20 It is what it is.

21 THE WITNESS: There is a picture.

22 MR. WOOD: It is in the picture.

23 Let's look at that.

24 MR. LEVIN: Just to expedite

25 things, because I am not fighting over the

0156

1 color, what I want to know is --

2 MR. WOOD: I think she said it

3 was red and black and gray.

4 THE WITNESS: A red and black and

5 gray check.

6 Q. (By Mr. Levin) What I am, what

7 I am interested in is, I am certainly not

8 going to debate concentration of colors. It

9 is irrelevant. What I am interested in, is

10 it something that you wore exclusively during

11 the Christmas season or is this a coat that

12 you wore anytime it was appropriate for the

13 weather?

14 A. Anytime it was appropriate.

15 Q. So it is not like a special

16 Christmassy type, type of Christmas sweater,

17 I know you talked about Christmas?

18 A. (Witness shook head negatively).

19 MR. WOOD: Your answer is not,

20 because you are nodding your head.

21 THE WITNESS: No, it is not.

22 MR. WOOD: So the record is

23 clear.

24 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) We were

25 provided that coat by, I believe, Ellis

0157

1 Armistead.

2 MR. TRUJILLO: Correct.

3 Q. (By Mr. Levin) What I would like

4 you to help us with is to understand how the

5 coat got from you to Ellis, if you know.

6 A. The -- I think you all requested

7 it.

8 Q. That is correct.

9 A. So I went to my closet, dug it

10 out, put it in a box, and sent it to Ellis.

11 Q. Was that coat something that was

12 taken -- you didn't wear that coat out of

13 the house when the police took you out of

14 the house the afternoon of the 26th. Do you

15 recall?

16 A. No, I don't think I did.

17 Q. Do you know how you came into

18 possession? Was that something that came

19 through Pam when she picked up some clothes

20 for you or was that something that was boxed

21 up and shipped when the house was packed?

22 MR. WOOD: Just so I am clear,

23 when was the request made?

24 MR. TRUJILLO: It was received

25 January of '98. So it was --

0158

1 MR. WOOD: Are we talking about

2 sometime between December of '96, and then

3 you all asked for it when, a year later?

4 MR. TRUJILLO: I don't have the

5 exact date.

6 THE WITNESS: It was a long time

7 later. We were in the house in Atlanta when

8 the request was made.

9 CHIEF BECKNER: December of '97.

10 MR. WOOD: So a year later you

11 all asked for the clothes, and they produced

12 it in January of '98?

13 MR. TRUJILLO: Yes.

14 MR. WOOD: Okay. Does that help

15 just put it in the time context of when it

16 might have been?

17 MR. LEVIN: And because everyone

18 needs a computer whiz, we have Mr. Kane.

19 We're talking about that coat.

20 THE WITNESS: Yes.

21 CHIEF BECKNER: Is that a, just

22 for clarification, is that a coat or a

23 sweater?

24 THE WITNESS: It is kind of a

25 little jacket, coat.

0159

1 CHIEF BECKNER: We called it a

2 sweater in the past.

3 THE WITNESS: It is a jacket.

4 CHIEF BECKNER: Ellis Armistead

5 called it a sweater in his letter to us.

6 So I just want to clarify we are talking

7 about the right piece of clothing.

8 THE WITNESS: Well, we are

9 talking about that. You can call it

10 whatever you want. It is kind of a jacket

11 more.

12 MR. WOOD: I'd go with jacket.

13 THE WITNESS: I mean, I, you

14 know, it is something you put on to go

15 outside in the cold.

16 MR. WOOD: All right. Now, I

17 had to interrupted you to try to figure out

18 if we can put it into context of time.

19 Your question was?

20 THE WITNESS: You want to know

21 did it come to --

22 MR. WOOD: Let's let him figure

23 out what it was. Hold on a second. He

24 asked, was that something that came through

25 Pam when she picked up some clothes, which I

0160

1 am taking to be back early right after

2 the --

3 MR. LEVIN: I'm talking about,

4 yes.

5 MR. WOOD: Pam picked up some

6 clothes right after.

7 MR. LEVIN: Saturday the 28th of

8 December, 199 -

9 MR. WOOD: Right. Was that

10 something that was boxed up and shipped when

11 the house was packed? Does that help you?

12 Do you know the answer?

13 THE WITNESS: No.

14 MR. WOOD: If so, tell him.

15 Q. (By Mr. Levin) When the request

16 came to you, though, from, either I suppose

17 your lawyers, about turning that jacket over,

18 it was, if I understand you correctly,

19 hanging in your closet?

