Must be a "Mommy" thing?

[BBB167893]

Wow you guys believe Patsy killed JB?

Not all of us. But a few. Speaking purely for myself, I wish I could say I did NOT believe it.

How do you explain the unidenitifed DNA found and pubic hair?

No unidentified pubic hair was found. That one played out long ago. As for DNA, just to add on to what Ames said, DNA can only exclude suspects if the subject is raped. Otherwise, it can include suspects, but not exclude them. Not only that, but I was watching Bill O'Reilly's TV show and he had a criminologist on to speak about this case. She said that DNA is a terrific science and indispensable as an investigative tool, IF you have the right perspective. Not all DNA found at a crime scene is going to be relevant. And that's a potential problem, she said, because the more sensitive DNA testing methods get, the more likely they are to find irrelevant DNA. Her words, not mine.

I know one thing for damn sure: it's going to take more than Mary Lacy's say-so to convince me of its power!

 

[Mendara]

Not all of us. But a few. Speaking purely for myself, I wish I could say I did NOT believe it.



No unidentified pubic hair was found. That one played out long ago. As for DNA, just to add on to what Ames said, DNA can only exclude suspects if the subject is raped. Otherwise, it can include suspects, but not exclude them. Not only that, but I was watching Bill O'Reilly's TV show and he had a criminologist on to speak about this case. She said that DNA is a terrific science and indispensable as an investigative tool, IF you have the right perspective. Not all DNA found at a crime scene is going to be relevant. And that's a potential problem, she said, because the more sensitive DNA testing methods get, the more likely they are to find irrelevant DNA. Her words, not mine.

I know one thing for damn sure: it's going to take more than Mary Lacy's say-so to convince me of its power!

Thanks for the information. I had no idea. I think there are tons of people out there who believe she was raped and had DNA & hair from of an unknown male on her.

There were a few shows covering the case that spoke of this evidence. Thanks again for not being mean to me for not knowing too much.

 

[JMO8778]

as for evidence claimed by the R's in their book...the hair on the blanket was Patsy's arm hair,the palm print on the wine cellar door belonged to JR's daughter Melinda,it was revealed during the grand jury investigation that Burke owned a pair of boots with the same logo on them as was found in the print near JB's body,Fleet White is the one who moved the suitcase near the window when he was looking around,and IMO,the so-called scuff mark on the wall was probably a water mark,as far as I know it wasn't ever tested and shown to have come from a shoe.That was just something the R's and Smit made up.So along w the suitcase not ever having been in that spot,I doubt anyone climbed in or out that window.
There was also a chair in front of the room with the window,so no way could an intruder have exited that way,and pulled a chair in front of the door while doing so.not possible.
the head injury is believed to have come first,seeing as JB did not fight against the tape on her mouth nor the garrote,and Dr Spitz says she was manually strangled by her shirt collar before the garrote was ever applied.there were no fingernail marks on her neck,those are petechial (sp) hemmorages.no skin was found under her nails,not hers nor any other persons.

Did I leave anything out?

otoh,there is a heck of a lot of evidence against the R's that they left out of that hinky book of theirs.

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks for the information. I had no idea.

Don't beat yourself up.

I think there are tons of people out there who believe she was raped and had DNA & hair from of an unknown male on her.

I know.

There were a few shows covering the case that spoke of this evidence.

I know that, too. That's the thing about the media, Mendara: you could fill volumes with what they don't report. I am filling a volume about it, actually.

Thanks again for not being mean to me for not knowing too much.

Not a problem. The way I figure it, we're all friends here.

 

[DeeDee249]

Thanks for the information. I had no idea. I think there are tons of people out there who believe she was raped and had DNA & hair from of an unknown male on her.

There were a few shows covering the case that spoke of this evidence. Thanks again for not being mean to me for not knowing too much.

