Most Important Piece of Evidence

[vicktor]

Quote, K777:
First of all, you have NO idea whether or not the Ramsey's "passed" a PAID FOR BY THEM polygraph. The first set they took - Patsy did NOT "pass."
Her results were inconclusive - if that.


It is quite clear that they are simply AFRAID of having a bona fide polygraph done on them by true experts that are NOT paid by the Ramseys to give a favorable result they can announce at a press conference - and who will NOT allow them to take DRUGS that will affect the outcome of the test.


Secondly - there is a reason that polygraph results are not allowed as "evidence" in court. While it is true that they can be a useful "tool" in an investigation, they are not foolproof either.
Perfect example: Gary Ridgeway - the pathetic and brutal Green River Killer.
He murdered AT LEAST 48 women - and he PASSED his polygraph.
Not "inconclusive" - he PASSED.
So - even if the Ramseys didn't cheat on their polygraphs in any way - it is in NO way a conclusion of innocence because they "passed" a paid for by them
polygraph.
It would carry MUCH more weight had it been administered by a non-partial
party like the FBI who would ensure that the Ramseys entered into the test
drug-free and that the test was given under the strictest protocols. End quote.

Vicktor: As I attempted to point out by way of example, inconclusive results can be caused by an overanxious state. We don't know what,if any drugs Patsy or John were taking when they took the test. Regarding the types of drugs I believe you are referencing, people usually take these because their emotional responses are so far off the scale that they can't effectively function. In this case the emotional responses were from the death of their daughter. Even if they were "drugged up", IMO, any deception would clearly register. After reading several cases where polygraphs were used to intimidate and trick suspects I can't blame the Ramseys for avoiding the FBI., although I admit having the FBI state they had passed one would bolster their case.

 

[eliza]

Family member fingerprints on a bowl inside their home wouldn't indicate much of anything.


I would agree LovelyPigeon had the family admitted to coming home that night and giving Burke and JBR a snack of pinapple before bed. The fact that the parents knew nothing of the pinapple sends a red flag to me. That is why I think the fact that JBR ate pinapple shortly before her death makes the bowl of pinapple to me one of the most important clues in this crime. If Patsy or John were guilty of killing JBR they would have known about the pinapple and could have easily fit it into their story. Thats one of the main reasons I suspect Burke, because of his prints being on the bowl and the parents didn't know about it before talking to the police to cover it up.

 

[Shylock]

Steve Thomas doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to the digestive system.

Wait a minute.... Steve Thomas knows exactly what he's talking about. LP just likes to misquote him. What he said was that one expert put the time frame in that area--he didn't say he believed it.

Thomas firmly believes the pineapple was consumed after they returned home and he details in his book about how he pressed Lou Smit on this point because it proves there was no intruder and that the Ramseys are lying.

It was Thomas poking the pineapple in Smit's face that caused Smit to make up the delusional theory that an intruder brought pineapple up into JB's bedroom in a Tupperware bowl to feed her.

 

[Shylock]

We have been assured there is much more pointing to an intruder that the public hasn't heard.

Oh really? Just who was it that assured you?
The way I've always heard it, the BPD has evidence that proves there was no intruder. Starting with evidence that proves there was no stun gun. (I personally think that evidence is blood on the inside of her shirt from the ABRASIONS.)
They also know Burke owned Hi-Tec Shoes, The palm print is Melinda's, There is DNA present in the same type of underwear right out of the package.

I have no doubt that the BPD can prove that only a Ramsey could be responsible for her death. They just can't pin it down to which Ramsey caused her death and which (if any) of the Ramseys (beside Patsy who wrote the note) participated in the cover up.

 

[K777angel]

Vicktor: As I attempted to point out by way of example, inconclusive results can be caused by an overanxious state. We don't know what,if any drugs Patsy or John were taking when they took the test. Regarding the types of drugs I believe you are referencing, people usually take these because their emotional responses are so far off the scale that they can't effectively function. In this case the emotional responses were from the death of their daughter. Even if they were "drugged up", IMO, any deception would clearly register. After reading several cases where polygraphs were used to intimidate and trick suspects I can't blame the Ramseys for avoiding the FBI., although I admit having the FBI state they had passed one would bolster their case.

We are not talking about a polygraph the Ramseys took right after their daughter was murdered! We're talking about one they took YEARS later.
At a time when their "emotions" had stabilized and adjusted to their daughter's death. The "shock" had worn off.
So your claim of their "emotional responses so far off the scale that they can't effectivley function" due to the death of their daughter do not apply.
Remember: Their emotions only THE DAY AFTER THEY BURIED THEIR DAUGHTER were not so crippling that they refused an interview on NATIONAL television. Yet they were "too distraught" to talk to police who were trying to solve the murder and find the killer.
Their words and excuses ring hollow. Their ACTIONS tell the truth.

You cannot get an ACCURATE polygraph result and announce it to the world when those administering the test do not even know if the subject they are testing is free of artificial methods (drugs for instance) that can alter and invalidate the results. THIS is why the police and authorities yawned at the Ramseys claim of "passing" their PAID FOR polygraph. And rightfully so.

