Questions you'd like answers to...

[BBB167893]

I also thought PR's comments were inappropriate when she said (I'm going from memory) that at least now the JBR is dead she will never have to suffer cancer, or the loss of a child. How crazy is that?!

SUPER crazy! (You'll pardon the expression!)

I think it sounds as though PR was wanting us to know how terribly she herself has suffered (and I don't doubt that she had). She's telling us that her own suffering is all that matters and nothing could be as bad as what she herself has gone through. "Look at me, me, me. I'm the one who deserves the sympathy".

Seems to be a trend with these people!

 

[TeaTime]

Flight is an indication of guilt. Maybe it would have been better if they had flown the coop. Oh sure, they would have gotten lawyers in Atlanta but maybe their good friend the lawyer in Boulder, upon understanding the incriminating flight evidence, would not have been so quick to recommend the law firm he did.

JR's first thought was to get the heck out of Boulder so NO ONE could talk to them and NO ONE would be watching their behavior, except that small foreign faction of Paughs that invaded JR's life when he married PR.

 

[icedtea4me]

I also thought PR's comments were inappropriate when she said (I'm going from memory) that at least now the JBR is dead she will never have to suffer cancer, or the loss of a child. How crazy is that?!*snip*

Cancer was Patsy's pain. The loss of his first child, Beth, was John's pain. I would imagine that each of these could have been on their minds that holiday season.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

What bugged me about Patsy's comment is that it's so self-centered. Someone on a statement analysis blog pointed out that typically parents will lament all the things their child would never get to do - go to prom, get a job, fall in love. But the Ramseys are just like, eh, she's better off, let's talk about MY problems.

He also pointed out that one of them, John I think, said she was "safe" now. Safe from what? She was murdered for crying out loud. It's like when the ransom note said JB was "safe and unharmed". No she wasn't. She was dead in the basement the whole time. And what strange language for a threatening note. We're willing to behead her at the slightest provocation but don't worry, she's "safe." "Unharmed" makes sense in a ransom note - you want your target to think they have a chance of recovering their loved one after the ransom drop, but "safe"?? Sounds more like Patsy's wishful thinking.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IndieCindy]

I think that is why this case has not been solved. Because it is assumed it was the parents. It does look like it is, until you consider that the window was open, the debris at the window WAS disturbed, (except for ONE cobweb) and there was a suitcase up against the wall with a shoe print that did not belong to anyone in the house. not only those things but there was a black scuff mark on the wall where someone pulled themselves up into the window using the wall as kind of a brace to do it. I think the parents didn't really know what to do. If it was my child, I would have immediately, without thinking, picked her up and rocked her. So who did the shoe print belong to? It was never known, and it wasn't a size of anyone in the house, and a similar incident happened a few houses down. So for me... it was never the parents, but because the police were sooo incompetent, and unreasonable it got totally screwed up from the beginning. I actually always thought it was an older adolescent, probably a neighbor that lived in the area and maybe even an older friend of the kids. I can't remember if the same incident in the neighborhood was before or after JonBenet. If it was before, the neighbor girl might have been the first attempt at a victim. I always thought it was an older kid though, (not Burke BTW).
Then he felt remorse, and he knew her, so he covered her body.

 

[IndieCindy]

And who did the DNA under her nails belong to? It didn't match any in the home, or the DNA (that was probably saliva) on the underwear, it didn't match anyone either.

 

[singularity]

I think that is why this case has not been solved. Because it is assumed it was the parents. It does look like it is, until you consider that the window was open, the debris at the window WAS disturbed, (except for ONE cobweb) and there was a suitcase up against the wall with a shoe print that did not belong to anyone in the house. not only those things but there was a black scuff mark on the wall where someone pulled themselves up into the window using the wall as kind of a brace to do it. I think the parents didn't really know what to do. If it was my child, I would have immediately, without thinking, picked her up and rocked her. So who did the shoe print belong to? It was never known, and it wasn't a size of anyone in the house, and a similar incident happened a few houses down. So for me... it was never the parents, but because the police were sooo incompetent, and unreasonable it got totally screwed up from the beginning. I actually always thought it was an older adolescent, probably a neighbor that lived in the area and maybe even an older friend of the kids. I can't remember if the same incident in the neighborhood was before or after JonBenet. If it was before, the neighbor girl might have been the first attempt at a victim. I always thought it was an older kid though, (not Burke BTW).
Then he felt remorse, and he knew her, so he covered her body.

Are you related to Lou Smit?

