Poll: was Patsy involved?

[Userid]

^ Right, that's what I was getting at.

Also, it's been supposed by some that at the beginning of the call, she almost says, "Help, we need (an ambulance) police," but catches herself before she says "an ambulance." Either way, yet another suspicious thing to say: "We need police." That's the first thing she says, too; not "We can't find our daughter," not "My daughter's missing."

 

[kanzz]

Why say the word "gone"? Because she was gone, as in dead.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/dead?s=t

I think that's a given. As in - a Freudian slip.

 

[BoldBear]

like in Steel Magnolias - another movie reference

I totally forgot about movie. That's it exactly.

 

[UKGuy]

Hi! Been a long time lurker and love to read everyone's opinions, but haven't really posted much. In the book "Listen Carefully" there is a copy of the actual Bode Technology laboratory report. Sorry if this has been mentioned anywhere before. Of sample # 2S07-101-05B (exterior top left of long johns), it says that "The profiles associated with Burke Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey cannot be included or excluded from the mixture DNA profile obtained from 2S07-101-05B." JR, MR and JAR were excluded. It is also mentioned that they had the ligatures from neck and wrist, the broken paintbrush and the Wednesday panties, but that they "were not processed at this time".Why on earth not??? Was someone scared of what they might reveal???

ameliak,
I'm not sure about this, but unlike other cases they seem to have stopped processing whenever they reach Burke Ramsey?

Maybe they did process the ligature and it has BR's touch-dna, Kolar knows this, but cannot tell us?

It wouldn't be a smoking gun, but it would raise some hairy questions for the R's.

PR's touch-dna can be on the ligature by default as accidental transfer from the paintbrush.

There is nothing pointing at either JR or PR, although they become suspects by being resident.

Most of the circumstantial evidence now points at BR, he even places himself downstairs on that fateful night, and says he maybe snacked pineapple to Dr Phil.

I reckon the case is BDI all day long.

.

 

[questfortrue]

Hi! Been a long time lurker and love to read everyone's opinions, but haven't really posted much. In the book "Listen Carefully" there is a copy of the actual Bode Technology laboratory report. Sorry if this has been mentioned anywhere before. Of sample # 2S07-101-05B (exterior top left of long johns), it says that "The profiles associated with Burke Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey cannot be included or excluded from the mixture DNA profile obtained from 2S07-101-05B." JR, MR and JAR were excluded. It is also mentioned that they had the ligatures from neck and wrist, the broken paintbrush and the Wednesday panties, but that they "were not processed at this time".Why on earth not??? Was someone scared of what they might reveal???

Hi ameliak,
The results on the nightgown were more definitive than the long john results. The strongest sample on the nightgown was In the #2S07-101-07A region, and stronger language implicating Patsy and Burke is used: “The individuals associated with Burke Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey cannot be excluded…”

In the other regions on the nightgown the language is weaker, indicating only that Burke and Patsy may or may not be donors. It is similar to what you reference in the #2507-101-05B long johns sample with the use of weaker language. I believe that may be why Kolar only suggested BR and PR tDNA found on the nightgown.

In terms of other tDNA samples at the crime scene, Kolar was told by an assistant to ML the following: He went on to report, however, that additional samples of trace male DNA had been discovered on the cord used in the wrist bindings, and the garrote that had killed JonBenét. These trace “Touch DNA” samples were genetically unique from one another, and were believed to belong to different individuals. I don’t believe the BODE reports pertaining to the foreign tDNA on the wrist bindings and garrote have been released to the public.

With a nod to other forensic evidence at the scene, we will likely never know if the person who pulled the cord ending JB’s life was wearing brown work gloves or not. Kolar says only that lab technicians found brown cotton fibers on four items closely associated with the body of JonBenét and implements used in her murder. Lab technicians thought the fibers similar to a pair of cotton work gloves.

 

[UKGuy]

You're doing nothing here but inventing evidence out of thin air. You have absolutely zero proof. Have you ever pondered that?

We know the answer: there was none.

I know why they did the testing and never told me: because in every single police investigation, they keep certain things from the public in order to not compromise the investigation, period. You're trying to insert BR in there, but again, it's by your own doing and nothing else.

Userid,
They kept it from you, because you would know Who Did It.

If you knew you would tell us, since you do not know, you resort to ad hominem remarks, its a give away.

There is forensic evidence galore relating to JR and PR, all over the crime-scene.