We are never mean to anyone- so always feel free to ask questions. There are some sites that have all you need to know, including many photos, on the web. There are some books you can read, if interested to study further. Just ask.
She was not raped, though the autopsy did find sexual contact, most likely digital penetration or assault with something small and narrow. There was cellulose mentioned in the autopsy report that was found in her vagina. Many feel this was a splinter from that broken paintbrush that was used to wind the cord around her neck. There was no semen found on the body. The coroner also found evidence that her own blood had been wiped from her thighs and pubic area and fibers matching a shirt worn that day by her father were found in the crotch of her panties. Fibers matching the fleece jacket worn by her mother were found by the coroner wound into the knot of the cord around her neck, and the same fibers were found under the duct tape that had been on her lips. Not on TOP of the tape, but on the side that was against her lips.
Keep in mind that a stranger/intruder/kidnapper would not bother to redress the body after an assault, nor would they bother to hide the body, and they'd never take the time to wipe her down, because they simply wouldn't care how she was found. They simply wouldn't care. And they'd want to get out of the house as soon as possible.
Sadly, as much as we would like to think it isn't so, the above evidence links the parents to the staging of the body. They were THERE, handling the body after her death. They even lied about a snack she had before being killed, which they were STUNNED to find the coroner had found still in her digestive tract. But think about it- why would parents stage the body of their daughter to look like a kidnapping gone wrong, complete with ridiculous 3-page ransom note? Why lie about an innocent bedtime snack? Only to protect themselves, or another family member.

 

[Ames]

We are never mean to anyone- so always feel free to ask questions. There are some sites that have all you need to know, including many photos, on the web. There are some books you can read, if interested to study further. Just ask.
She was not raped, though the autopsy did find sexual contact, most likely digital penetration or assault with something small and narrow. There was cellulose mentioned in the autopsy report that was found in her vagina. Many feel this was a splinter from that broken paintbrush that was used to wind the cord around her neck. There was no semen found on the body. The coroner also found evidence that her own blood had been wiped from her thighs and pubic area and fibers matching a shirt worn that day by her father were found in the crotch of her panties. Fibers matching the fleece jacket worn by her mother were found by the coroner wound into the knot of the cord around her neck, and the same fibers were found under the duct tape that had been on her lips. Not on TOP of the tape, but on the side that was against her lips.
Keep in mind that a stranger/intruder/kidnapper would not bother to redress the body after an assault, nor would they bother to hide the body, and they'd never take the time to wipe her down, because they simply wouldn't care how she was found. They simply wouldn't care. And they'd want to get out of the house as soon as possible.
Sadly, as much as we would like to think it isn't so, the above evidence links the parents to the staging of the body. They were THERE, handling the body after her death. They even lied about a snack she had before being killed, which they were STUNNED to find the coroner had found still in her digestive tract. But think about it- why would parents stage the body of their daughter to look like a kidnapping gone wrong, complete with ridiculous 3-page ransom note? Why lie about an innocent bedtime snack? Only to protect themselves, or another family member.

Don't forget the use of and the wiping off of prints of the Ramsey's flashlight, right down to the batteries. What intruder would have taken the precious time needed to have done that? He simply would have just taken it with him, if he was afraid of fingerprint evidence. Also, he could have used it to see with when he escaped in the night....that would have been an extra bonus of taking the flashlight with him.

 

[DeeDee249]

Don't forget the use of and the wiping off of prints of the Ramsey's flashlight, right down to the batteries. What intruder would have taken the precious time needed to have done that? He simply would have just taken it with him, if he was afraid of fingerprint evidence. Also, he could have used it to see with when he escaped in the night....that would have been an extra bonus of taking the flashlight with him.

If an intruder had used the flashlight, they WOULD have taken it with them. The family's prints would be expected to be on a flashlight they owned. Of course, if an intruder had wiped it, NO prints would be there (as happened) but WHY would an intruder wipe the batteries? THAT is the things that points to the family. An intruder would have had no reason to touch the batteries, and no reason to wipe them down. The family prints would certainly be expected to be on the batteries. Unless someone is so desperate as to say that the intruder took the time to look (in a strange house with the family home upstairs) and replace the batteries.

 

[Steely Dan]

Don't forget the use of and the wiping off of prints of the Ramsey's flashlight, right down to the batteries. What intruder would have taken the precious time needed to have done that? He simply would have just taken it with him, if he was afraid of fingerprint evidence. Also, he could have used it to see with when he escaped in the night....that would have been an extra bonus of taking the flashlight with him.