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

I think that is why this case has not been solved. Because it is assumed it was the parents. It does look like it is, until you consider that the window was open, the debris at the window WAS disturbed, (except for ONE cobweb) and there was a suitcase up against the wall with a shoe print that did not belong to anyone in the house. not only those things but there was a black scuff mark on the wall where someone pulled themselves up into the window using the wall as kind of a brace to do it. I think the parents didn't really know what to do. If it was my child, I would have immediately, without thinking, picked her up and rocked her. So who did the shoe print belong to? It was never known, and it wasn't a size of anyone in the house, and a similar incident happened a few houses down. So for me... it was never the parents, but because the police were sooo incompetent, and unreasonable it got totally screwed up from the beginning. I actually always thought it was an older adolescent, probably a neighbor that lived in the area and maybe even an older friend of the kids. I can't remember if the same incident in the neighborhood was before or after JonBenet. If it was before, the neighbor girl might have been the first attempt at a victim. I always thought it was an older kid though, (not Burke BTW).
Then he felt remorse, and he knew her, so he covered her body.

"I think that is why this case has not been solved. Because it is assumed it was the parents."
Plenty of investigators such as Lou Smit, all the Ramsey's PIs, and DA Mary Lacy in conjunction with LS and his "Apple Dumpling Gang" refused to believe the Ramseys were involved and the best lead they could come up with after twenty years was that delusional faker John Mark Karr.

"It does look like it is, until you consider that the window was open, the debris at the window WAS disturbed, (except for ONE cobweb)"
Have you looked at the crime scene video of that window and cobweb? See here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/new-clues-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder.html
Not only do I see little disturbance in the twigs and foliage lining the bottom of the window well but it's fairly obvious simply judging by Lou Smit's demonstration of how he climbed through the window that no one could get in without disturbing that cobweb. It's not a big window, it doesn't even open all the way, and his entire body fills the frame as he climbs through. Had there been a cobweb included in his demonstration it would have been wiped out. Laura Richards, a slender and athletic woman, demonstrated this on the recent CBS special. Not only was the cobweb mostly wiped away when she entered, but it was completely gone as she tried to climb back through, as it was where she would have to put her hands for leverage. She also described the climb back up as not impossible but very strenuous.

"and there was a suitcase up against the wall with a shoe print that did not belong to anyone in the house. "
I'm not sure if you are conflating the HiTec boot print in the wine cellar with the supposed footprint on the suitcase or not. I can't find the picture LS used to demonstrate the "footprint" but it was far from clear. It likely wasn't even a footprint, but even if it was there was absolutely no way to say it didn't belong to anyone in the house because it has no identifying features. LS is the only investigator who looked at the picture and saw any kind of print there.

"not only those things but there was a black scuff mark on the wall where someone pulled themselves up into the window using the wall as kind of a brace to do it."
John Ramsey claimed that he climbed in through that window himself the summer of 96 wearing only his shoes and underwear, so wouldn't common sense dictate that he is more likely to have left the scuff mark than a stranger?

"So who did the shoe print belong to? It was never known, and it wasn't a size of anyone in the house,"
You must be talking about the HiTec print here. Fleet White, Fleet's son, and Burke Ramsey have admitted he had a pair of HiTec boots. Burke spent plenty of time in the basement playing with his train set and admitted to going into the wine cellar at some point to sneak peeks at presents that were being hid there. Verdict: It is far more likely that Burke left the print at some point before the murder and it is irrelevant to the case. As to your assertion that it wasn't the size of anyone in the house, that is incorrect. It was not a full footprint, only the "poon" or the logo on the bottom of the boot saying HiTec. From Perfect Murder, Perfect Town:
"The imprint was of the "poon"-the area on the sole at the heel where the brand name is stamped. The size of shoe couldn't be determined from the imprint, since the poon is the same size in all shoes, the better to advertise brands."

"and a similar incident happened a few houses down."
I know what incident you are referring to but here's my question: was that girl six-years-old (no, I believe she was 14-ish), murdered and posed and hidden in her basement (no)? Did the perp leave behind a rambling fake ransom note (no)? The only (seeming) similarity is that some creep broke into someone's house and violated a young woman. If you discount the idea that any intruder was involved in JonBenet's death, there is no commonality there whatsoever besides the fact that they went to the same dance studio. And to answer your question, this incident did happen after JB was murdered. Meaning either the perp completely switched tactics and targets (penetrating a kindergartner digitally or with a foreign object vs raping an adolescent) and basically devolved from following a highly complex and convoluted MO (faking a kidnapping, hiding the body, wandering all over the house to get supplies) to a fairly simple one (going into a girl's bedroom and raping her but leaving her alive) - or they are two different perps altogether.