Yet on the critical artifacts nothing relating to Burke Ramsey. Patently not by accident, since the case is BDI and they have an identity to mask, due to Colorado statutes relating to underage child crime.

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
They kept it from you, because you would know Who Did It.

If you knew you would tell us, since you do not know, you resort to ad hominem remarks, its a give away.

There is forensic evidence galore relating to JR and PR, all over the crime-scene.

Yet on the critical artifacts nothing relating to Burke Ramsey. Patently not by accident, since the case is BDI and they have an identity to mask, due to Colorado statutes relating to underage child crime.

.

There are no ad hominem attacks on my part; I'm attacking your conspiracy theory. I'm attacking the fact that, you have absolutely zero proof to back your (conspiracy) theory. Again, you're simply inventing evidence and speculating (nothing more) that it has never been released.

 

[andreww]

There are no ad hominem attacks on my part; I'm attacking your conspiracy theory. I'm attacking the fact that, you have absolutely zero proof to back your (conspiracy) theory. Again, you're simply inventing evidence and speculating (nothing more) that it has never been released.

It is very convenient to blame everything on Burke with the theory that all incriminating evidence that would support the theory has been withheld. Its not exactly a crazy theory, but given the fact that Kolar states that until his involvement Burke had never been investigated as a suspect, one would wonder why, if his DNA, fibres or prints had been found all over the crime scene, he was never looked at more closely? Either investigators were clueless or the clues simply weren't there. I am still of the opinion that Burke clubbed her over the head and that there was a possibility he was sexually abusing her, however there is a pretty big jump to believe that he did anything beyond that. In fact, Patsy's fibres being entwined in the knots of the garrotte suggest otherwise. So was their any trace of Burke on that cord? Likely not because he probably was in bed long before the garrotte ever came in to play in my opinion.

 

[Userid]

It is very convenient to blame everything on Burke with the theory that all incriminating evidence that would support the theory has been withheld. Its not exactly a crazy theory, but given the fact that Kolar states that until his involvement Burke had never been investigated as a suspect, one would wonder why, if his DNA, fibres or prints had been found all over the crime scene, he was never looked at more closely? Either investigators were clueless or the clues simply weren't there. I am still of the opinion that Burke clubbed her over the head and that there was a possibility he was sexually abusing her, however there is a pretty big jump to believe that he did anything beyond that. In fact, Patsy's fibres being entwined in the knots of the garrotte suggest otherwise. So was their any trace of Burke on that cord? Likely not because he probably was in bed long before the garrotte ever came in to play in my opinion.

That's fair enough; and I agree that, if (a big "if" for me, being PDI, but nonetheless) BR were involved at all with this crime, that was the extent he was involved.

 

[UKGuy]

There are no ad hominem attacks on my part; I'm attacking your conspiracy theory. I'm attacking the fact that, you have absolutely zero proof to back your (conspiracy) theory. Again, you're simply inventing evidence and speculating (nothing more) that it has never been released.

Userid,
Well here is another conspiracy theory for you: The case is PDI but she staged it to look like BR was involved, i.e. dressing JonBenet in his long johns and those red flag over sized Bloomingdales.

if one of the parents killed JonBenet they had all night that's nearly five hours to get their staging right.

Yet this was a massive fail, with forensic evidence linking all three Ramsey's to the wine-cellar.

Currently there is no consistent PDI or JDI theory relating to the death of JonBenet. They all have flaws and holes in them, or alike DocG's theory require the parents to communicate via telepathy.

Most BDI theories are consistent, explain most of the available evidence, along with recently revealed legal decisions by the GJ, etc.

So until someone can outline a credible JDI or PDI, that employs what we know, I'll stick with BDI, safe in the knowledge that nobody can demonstrate a parent killed JonBenet or what the motive was!

.

 

[UKGuy]

It is very convenient to blame everything on Burke with the theory that all incriminating evidence that would support the theory has been withheld. Its not exactly a crazy theory, but given the fact that Kolar states that until his involvement Burke had never been investigated as a suspect, one would wonder why, if his DNA, fibres or prints had been found all over the crime scene, he was never looked at more closely? Either investigators were clueless or the clues simply weren't there. I am still of the opinion that Burke clubbed her over the head and that there was a possibility he was sexually abusing her, however there is a pretty big jump to believe that he did anything beyond that. In fact, Patsy's fibres being entwined in the knots of the garrotte suggest otherwise. So was their any trace of Burke on that cord? Likely not because he probably was in bed long before the garrotte ever came in to play in my opinion.

andreww,
BBM: How about the parents, were they also clueless? They had approximately five hours to cleanup and stage a crime-scene, making sure they minimize their forensic footprint.