Very true. :thumb:

If an intruder had used the flashlight, they WOULD have taken it with them. The family's prints would be expected to be on a flashlight they owned. Of course, if an intruder had wiped it, NO prints would be there (as happened) but WHY would an intruder wipe the batteries? THAT is the things that points to the family. An intruder would have had no reason to touch the batteries, and no reason to wipe them down. The family prints would certainly be expected to be on the batteries. Unless someone is so desperate as to say that the intruder took the time to look (in a strange house with the family home upstairs) and replace the batteries.

I think they went overboard in their attempt to cover it up.

 

[Ames]

If an intruder had used the flashlight, they WOULD have taken it with them. The family's prints would be expected to be on a flashlight they owned. Of course, if an intruder had wiped it, NO prints would be there (as happened) but WHY would an intruder wipe the batteries? THAT is the things that points to the family. An intruder would have had no reason to touch the batteries, and no reason to wipe them down. The family prints would certainly be expected to be on the batteries. Unless someone is so desperate as to say that the intruder took the time to look (in a strange house with the family home upstairs) and replace the batteries.

Right...it is very far fetched to believe that an intruder would take the time to wipe down a flashlight, when taking it with him would have been so much easier. And it is beyond imagination as to why an intruder would wipe off the batteries. My guess is...they (the Rams) used that flashlight at some point during the night that JB was killed, whether it be for light to write the RN note with, or to see in the basement during the staging, or BOTH.
Since there was no intruder, therefore NO intruder prints on the flashlight to begin with, the Ramsey's knew that when it was checked for prints only THEIRS would be on there. You are right when you say that it belonged to them, so of course their prints would be on it. But, just in case one of the neighbors saw the light from the flashlight, and the flashlight was taken in and dusted...they wiped it clean, because they knew that theirs would be the only prints on it. A neighbor DID report seeing a moving light in the house...so, for the Ramsey's...it was a good thing that they wiped it clean. Their mistake was going overboard, and wiping down the batteries too. Which led people to believe that something wasn't right with their story. Well, THAT and the other BS that they told.

 

[Ames]

Very true. :thumb:



I think they went overboard in their attempt to cover it up.

Yep, WAY overboard.

 

[concernedperson]

Right...it is very far fetched to believe that an intruder would take the time to wipe down a flashlight, when taking it with him would have been so much easier. And it is beyond imagination as to why an intruder would wipe off the batteries. My guess is...they (the Rams) used that flashlight at some point during the night that JB was killed, whether it be for light to write the RN note with, or to see in the basement during the staging, or BOTH.
Since there was no intruder, therefore NO intruder prints on the flashlight to begin with, the Ramsey's knew that when it was checked for prints only THEIRS would be on there. You are right when you say that it belonged to them, so of course their prints would be on it. But, just in case one of the neighbors saw the light from the flashlight, and the flashlight was taken in and dusted...they wiped it clean, because they knew that theirs would be the only prints on it. A neighbor DID report seeing a moving light in the house...so, for the Ramsey's...it was a good thing that they wiped it clean. Their mistake was going overboard, and wiping down the batteries too. Which led people to believe that something wasn't right with their story. Well, THAT and the other BS that they told.

Their story wasn't right then and it isn't now. I don't believe that night was about rape but rage. JMO.

 

[Ames]

Their story wasn't right then and it isn't now. I don't believe that night was about rape but rage. JMO.

And I totally agree with you!!!!!

 

[Steely Dan]

Their story wasn't right then and it isn't now. I don't believe that night was about rape but rage. JMO.

I'd have to agree with that. I wonder if her brother was jealous?

If the Ramsey's aren't the killers then they are the roadmap for how to make the police, and almost everyone in the world, believe you are guilty as sin. JMO

 

[DeeDee249]

I'd have to agree with that. I wonder if her brother was jealous?

