Patsy Ramsey

[2 percent]

And yet the toilet had nothing to do with the murder. go figure.

I don't know that and have no idea how you can know it.
It's doubtful we know all of the evidence in this case.

Let's assume I'm right and they were trying to pin her down that the bathroom was dirty on a certain date. Why? Because it is clean when it shouldn't be? Further evidence of staging? :dunno:

But it's interesting...

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't know that and have no idea how you can know it.
It's doubtful we know all of the evidence in this case.

Let's assume I'm right and they were trying to pin her down that the bathroom was dirty on a certain date. Why? Because it is clean when it shouldn't be? Further evidence of staging? :dunno:

But it's interesting...

There was not toilet used in the killing. There was no toilet chain used in the killing. There was not toilet water used in the killing Ergo the toilet was not involved in the killing.

If the Police did their job and checked for prints and blood and found none, then that room was not involved at all and it is nothing more than a red herring to try and blame Patsy once again for being a horrid mother..

The bathroom has nothing to do with the murder.

 

[2 percent]

There was not toilet used in the killing. There was no toilet chain used in the killing. There was not toilet water used in the killing Ergo the toilet was not involved in the killing.

If the Police did their job and checked for prints and blood and found none, then that room was not involved at all and it is nothing more than a red herring to try and blame Patsy once again for being a horrid mother..

The bathroom has nothing to do with the murder.

I agree. The toilet was not the murder weapon.

But like the window in IDI theory, the toilet can be part of the crime scene and an integral part of understanding the crime as a whole.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I agree. The toilet was not the murder weapon.

But like the window in IDI theory, the toilet can be part of the crime scene and an integral part of understanding the crime as a whole.

The toilet is not part of the crime scene. This is just more posturing to see if we can get more off course as to what is really evidence in this case.

There is nothing about this bathroom that is included in this case.

The window was part of the investigation from the beginning as a possible point of entry or exit. AS we can be assured no one escaped through the toilet it is all just another smoke screen and really not relevant.

 

[Linda7NJ]

The toilet is not part of the crime scene. This is just more posturing to see if we can get more off course as to what is really evidence in this case.



There is nothing about this bathroom that is included in this case.



The window was part of the investigation from the beginning as a possible point of entry or exit. AS we can be assured no one escaped through the toilet it is all just another smoke screen and really not relevant.

It could be very relevant if the smears were determined to be fresh, or a timeline nailed down. If some sort of testing could be done and matched to the feces found in the pants and on the candy box...to the downstairs bathroom...
I don't have any idea if such a test is even possible or if said testing took place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It could be very relevant if the smears were determined to be fresh, or a timeline nailed down. If some sort of testing could be done and matched to the feces found in the pants and on the candy box...to the downstairs bathroom...
I don't have any idea if such a test is even possible or if said testing took place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

this is now nearly 20 years later. the bathroom did not all of a sudden become relevant. There is no proof there was fecal matter anywhere. Just a guess and some rumor.

 

[2 percent]

The toilet is not part of the crime scene. This is just more posturing to see if we can get more off course as to what is really evidence in this case.

There is nothing about this bathroom that is included in this case.

The window was part of the investigation from the beginning as a possible point of entry or exit. AS we can be assured no one escaped through the toilet it is all just another smoke screen and really not relevant.

Smoke screen for what for heavens sake?
I concede it's just possible that the questioning was a stall tactic - not the first time it's been done. But given how many times it was asked, how many specifics were asked, they were trying to pin Patsy down to something about that bathroom.

Scenario: when examining the crime scene the techs found the bathroom had been used but were unable to tell when. So they collect the evidence, take pics and question the housekeeper who is most likely to know the the most current state of cleanliness in the house. She gives them information that is contradictory to the evidence they found at the scene, so they ask Patsy to clarify, set a timeline, etc

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

All nonsense. There is no proof there was fecal matter on the walls or anywhere else that it should not have been.

Again, It does not matter because it has nothing to do with the murder.

 

[2 percent]

PATSY RAMSEY: No, because I had that whole downstairs painted, I mean cleaned.

This is such a weird thing to say. Painted and cleaned aren't similar or opposites. I wonder what she was thinking about that "painted" popped out

 

[Venom]

What if there was something found in the toilet that they thought could be connected to the whole puzzle?
Or even perhaps they knew the signs of abuse and were wondering about what appeared to be feces smeared on the wall. Note I said appeared to be.
To me if it was just a dirty toilet they'd just say that, not ask about smears and talk of the wall getting cleaned/painted.
Or they might have been trying to see if anyone might have used the bathroom that night. Maybe an intruder did, who knows.

 

[Venom]

Sorry I didn't get to this before Venom had to go to the trouble of looking it up, DeDee (Thanks, Venom.). (BTW, I love that quote from Zugibe, but you know that.) She got it right, except that I think it came from the June 23, 1998, interview (Patsy Ramsey BDA interview - June 23, 1998 - Forums For Justice).

Oops, I meant to type 1998. You're right.

 

[Meara]

this is now nearly 20 years later. the bathroom did not all of a sudden become relevant. There is no proof there was fecal matter anywhere. Just a guess and some rumor.