20 A. Uh-huh (affirmative), in Atlanta,

21 yes.

22 Q. And that would be, the request is

23 made approximately a year after your daughter

24 is murdered. Is it something that was just

25 hanging in your closet or something that you

0161

1 continued to wear if you recall during the

2 one-year period or any portion thereof?

3 A. I don't remember.

4 Q. I will take -- tell me if this

5 is correct. I am taking that as saying you

6 may have worn it, but some point in time

7 between the murder of JonBenet and when you

8 turned it over, you may not have; you have

9 no independent recollection?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Did you, if you recall, did you

12 clean it at any time -- I believe it is

13 wool, primarily wool -- dry-clean it from

14 when you -- which may sound like a silly

15 question, but I will put it in a larger

16 context. The clothing that came boxed, did

17 you -- those items that you kept, continued

18 to use or at least have available, did you

19 clean them all before you put them away,

20 take them all to the cleaners?

21 MR. WOOD: I am going to ask you

22 to go back and redo that one because that

23 one kind of went in about three different

24 directions, Bruce.

25 MR. LEVIN: Okay.

0162

1 MR. WOOD: You started off asking

2 about whether she had this jacket cleaned and

3 then you started talking about clothes that

4 were boxed up. And I don't know if she

5 knows whether this one was boxed up or not.

6 MR. LEVIN: Right. And I

7 understand that.

8 Q. (By Mr. Levin) So what I am

9 trying to do is just to, because I

10 understand you can't identify a particular,

11 whether it was this particular item.

12 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

13 Q. Let's start with the clothes that

14 were boxed up. The clothes that were boxed

15 up that you then reintegrated into your

16 wardrobe, did you clean all of those before

17 you did that?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Do you have any recollection as

20 to this particular coat, whether or not you

21 ever cleaned it before giving it to Mr.

22 Armistead?

23 A. No.

24 Q. It is a coat that you would

25 dry-clean, though?

0163

1 A. I am not so sure about that. I

2 think, I think it is able to be thrown in

3 the washing machine.

4 MR. KANE: I believe it was made

5 of acrylic, if that helps.

6 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

7 MR. WOOD: You all gotta decide,

8 he says wool, you say acrylic.

9 MR. LEVIN: It was acrylic.

10 MR. WOOD: It ought to say

11 dry-cleaning only on it, if it is, or if it

12 doesn't, sometimes it'll get washed. Do you

13 know for a fact, that is the key, do you

14 know whether you dry cleaned it or washed it

15 as you sit here today, Patsy?

16 THE WITNESS: No, I don't.

17 MR. MORRISSEY: Do you know if

18 Mr. Armistead did before he sent it to us?

19 THE WITNESS: No, I don't.

20 Q. (By Mr. Levin) I will take that

21 as a statement that, once you turned the

22 coat over or may have boxed it up and

23 shipped it to Mr. Armistead, that your

24 personal knowledge of what happens to it is

25 none?

0164

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. It is not something that you and

3 he ever discussed during the course of maybe

4 a briefing or something like that?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Was it a jacket that you wore

7 around the house? I know this is an indoor

8 picture. Did you do that commonly?

9 A. Sometimes, if it was particularly

10 chilly.

11 Q. Do you recall whether or not you

12 wore that on either the 23rd of December

13 1996, the 24th, or the 20-- well, we know

14 you wore it on the 25th. The 23rd or the

15 24th?

16 A. I don't remember.

17 Q. Was it something that you would

18 frequently wear inside the house?

19 A. Sometimes I would, but what is

20 frequently? You know, I don't --

21 Q. Frequently would be three or four

22 times -- I mean, was it, if you are chilly,

23 was this the item that you always threw on?

24 That is what I am getting at.

25 A. Not necessarily, no.

0165

1 Q. You talked about, in your '98

2 interview, that you, on the 24th, that you

3 were in the basement and you were wrapping

4 presents. Do you know, when you were doing

5 that, whether or not you had on that coat?

6 A. I don't know.

7 Q. You have told us that you painted

8 as a hobby. Would you wear this coat to

9 paint?

10 A. No.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think Patsy was unaware that LE had fiber evidence at the time she sent the jacket. And if evidence did pop up, she could always say she threw herself on the body. She was evasive as to whether the jacket was washable or had to be dry cleaned. Every woman knows what she has in her closet, no matter how long she's had it, and we all know exactly how to clean them. I have dressy clothes that are years old- and I rarely wear them- but I can tell someone exactly what they are and how to care for the fabric on each piece.