If the Ramsey's aren't the killers then they are the roadmap for how to make the police, and almost everyone in the world, believe you are guilty as sin. JMO

I had read that people who knew the family said that BR seemed, not so much to be jealous, but that it was definitely his sister who was the "star" of the family. As the firstborn, not only did he step aside when a younger sibling came along, but his mother focused all her energy (and I'd bet most of her time) on his younger sister. He HAD to have some issues with that. While one might think he'd be relieved to have the pressure from such an overbearing mother focused elsewhere, that is not the way he saw it, I'd bet.
And I agree with you about "how to make a parent look guilty as sin". They wrote the manual.

 

[concernedperson]

From having met Patsy to what I know now nothing has changed for me. Borderline personality creeps in and with that is rage. I have met them before. I really don't want more inference than I have indicated and am not a forensic scientist so just chalk it up to experience that I really don't want to experience again. Just can't let a benign personalty be portrayed when that isn't the case.

Signing out.

 

[Steely Dan]

From having met Patsy to what I know now nothing has changed for me. Borderline personality creeps in and with that is rage. I have met them before. I really don't want more inference than I have indicated and am not a forensic scientist so just chalk it up to experience that I really don't want to experience again. Just can't let a benign personalty be portrayed when that isn't the case.

Signing out.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by that? I'm not getting it. Thanks

 

[concernedperson]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by that? I'm not getting it. Thanks

I have posted it a million times. I worked at a community where there was an incident with her behavior where she lived. It wasn't a big deal as far as the incident but was a big deal as far as her behavior.Screaming mimi comes to mind. Fortunately, I don't have to work for those people and the people that protected her aren't in control anymore. Just more of the same. Now, this was 1997-1998 in Atlanta.

 

[Steely Dan]

I have posted it a million times. I worked at a community where there was an incident with her behavior where she lived. It wasn't a big deal as far as the incident but was a big deal as far as her behavior.Screaming mimi comes to mind. Fortunately, I don't have to work for those people and the people that protected her aren't in control anymore. Just more of the same. Now, this was 1997-1998 in Atlanta.

Thanks, I haven't been around that long. I appreciate it. :thumb:

 

[JMO8778]

..to me and to another poster,coloradokares..(she doesn't post here anymore out of fear from threats she's received)..Patsy appeared to have many signs and symptoms of bipolar disorder.I'm not saying she had it for sure...only that from my personal experience,and esp. from reading the description of her from her housekeeper that Dec.,and other things about her,as a whole..she sure does fit the descriptions of having it.and ppl with it can *snap in a split second.it does not take much at all to set them off sometimes.
IMO the bruising on JB's arms indicates she was a very controlling mother...it was her way,or NO way.and ppl with bpd very often do go wayyy overboard on their plans and projects..so much so that they can't keep up,and eventually,it,and they...come crashing down.it reminds me of the mothers who'd planned an intervention with Patsy for after Christmas,for the 'mega-Jonbenet thing' she was creating.they noticed something was wrong and that it was getting out of control.when others start to notice a problem,there usually is one.
she sounds like she had personality problems/disorders as well.
Considering all those things,I think after all she'd been through,that it was a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[Steely Dan]

..to me and to another poster,coloradokares..(she doesn't post here anymore out of fear from threats she's received)..Patsy appeared to have many signs and symptoms of bipolar disorder.I'm not saying she had it for sure...only that from my personal experience,and esp. from reading the description of her from her housekeeper that Dec.,and other things about her,as a whole..she sure does fit the descriptions of having it.and ppl with it can *snap in a split second.it does not take much at all to set them off sometimes.
IMO the bruising on JB's arms indicates she was a very controlling mother...it was her way,or NO way.and ppl with bpd very often do go wayyy overboard on their plans and projects..so much so that they can't keep up,and eventually,it,and they...come crashing down.it reminds me of the mothers who'd planned an intervention with Patsy for after Christmas,for the 'mega-Jonbenet thing' she was creating.they noticed something was wrong and that it was getting out of control.when others start to notice a problem,there usually is one.
she sounds like she had personality problems/disorders as well.
Considering all those things,I think after all she'd been through,that it was a disaster waiting to happen.

If you get threats they can't do anything to you because names and addresses are withheld here. :waitasec:

I believe but, maybe I'm wrong.