Questions that I have

[Jayelles]

Jayelles,it wasn't my assumption it was said they were "alleged" beaver hairs. If you choose to think dark animal hair on tape was from a beaver,and dark animal hair on hands was from a bear,that would be your assumption. No where did it say,as it seemed no more than an effort to not repeat "alleged beaver",that the hairs were from a different animal.

Ehm, Sissi, I don't think I mentioned bear anywhere. I don't believe I mentioned ANY animal for the hairs on her hands. In the absence of that information from an officila source, I would choose to leave them as 'unknown animal' hairs rather than fill the unknown with an assumption that since a single beaver hair was found elsewhere, then all animal hairs must therefore be beaver!

You posted as FACT that the hairs on her hands were beaver. Now you admit that it is actually your assumption/opinion. Even if your assumption is reasonable, it doesn't make it a FACT! I am not making an assumption, I am working with what we know to be FACTS.

 

[sissi]

Shylock ...They effectively pulled the wool over the eyes of thousands of people like you who bought into their outlandish scheme.

hmmm...interesting comment,are we aiming to discuss the findings and the facts or are we buying into theories here

Can anyone honestly give ONE piece of evidence that would lead anyone to believe Burke committed this crime. What are these ideas based upon? This is a homicide, maybe we should follow the facts. I will be the first to admit,the facts are difficult to distinguish from the lies,as many were deliberately planted factoids designed to increase the media attack on the Ramseys.
I think we heard they were "leaks".

I will concede the mention in the press of the male caucasion was based,likely on two findings,male dna,(as I don't suspect the dna was tested under the newer test),and the caucasion body hair.
JMO IMO

 

[sissi]

Jayelles,I'm sorry,I understood what I meant, maybe I wasn't clear. It said "alleged beaver" ,it never said there was an identified beaver hair. The writing suggests to me,it was the same source of hair,dark animal hair, not from two sources,as I believe there would have been a comment. "Animal hairs from two unknown sourced animals was found on Jonbenet"

I don't suggest you thought bear,I was only pointing out that there was no comment that the hair was different.
In fact I could believe a teddy bear that was made out of beaver fur,easily. I've seen such items for sale.
http://www.alaskrafts.com/beaver-bear.htm

IMO

also an article about the clearing of the Ramseys by the judge

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach...+animal+hair+on+jonbenet+hands&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

[Barbara]

Originally posted by sissi
Jayelles...could you please cite your source for the beaver hairs in her hands?

Exactly my point above Sissi. See how quickly you asked Jayelles for her source for her statements?

Statements made should be sourced.

 

[Imon128]

That info came from the Good Gudge/Keenan when they got their hands on the case. Correct?

Edited to say that I have not read that the hairs on JB's hands were beaver hairs. I guess I just didn't read carefully enough. :-(

 

[Ivy]

sissi, when Judge Carnes ruled in the Wolf case, she knew ZERO, ZILCH, ZIP about the Ramsey case except what she'd been fed by the Ramseys and Lin Wood. In fact, she's probably still in the dark.

Judge Carnes did not have access to the police files. She also didn't know that Burke Ramsey and his friend had both testified before the grand jury that Burke owned Hi-Tec shoes, which means that the logo print found near the body was more than likely Burke's and not an intruder's.

Carnes also couldn't give a logical, sensible explanation for an intruder writing a looooong ransom letter while in the Ramseys' house, nor could Carnes explain why the intruder would kill instead of kidnap JonBenet and why he left the body behind, along with the ransom letter.

For more on Judge Carnes's bogus ruling click here

 

[Jayelles]

Jayelles,I'm sorry,I understood what I meant, maybe I wasn't clear. It said "alleged beaver" ,it never said there was an identified beaver hair. The writing suggests to me,it was the same source of hair,dark animal hair, not from two sources,as I believe there would have been a comment. "Animal hairs from two unknown sourced animals was found on Jonbenet"

I think you misunderstand the point I am making. Firstly, you didn't say 'alleged beaver' until I asked you to cite your source. Your initial post claimed that a beaver hair was found on the duct tape and that beaver hairs were found on her hands:-

Sissi>>
Among these fibers were beaver hairs,one found on the tape covering the child's mouth,and others found in her hands.
No beaver items were ever found in the home,not in vacuuming,not in a closet,and certainly not in "boots" that have become one of the legends surrounding this case.