The FBI would make sure the test was administered properly and the Ramsey of course would have NO PART of any scrutiny of them that they could not CONTROL.

 

[Ivy]

Originally posted by eliza
If Patsy or John were guilty of killing JBR they would have known about the pinapple and could have easily fit it into their story. Thats one of the main reasons I suspect Burke, because of his prints being on the bowl and the parents didn't know about it before talking to the police to cover it up.

I think you hit the nail on the head, eliza. If John and Patsy had known that JonBenet had eaten pineapple and that Burke had gotten the bowl of pineapple out of the fridge for her, they would have thought of a way to include the pineapple in their story, even if it hadn't occurred to them that the autopsy would reveal that JonBenet had eaten pineapple shortly before she died, and that investigators would then examine the bowl for prints.

As John and Patsy's denial that Burke's voice is on the 911 tape shows, distancing him from every aspect of the investigation was extremely important to them. They did everything they could to make Burke invisible. Had they known about the pineapple, they'd have changed their story to include it, and they'd have coached Burke to make sure their stories jibed.

 

[Britt]

Ivy, good points... here's another take on it:

The fact that the parents knew nothing of the pinapple sends a red flag to me...

If Patsy or John were guilty of killing JBR they would have known about the pinapple and could have easily fit it into their story.

Yeah they could have, but it'd be extremely risky and far from easy. If they admitted JB was awake, interacting with family and participating in family activities (snacking), it would invite a whole bunch of pesky questions, taking the investigation way too close to an area the Ramseys didn't want to go.

Imagine the complexities of inventing and keeping those stories straight, not to mention having to further involve Burke in the lies/coverup, not to mention seriously undermining the credibility of the intruder theory and timeline (just how long did that guy lurk around the house undetected, anyway? What if he had to pee? What if the dog came home?)... makes one's head spin. Better (safer) to give a blanket denial, give that intruder plenty of time and space, and avoid the whole trip.

The Ramseys revealed their strategy - deny deny deny and avoid even going there - with their denial about Burke being awake during the 911 call... a denial they were later forced to retract/re-spin when the enhanced tape proved they lied.

The pineapple proves they lied about JB being asleep just like the 911 call proved they lied about Burke being asleep.

 

[eliza]

Ivy, good points... here's another take on it:


Yeah they could have, but it'd be extremely risky and far from easy. If they admitted JB was awake, interacting with family and participating in family activities (snacking), it would invite a whole bunch of pesky questions, taking the investigation way too close to an area the Ramseys didn't want to go.

Imagine the complexities of inventing and keeping those stories straight, not to mention having to further involve Burke in the lies/coverup, not to mention seriously undermining the credibility of the intruder theory and timeline (just how long did that guy lurk around the house undetected, anyway? What if he had to pee? What if the dog came home?)... makes one's head spin. Better (safer) to give a blanket denial, give that intruder plenty of time and space, and avoid the whole trip.

The Ramseys revealed their strategy - deny deny deny and avoid even going there - with their denial about Burke being awake during the 911 call... a denial they were later forced to retract/re-spin when the enhanced tape proved they lied.

The pineapple proves they lied about JB being asleep just like the 911 call proved they lied about Burke being asleep.

I see your point Britt, but if that was the case to deny then I feel they would have at the very least wiped the prints off the bowl to make sure LE would have trouble connecting the bowl of pineapple to them and the crime. The fact that there are prints on the bowl at all says to me the Ramseys didn't know about the pineapple until it was too late to fit it into their story.

 

[BlueCrab]

Wait a minute.... Steve Thomas knows exactly what he's talking about. LP just likes to misquote him. What he said was that one expert put the time frame in that area--he didn't say he believed it.

My apologies to Steve, and my distain toward LP if she purposely misled me and the readers about what Steve Thomas said concerning the pineapple.

It's elementary that JonBenet ate the pineapple long after she ate the cracked crab, because it's impossible for the cracked crab to be in the large intestine while the pineapple was still in the top of the small intestine unless she ate the cracked crab first. Yet there are people still trying to spread misinformation and confusion about the pineapple -- EVEN THOUGH THEY APPARENTLY KNOW BETTER.

It raises a big red flag why they do this. The reason is, of course, the pineapple totally eliminates the intruder theory as plausible. JonBenet would never sit down and eat pineapple with an intruder 1 1/2 to 2 hours before she died. Even John Ramsey admits JonBenet would have never done that; he said "She would have screamed to high heaven".

JMO

 

[TLynn]

Shylock, thanks for bringing out that ridiculous excuse Smit gave for the pineapple. Does he really believe that?! if so, he is delusional and, if not, then he is covering for what is the most important HARD EVIDENCE in this case.

Either way, Smit loses credibility on this issue.

I also believe the Ramseys made the human error on the pineapple. No crime is perfect and there is the flaw. They may have known about the pineapple but choose to go with their story...not realizing it would come back to haunt them.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

I didn't misquote ST about the pineapple timeframe--I didn't quote him at all. I said ST indicated that it could have been eaten before the Ramseys went to the Whites. That's what he says in his book.