What do they do, the complete opposite, why so?

.

 

[andreww]

andreww,
BBM: How about the parents, were they also clueless? They had approximately five hours to cleanup and stage a crime-scene, making sure they minimize their forensic footprint.

What do they do, the complete opposite, why so?

.

Not really sure what your question is. Forensics is unavoidable, if you were there you likely left clue. The parents did, their fibres are there. Burke on the other hand is a little less obvious. We don't know what he was wearing, so fibre evidence is nullified. The body was wiped down, the flashlight was wiped down. If the parents were trying to erase Burke's involvement it likely started with JBs groin and that flashlight. The garrotte on the other hand has Patsy's fibres embedded in the knots, suggesting that she handled it before it was tightened. If that is the case, why should we expect to find traces of Burke on it?

 

[andreww]

Userid,
Well here is another conspiracy theory for you: The case is PDI but she staged it to look like BR was involved, i.e. dressing JonBenet in his long johns and those red flag over sized Bloomingdales.

if one of the parents killed JonBenet they had all night that's nearly five hours to get their staging right.

Yet this was a massive fail, with forensic evidence linking all three Ramsey's to the wine-cellar.

Currently there is no consistent PDI or JDI theory relating to the death of JonBenet. They all have flaws and holes in them, or alike DocG's theory require the parents to communicate via telepathy.

Most BDI theories are consistent, explain most of the available evidence, along with recently revealed legal decisions by the GJ, etc.

So until someone can outline a credible JDI or PDI, that employs what we know, I'll stick with BDI, safe in the knowledge that nobody can demonstrate a parent killed JonBenet or what the motive was!

.

I don't doubt for am moment that it was Burke that struck JB, but if that was the extent of his participation, then technically the case is PDI as she likely pulled the noose.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
Well here is another conspiracy theory for you: The case is PDI but she staged it to look like BR was involved, i.e. dressing JonBenet in his long johns and those red flag over sized Bloomingdales.

if one of the parents killed JonBenet they had all night that's nearly five hours to get their staging right.

Yet this was a massive fail, with forensic evidence linking all three Ramsey's to the wine-cellar.

Currently there is no consistent PDI or JDI theory relating to the death of JonBenet. They all have flaws and holes in them, or alike DocG's theory require the parents to communicate via telepathy.

Most BDI theories are consistent, explain most of the available evidence, along with recently revealed legal decisions by the GJ, etc.

So until someone can outline a credible JDI or PDI, that employs what we know, I'll stick with BDI, safe in the knowledge that nobody can demonstrate a parent killed JonBenet or what the motive was!

.

No Guy -- BDI theories are just as inconsistent, if not more, and have just as many holes, if not more. You can stick with BDI all you want regardless -- that's totally fine -- but don't try to pawn conjecture as fact.

Also, no: they wouldn't have necessarily had all night, depending on when the murder took place (which we, including you, don't know).

It wasn't a "massive fail" because it worked, for all intents and purposes. No one has been brought to justice for this crime to this day, so to call it a "massive fail" is misguided.

You always conveniently excuse the fact that she very well could have been wearing those items before she was murdered.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*
Most of the circumstantial evidence now points at BR, he even places himself downstairs on that fateful night, and says he maybe snacked pineapple to Dr Phil.
*snip*

Considering that Burke started out in his bedroom on the second floor, what level of the house do you think he meant when he said he went downstairs to put a new toy together?

a. the first, or ground, floor
b. the basement

 

[UKGuy]

Not really sure what your question is. Forensics is unavoidable, if you were there you likely left clue. The parents did, their fibres are there. Burke on the other hand is a little less obvious. We don't know what he was wearing, so fibre evidence is nullified. The body was wiped down, the flashlight was wiped down. If the parents were trying to erase Burke's involvement it likely started with JBs groin and that flashlight. The garrotte on the other hand has Patsy's fibres embedded in the knots, suggesting that she handled it before it was tightened. If that is the case, why should we expect to find traces of Burke on it?

andreww,
The parent never accomplished, even minimally, what they set out to do, i.e. assuming PDI. Patsy left the breakfast bar with pineapple and glass tumbler out on full view. JonBenet's bedroom was a total mess, just what you might expect if it was the primary crime-scene. Patsy redressed JonBenet in BR's long johns and over sized Bloomingdales, despite have a complete wardrobe available in her bedroom.