Now we knew about the single beaver hair, but the first we knew about the hairs in her hands was in Judge Carne's high school essay. However, she didn't specify which animal these came from and I don't think we should *advertiser censored*-u-me that they were also beaver.

You are now backtracking and saying that the hair is only 'allegedly' beaver - as though that were the issue here. It isn't, the issue is that you claimed the hairs in her HANDS were beaver and you stated it as though it were an established fact - when it is not.

Also, don't you realise that if you are now backtracking about whether the hair really was beaver, you don't really have room to criticise others for theorising about whether Patsy's boots were or were not beaver. If the hair wasn't definitely beaver, then surely that puts patsy's non-beaver boots firmly back in the frame? Similarly, by claiming as fact your assumption about the hairs in her hands being beaver, you are creating your own legend/myth?

****

I happen to believe that the animal hairs in her hands are very crucial evidence. Hairs don't stick to skin (unless the skin is sticky). This would suggest that the hairs got onto her hands at or around the time of her death. It is possible that the investigators are deliberately withholding information about these hairs.

 

[Jayelles]

Sissi:-

I don't suggest you thought bear,I was only pointing out that there was no comment that the hair was different.

And there is no comment that they are the same - only your *advertiser censored*-umption. My stance is that we don't know and shouldn't speculate.

 

[Britt]

Originally posted by sissi
hmmm...interesting comment,are we aiming to discuss the findings and the facts or are we buying into theories here

Sissi, perhaps it would save a lot of discussion time if you could first define what should be considered "findings" and "facts."

Which sources are we supposed to believe?

Whose "fact" is really a fact?

Who is credible/correct and who is not?

 

[MrsMush99]

Barbara,

Thanks for the welcome. I'm already registered at Delphi Forums, but don't visit much. I have a lot of reading and catching up to do so it might take me a while to get into the swing of things. Between this case and Laci, I'm going to be pretty busy! I did not read PMPT but I did see the movie when it was on last weekend. I'm going to buy it this week and start reading! And can you please tell me what DOI is? I see it all over here but have no idea what it is.

Thanks

 

[Ivy]

MrsMush, DOI is the book the Ramseys wrote, called The Death of Innocence.

 

[MrsMush99]

Thanks Ivy! I'll be sure to pick that one up also.

 

[sissi]

Whewwwww..I sure didn't mean to make anyone's bp rise,I have read in many an article that animal hairs were found on the tape and on the hands,in articles not mentioning beaver at all,just stating the facts,animal hairs. I did not realize it was such an important issue that some have decided the hairs were not the same. I will certainly be more careful in the future,to use the words "allege",as I wish ST would have been when he was spouting about Patsy owning Beaver shoes. It was ST,I believe ,that first said the one on the tape was "beaver".

Now moving right along,oh how interesting that Burke and a friend testified in front of a grand jury that Burke owned Hi-Tech shoes. Uh huh!!

PS..I was starting to feel a bit worn down ,until I saw the comment concerning Judge Carnes and her "highschool" letter
..is this how it is..either a Ramsey did it..or you are an idiot?
I respect any woman who made it to sit on a federal bench,good for her,hardly an idiot!!

JMO

 

[Sabrina]

Mrs. Mush, I suggest you buy Death of Innocence on Ebay or www.half.com, In fact, you can buy all the book sthis way for pennies.

You MUST also buy the National Enquirer book by Don Gentile- Jon Benet, the Police Tapes.

If one takes this book which is the Ramseys' interview transcripts and compares it to the Ramsey's book, one can see numberous lies they told.

 

[Eagle1]

Chances are JonBenet's hands were sticky on the way home from the Whites' from eating a piece of Christmas candy or fruit, and when they stopped to deliver Christmas gifts, she may have petted a dog at the Whites' if they had one, and at two or three of the friends' houses, so the hairs could be from different animals.

Or, maybe an intruder wore something with animal hair on it and her hands were sticky from the pineapple.

I forget "Boots" ' real name, though I'm sure I have it somewhere in my notes. Would Santa's delinquent son have known Boots? If there was an intruder they may have planned before doing this crime to frame him and suicide him, maybe even "borrowed" his boots? Did they clear Boots? Was anyone bullying him, who'd maybe been in the military with him?

Boots' friend was snooping around after his death, trying to exonerate or decide if Boots did it? Boots had been in the military a short time, Army I think, only a few months.