It didn't "all of a sudden become relevant". It was relevant when the CSIs photographed the house, and it was still relevant at the time Patsy was questioned in 1998.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It didn't "all of a sudden become relevant". It was relevant when the CSIs photographed the house, and it was still relevant at the time Patsy was questioned in 1998.

No it was not relevant. It is not part of the case. It is just some questions they asked but it has no relevance to the night that JBR was murdered. The bathroom was not the place she was murdered, It was not used to escape, No murder weapon came from there. It just is not relevant to the details of this crime. That is what matters. What happened on the night she was killed.

 

[Meara]

But that does not mean that is what it was at all. There is no testing to say that is what it was no lab results. It is just a guess and nothing to substantiate it.

In my bathroom right now there is a brown smear.. Know what it is from Hair color. on the other wall and the door are two more smears.

Dirt from my kids running in to use the bathroom after playing and helping dad in the garden.

There is no way to tell what was on the wall unless it was tested.

Don't you think it's possible the investigators' noses played a role in substantiating the nature of the smears? Even dried poop still smells like poop.

Also: Are you saying there was no testing or lab results, or that it may have been tested and the results not made public (your first statement vs. last)?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Don't you think it's possible the investigators' noses played a role in substantiating the nature of the smears? Even dried poop still smells like poop.

Also: Are you saying there was no testing or lab results, or that it may have been tested and the results not made public your first statement vs. last)?

No. Show me proof. All we have is pictures they talk about and nothing that says it was tested..

Furthermore it has nothing to do with the murder of this little girl.

 

[Tawny]

The whole "painted I mean cleaned" statement is really odd.

Was it painted, covering up something incriminating, or was it simply cleaned, which wouldn't get rid of all of the evidence?

 

[gramcracker]

this case is unique in many ways, among which are toileting issues and lack of toileting hygiene in children well past the toddler stage. add to that the presence of fresh fecal material in recently changed clothing lying on the bedroom floor (the pj bottoms and the little black pants). add to that the fecal stains in every laundered pair of underwear in JB's drawer (there were, IIRC, 18 pairs?). add to that the candy smeared with feces. add to that the fecal smearing on the wall upstairs mentioned by the maternal grandmother, and the line of questioning which appears to refer to fecal smears in the basement

it is well-documented that toileting issues which occur past the toddler stage are a source of ongoing frustration and underlying rage for the adults, and an expression of emotions in the children which need to be identified and treated. this issue is not nonsense, nor is it a smoke screen. it is a relevant factor which must be considered and examined when a child who has those issues (and is also a daytime wetter) is brutally murdered under mysterious circumstances in her own home

the mother stated that (while knowing her child will likely wet her bed) she did not help her child to the toilet before putting her to bed on the last night of her life. the dried sheets on her bed were described as smelling of urine the morning of the event, and those sheets were not the fresh ones placed on the bed by the HK on monday. yet the mother stated in her depo that the bedwetting occurred "maybe once a week." the father stated that he was unaware of a problem with bedwetting yet he asked the HK to be sure to change JB's sheets because "she wet her bed again." minimizing and lying indicate that a subject is significant. I don't see how that can be denied or defended (but it will be)

the vehemently defensive responses to this line of discussion never cease to amaze me, and I find them intriguing. we express our opinions here; these are mine, and I realize that YMMV (your mileage may vary)

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

this case is unique in many ways, among which are toileting issues and lack of toileting hygiene in children well past the toddler stage. add to that the presence of fresh fecal material in recently changed clothing lying on the bedroom floor (the pj bottoms and the little black pants). add to that the fecal stains in every laundered pair of underwear in JB's drawer (there were, IIRC, 18 pairs?). add to that the candy smeared with feces. add to that the fecal smearing on the wall upstairs mentioned by the maternal grandmother, and the line of questioning which appears to refer to fecal smears in the basement

it is well-documented that toileting issues which occur past the toddler stage are a source of ongoing frustration and underlying rage for the adults, and an expression of emotions in the children which need to be identified and treated. this issue is not nonsense, nor is it a smoke screen. it is a relevant factor which must be considered and examined when a child who has those issues (and is also a daytime wetter) is brutally murdered under mysterious circumstances in her own home

the mother stated that (while knowing her child will likely wet her bed) she did not help her child to the toilet before putting her to bed on the last night of her life. the dried sheets on her bed were described as smelling of urine the morning of the event, and those sheets were not the fresh ones placed on the bed by the HK on monday. yet the mother stated in her depo that the bedwetting occurred "maybe once a week." the father stated that he was unaware of a problem with bedwetting yet he asked the HK to be sure to change JB's sheets because "she wet her bed again." minimizing and lying indicate that a subject is significant. I don't see how that can be denied or defended (but it will be)

the vehemently defensive responses to this line of discussion never cease to amaze me, and I find them intriguing. we express our opinions here; these are mine, and I realize that YMMV (your mileage may vary)

There is no proof there was candy smeared with anything. None.

Wetting the bed also has nothing to do with the case. The victim happened to be a bed wetter nothing more.

IT is not defense it is because it is erroneous. It is all an attempt to take away from the real evidence that points well away from the family.

 

[gramcracker]

nocturnal (nighttime) and diurnal (daytime) wetting are very different things. characterizing it as *just* bedwetting distorts the record

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It really does not matter. She wet herself. I know a lot of kids who wet themselves even as 6 yr olds because they wait too long.