Could.

No one knows exactly when it was eaten and the forensics don't nail down the time except within hours of her death.

 

[twilight]

Exactly, Twi. I was hoping you would be around to answer here.

(Above I didn't answer K's question about who did the killing. Like Twi, I think there's no way to know as long as the people in the house that night keep silent.)

Hi Nova...haven't seen/read you around in a long while. Good to catch you posting again - here, anyway...I don't know what you might be doing on the other forums. Yup, the note is it, IMO.

Shylock - you're joking, right? According to ST the BPD did the duct tape to death, and were unable to find a link. I did read your thread on the garrott, but I think it might be a long shot. You see, I think JR might have been concealing his fingerprints in a way I'm aware of from reading forums and crime books, and that the Rams might have known about from the same sources. I know they claimed ignorance of computers {{ya, right}} and crime, but I don't think so.

The method is airplane glue on fingertips - used by the Zodiac killer of the 60's and immortalized in his letters to the police and media. The reason I think this is because the Rams explain why John might have had glue on his fingers that night in DOI. {{Helping Burke assemble a miniature parking garage}}. This would explain why JR was able to extensively handle the ransom note and not leave prints. Now, I make JR as the most likely garrott wielder, so no prints. Probably no DNA. I think Patsy wore gloves, possibly out of a home dye kit, she may or may not have been using on JB. Wonder what ever became of that miniature parking garage?

edited to add: he was also helping with the construction of jewellery over at the White's. I think of beads and string, but maybe there were stones, settings and GLUE, as well??

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Paper isn't a great material to capture clear fingerprints off of so it's not unusual that there weren't prints from the Ramseys on the pages.

Fingerprints can be left on most surfaces we touch, but they aren't always clear enough, unsmudged enough, to be usable.

 

[BlueCrab]

We don't know when JonBenét ate the pineapple. Even ST admitted that she could have eaten it before going to the Whites' house that evening.

Nopey nope nope! She COULD NOT have eaten it before going to the White's house. It's impossible. JonBenet's cracked crab dinner she ate at the White's house was in the large intestine; the pineapple was at the beginning of the small intestine.

JMO

 

[Shylock]

No one knows exactly when it was eaten and the forensics don't nail down the time except within hours of her death.

Not exactly. The pineapple was the last thing she ate. That means anything she ate at the party was ahead of the pineapple in her digestive tract. She had to have eaten it after they arrived home.

 

[vicktor]

This is in response to K777angel's comments about the Ramseys taking an FBI polygraph.

If they had taken an FBI polygraph, the results would have been a big factor in evaluating their state of guilt or innocence. They knew the FBI had come out against them before. Previous meetings with LE probably were stress and tension provoking. All this would produce anxiety and tension at the time of the exam.

The Ramseys probably were leary of questions that weren't germane but which they would be required to answer.

Since the BPD leaked false information about the case to discredit or pressure the Ramseys, whats to say the FBI might not do something similar. After all, test results are subjective and not pass-fail, and the questions are not all the same.

Based on what's happened, the Ramseys didn't seem to gain much by taking the Gelb test, but would have had a lot to lose if they had failed or not done well on it. So why did they set it up and take it?

Since it has been suggested that the Ramseys desired to manipulate the results could it not also be true that the FBI might use bias in administering and scoring a test.

 

[Britt]

Based on what's happened, the Ramseys didn't seem to gain much by taking the Gelb test, but would have had a lot to lose if they had failed or not done well on it.

They had nothing to lose. The bad results - like say the results of the first couple tests they took by the pre-Gelb polygrapher - never saw the light of day, at least not at a press conference. Tests? What tests? lol

So why did they set it up and take it?

Public Relations (a/k/a Spin).

 

[Toltec]

SUITCASE...First interrogation:

ST: Do you know where he kept that in your home, or where you last saw it?

PR: No, I don't remember where I last saw it.

Second interrogation:

PR: Well, that wasn't one of the suitcases that I normally use. We use the roller ones. I think that is one that John Andrew had brought over from his college stuff, you know, like unpacked and brought the suitcase over to our house, but I didn't think it was in there, I thought it was back...where the hot water heater area was...Unless Linda moved it over here when she put the paint stuff there, I don't know. That looks out of place.

...a few sentences later:

TH: Did you ever handle it?

PR: I don't remember. I don't remember.

TH: You might have?

PR: I didn't put it there, let's put it that way. I don't know if I - I mean, I may have moved it out of my way, but I don't remember specifically moving it or putting it somewhere.

MY OPINION??? PATSY MOVED THE SUITCASE TO THE WINDOW!

 

[Shylock]

They had nothing to lose. The bad results - like say the results of the first couple tests they took by the pre-Gelb polygrapher - never saw the light of day, at least not at a press conference. Tests? What tests?

Standard procedure is the polygrapher signs a non-disclosure agreement. It's why, as Gelb says, "you never hear about the tests people fail".

 

[Honeybee]

"There is DNA present in the same type of underwear right out of the package."

Could you please give me your source for this statement? Thank you.