The parents arrived late at the crime-scene likely JonBenet's bedroom, i.e. she was sharing a bed, so made quick decisions on cleanup and the relocation of JonBenet's body.

The garrotte on the other hand has Patsy's fibres embedded in the knots, suggesting that she handled it before it was tightened. If that is the case, why should we expect to find traces of Burke on it?

Because, assuming as per Kolar BDI All, BR ligature asphyxiated JonBenet but Patsy contrived the ligature plus paintbrush so to incorporate the paintbrush into a fake crime-scene, thereby allowing the missing piece of paintbrush to be removed, probably because it was bloodstained from being used to assault JonBenet?

Consider:

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed the Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in that area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth.

Coroner Meyer repeated the physical examination of JonBenet, for a second opinion, later that evening with a Professor of Pediatrics, who agreed confirming that JonBenet had been sexually assaulted.

Patsy transformed a sexual assault by finger and paintbrush along with ligature asphyxiation into an Abduction and Garrote asphyxiation including a Ransom Note.

Just because Patsy's fibers are on the ligature, it does not follow she killed JonBenet!

.

 

[icedtea4me]

Userid,
Well here is another conspiracy theory for you: The case is PDI but she staged it to look like BR was involved, i.e. dressing JonBenet in his long johns and those red flag over sized Bloomingdales.*snip*

And Burke would even bother with redressing her because....?

So until someone can outline a credible JDI or PDI, that employs what we know, I'll stick with BDI, safe in the knowledge that nobody can demonstrate a parent killed JonBenet or what the motive was!

I believe Dr Hodges did just that in his books A Mother Gone Bad: The Hidden Confession of JonBenet's Killer and Who Will Speak for JonBenet? A New Investigator Reads Between the Lines.

 

[Pinkland]

I've been following this case for a long time. In my mind there is only four scenarios. PDI all, PDI Premeditated, BDI all, and BDI with a Patsy coverup.

The least likely scenario for me is BDI all. There is no doubt in my mind that Burke would not be sophisticated enough at his age to do the blow, molestation, and strangulation without leaving a bit of a forensic or physical trail linking him to this crime.

Furthermore, there is no doubt in my mind that Patsy wrote that ransom note. Also in my opinion, the fiber trail in key locations in conjuncture with the strangulation is too difficult to overlook. This leads me to believe that Patsy was at least physically connected to the strangulation aspect of the crime.

So IMO, BDI all is very unlikely. This leaves me more in the PDI camp. If Burke hit JonBenet and Patsy found her she would have called 911. If Patsy found Jonbenet strangled and assaulted, how in her right mind could she justify covering and then living with her

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Pinkland]

I've been following this case for a long time. In my mind there is only four scenarios. PDI all, PDI Premeditated, BDI all, and BDI with a Patsy coverup.

The least likely scenario for me is BDI all. There is no doubt in my mind that Burke would not be sophisticated enough at his age to do the blow, molestation, and strangulation without leaving a bit of a forensic or physical trail linking him to this crime.

Furthermore, there is no doubt in my mind that Patsy wrote that ransom note. Also in my opinion, the fiber trail in key locations in conjuncture with the strangulation is too difficult to overlook. This leads me to believe that Patsy was at least physically connected to the strangulation aspect of the crime.

So IMO, BDI all is very unlikely. This leaves me more in the PDI camp. If Burke hit JonBenet and Patsy found her she would have called 911. If Patsy found Jonbenet strangled and assaulted, how in her right mind could she justify covering and then living with her

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

Sorry. I got cut off. I was just about to say I don't see the Ramsey's wanting to live with a known murderer...son or not. I would think they would be terrified of him.



Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[k-mac]

Sorry. I got cut off. I was just about to say I don't see the Ramsey's wanting to live with a known murderer...son or not. I would think they would be terrified of him.
yeah i agree
even if it could be explained away as an accident (bdi) its very hard to comprehend a mother accepting, cleaning up the mess and spending the rest of her life declaring her love and support for this murderer.
think it gets overlooked that jonbenet was her most prized possession.
she no doubt thought this little girl was going to fulfil her dreams of miss America.
PRs behaviour post saga screams self preservation in a horrible accident of her hand.
I truly believe BR is guilty of witnessing the nights events and protecting his beloved parents forever.
its the dynamic I see here.
and PR caused the head injury and JR sent her to god.
equal compromising dirt on each other has kept them together as one because they are equally at fault for her death.
jmo