 

[MurriFlower]

I think Patsy was unaware that LE had fiber evidence at the time she sent the jacket. And if evidence did pop up, she could always say she threw herself on the body. She was evasive as to whether the jacket was washable or had to be dry cleaned. Every woman knows what she has in her closet, no matter how long she's had it, and we all know exactly how to clean them. I have dressy clothes that are years old- and I rarely wear them- but I can tell someone exactly what they are and how to care for the fabric on each piece.

What difference would it have it made whether you could wash the jacket or dry clean it? Perhaps one or the other is significant in the murder or the fiber evidence? I'm not sure PR was as particular as you DD about her clothes, as she had household help, so it was really up to them to do the washing or dry cleaning, and of course they were well off, so clothes were probably 'turned over' fairly quickly. We've established I think that PR wasn't an idiot, so LE asking for the clothes PR & JR had on that day could be for no other reason than to test them for evidence they were involved in their daughter's killing. As has already been discussed, if RDI then they would have easily found the clothes 'missing', so I think the fact that they actually made the clothes available points to their innocence rather than guilt.

 

[WHITEFANG]

I think Patsy was unaware that LE had fiber evidence at the time she sent the jacket. And if evidence did pop up, she could always say she threw herself on the body. She was evasive as to whether the jacket was washable or had to be dry cleaned. Every woman knows what she has in her closet, no matter how long she's had it, and we all know exactly how to clean them. I have dressy clothes that are years old- and I rarely wear them- but I can tell someone exactly what they are and how to care for the fabric on each piece.

She had domestics. She had clothes ad infinitum. She may not have known they had her fibers, Dee. They didn't know they had her fibers! But, she wasn't stupid and the cops had been pursuing them relentlessly. She deserves a little credit. And, why take any chances, anyway? Look how far she had already gone to avoid prison, according to a popular theory?

 

[DeeDee249]

What difference would it have it made whether you could wash the jacket or dry clean it? Perhaps one or the other is significant in the murder or the fiber evidence? I'm not sure PR was as particular as you DD about her clothes, as she had household help, so it was really up to them to do the washing or dry cleaning, and of course they were well off, so clothes were probably 'turned over' fairly quickly. We've established I think that PR wasn't an idiot, so LE asking for the clothes PR & JR had on that day could be for no other reason than to test them for evidence they were involved in their daughter's killing. As has already been discussed, if RDI then they would have easily found the clothes 'missing', so I think the fact that they actually made the clothes available points to their innocence rather than guilt.

It doesn't make a difference whether the jacket was washable or dry cleanable, but as I look at the line of questioning they are trying to establish if the jacket was wool (dry clean) or acrylic fleece (washable). One of the LE is under the mistaken impression that the jacket is wool, and LW is trying to get them to commit to what THEY feel the jacket is, as there seems to be some confusion. At this point, LE probably has the fibers and that is why they are asking about the jacket.

 

[DeeDee249]

She had domestics. She had clothes ad infinitum. She may not have known they had her fibers, Dee. They didn't know they had her fibers! But, she wasn't stupid and the cops had been pursuing them relentlessly. She deserves a little credit. And, why take any chances, anyway? Look how far she had already gone to avoid prison, according to a popular theory?

If I were in Patsy's shoes, I wouldn't have given them the jacket if they didn't confiscate it that very night. I'd have burned it. I can't explain why she gave them the jacket. Obviously JR gave them the wool shirt, too, because they matched his fibers too. It also puzzles me that their lawyers allowed it.
There were SO many mis-steps made by police, not only procedural but in the interviews also. Now I'm upset....I'd like to bang all their heads together. The cops, that is.

 

[MurriFlower]

If I were in Patsy's shoes, I wouldn't have given them the jacket if they didn't confiscate it that very night. I'd have burned it. I can't explain why she gave them the jacket. Obviously JR gave them the wool shirt, too, because they matched his fibers too. It also puzzles me that their lawyers allowed it.
There were SO many mis-steps made by police, not only procedural but in the interviews also.

So it hasn't occurred to you that the reason they gave the clothes is that they were innocent and any fibers that were found were incidental?

 

[DeeDee249]

So it hasn't occurred to you that the reason they gave the clothes is that they were innocent and any fibers that were found were incidental?

Yes, it has. But there is still too much else about the case that, at least for me, prevents me from jumping over that fence.