Intrusions continued after Boots' death, a 14 yr old girl's home who was in JonBenet's dance class, Dance West, and Susannah Chase was killed on the street. Some homeless people also were killed. Three drowned in the Creek. Strange town.

 

[Eagle1]

Boulder PD probably know, but no author is going to know and tell us.

That one piece of info would tell whether she got the hairs on the way home or during the crime.

 

[Jayelles]

Whewwwww..I sure didn't mean to make anyone's bp rise,

Well you didn't make mine rise if that helps.

I have read in many an article that animal hairs were found on the tape and on the hands,in articles not mentioning beaver at all,just stating the facts,animal hairs. I did not realize it was such an important issue that some have decided the hairs were not the same. I will certainly be more careful in the future,to use the words "allege",as I wish ST would have been when he was spouting about Patsy owning Beaver shoes. It was ST,I believe ,that first said the one on the tape was "beaver".

Please don't twist the issue. It is not a case of 'some having decided the hairs were not the same' as some refraining from making assumptions that they are. Perhaps too subtle a diifference for 'some'?

Now moving right along,oh how interesting that Burke and a friend testified in front of a grand jury that Burke owned Hi-Tech shoes. Uh huh!!

PS..I was starting to feel a bit worn down ,until I saw the comment concerning Judge Carnes and her "highschool" letter
..is this how it is..either a Ramsey did it..or you are an idiot?
I respect any woman who made it to sit on a federal bench,good for her,hardly an idiot!!

I don't think anyone has called Judge Carnes an idiot and I think that is perhaps the difference between us. I criticised a piece of her work rather than her as a person. She may have excelled in order to make it to the bench, but she has a duty to maintain that high level of excellence in her work thereafter. Her decision was taken without consideration of much of the evidence. To boot, the evidence which she based her judgement on is known to be out-dated. In other words, I don't believe she did her research very thoroughly in this case - or she could at least have acknowledged that she was working without the benefit of the most up-to-date evidence file. A high school student could have made as good a job IMO.

What I do think is rather idiotic, when someone ignores a poster when she says "I believe the Ramseys are innocent" and labels her RDI because she dared to criticise Judge Carnes' badly-researched report. No worries, I have been called a BORG often enough and it amuses me - a bit like the classic - 'if you can hear anything on this tape then you are a BORG' !! Toe the party line or else.

 

[sissi]

I quoted the Burke/grandjury thing only because no one was called on it.
Concerning the hairs,I trust my sources. I have a problem with Steve Thomas,I have a problem reading "alleged","suspected","assumed",and should never have put the word "beaver" in my post. Sorry.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1048518253788

Please scroll down,read the sentence involving the hairs,and determine for yourself if one reading this is to believe there were two sources. IMO JMO

And yes,I did take offense to the "high school" remarks,as I do believe women are often subjected to this kind of thing,no matter their education. I do not believe she was poorly versed in the case,I do believe much of what we accept as fact,plainly isn't.
JMO IMO

 

[Ivy]

sissi...Lin Wood is responsible for letting the cat out of the bag regarding Burke and a friend testifying to the grand jury that Burke owned Hi-Tec shoes. Looking for another opportunity to spin the case in favor of the Ramseys, Wood sent CNN, NBC and CBS video tapes of all the interviews that LE conducted with the Ramseys in 1997, 1998 and 2000. In a 2000 interview, LE informed Patsy Ramsey that Burke and a friend had revealed to the grand jury that Burke owned Hi Tec shoes. I guess Wood forgot about the tidbit regarding Burke's shoes being in the video tapes as well as the interview transcripts. Either that, or Wood was trying to pre-empt LE leaking the info.

Judge Carnes did not have access to police files, and the Ramseys didn't tell her about the revelation in the 2000 interview that Burke owned Hi-Tec shoes. The Ramseys also didn't tell Carnes that prosecutors told them in 2000 that fiber tests showed that fibers indistinguishable from Patsy's red jacket fibers were found in the paint tray and tied into the ligature. As I've said before, and I stand by it: The only information Carnes had on the case was what was supplied to her by the Ramseys and Lin Wood. Even Lou Smit, who had read the police files, disagreed with and dismissed much of the information Carnes based her decision on--information supplied by the Ramseys.

 

[Jayelles]

Ivy - and Lou Smit hadn't had access to the police files since 1998 so his presentation was about 4 years out of date. Beckner confirmed in his deposition that forensic work had been ongoing since the Grand Jury and that some of the DNA results hadn't been available till late 1998 - after Smit left.