As far as the DNA goes, it has been known almost from the beginning that the fingernail DNA is meaningless. There were two different samples found which were too weak (2-3 markers I believe, belonging to a male and a female) to conclusively link to anyone. But more importantly, the coroner admitted he clipped her nails with clippers that were not sterile. The most likely explanation is that those DNA traces are contamination caused by clipping the fingernails of previous autopsies, not two killers. The underwear DNA has recently been debunked as unreliable as well. Charlie Brennan of the Boulder Daily Camera and News9 got the DNA reports and had independent analysts look at the result. Their conclusion (and the conclusion reached by the original Bode lab techs in the test results, as it was revealed) is that the underwear DNA is a composite of three people, JB and at least two men. The conclusion was that it is basically an amalgamation of DNA belonging to no one. It does not rule out the possibility of an intruder, but it does not rule out the Ramseys either. It is useless. We're talking about the most notoriously contaminated crime scene in history and evidence taken before anyone could even conceive of touch DNA, much less prevent it contaminating the evidence. As Kolar points out in his book, the various deposits of trace DNA on her clothing and ligature would ultimately point to six different different people being involved. So you're left with these questions: did six people break into that house that night through the cobwebbed window? If so, why is it that the only trace of them comes from minute samples of touch DNA found on her clothing? And if only one of these samples belongs to the perp, how are we to figure out which is the important DNA and which is the meaningless DNA?

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

Are you related to Lou Smit?

That's a good question, Singularity. In Lou's obituary it says he has a daughter named Cindy.
Or it could be she's just a big fan of the Pixies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_Cindy


If it's the latter, IndieCindy, I commend you for your good taste even though we clearly disagree about a lot! I love them.

 

[andreww]

And who did the DNA under her nails belong to? It didn't match any in the home, or the DNA (that was probably saliva) on the underwear, it didn't match anyone either.

You know that if investigators looked hard enough they could find unidentifiable DNA all over you too right? It doesn't mean that someone in your own family couldn't do harm to you. Everybody has it, in this case it was used to throw people off track by people who should know better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Miz Adventure]

What bugged me about Patsy's comment is that it's so self-centered. Someone on a statement analysis blog pointed out that typically parents will lament all the things their child would never get to do - go to prom, get a job, fall in love. But the Ramseys are just like, eh, she's better off, let's talk about MY problems.

He also pointed out that one of them, John I think, said she was "safe" now. Safe from what? She was murdered for crying out loud. It's like when the ransom note said JB was "safe and unharmed". No she wasn't. She was dead in the basement the whole time. And what strange language for a threatening note. We're willing to behead her at the slightest provocation but don't worry, she's "safe." "Unharmed" makes sense in a ransom note - you want your target to think they have a chance of recovering their loved one after the ransom drop, but "safe"?? Sounds more like Patsy's wishful thinking.

Some good points there DFF.

 

[Userid]

I think that is why this case has not been solved. Because it is assumed it was the parents. It does look like it is, until you consider that the window was open, the debris at the window WAS disturbed, (except for ONE cobweb) and there was a suitcase up against the wall with a shoe print that did not belong to anyone in the house. not only those things but there was a black scuff mark on the wall where someone pulled themselves up into the window using the wall as kind of a brace to do it. I think the parents didn't really know what to do. If it was my child, I would have immediately, without thinking, picked her up and rocked her. So who did the shoe print belong to? It was never known, and it wasn't a size of anyone in the house, and a similar incident happened a few houses down. So for me... it was never the parents, but because the police were sooo incompetent, and unreasonable it got totally screwed up from the beginning. I actually always thought it was an older adolescent, probably a neighbor that lived in the area and maybe even an older friend of the kids. I can't remember if the same incident in the neighborhood was before or after JonBenet. If it was before, the neighbor girl might have been the first attempt at a victim. I always thought it was an older kid though, (not Burke BTW).
Then he felt remorse, and he knew her, so he covered her body.

This is what's always so difficult when discussing cases like this: you have one side saying one thing (the debris in the window well was never disturbed) and another saying another (it was). I've heard both too, so I certainly don't blame you for believing this. Same thing about the foot-print marks in the snow.

But with regard to the scuff mark on the wall, this is clear: JR admitted to breaking that very window himself, and climbing through that very window, (months I want to say) before the murder took place -- and he never bothered to fix it. So obviously, the scuff mark could have very easily come from him as he slid down the wall and into the train room (if you look at the mark, to me, it looks like it has a downward trajectory, rather than upward).

With regard to the "high-tek" boot mark, again, I've heard two things: that no one in the house ever owned a pair of those boots, and that BR himself owned a pair. So again, it's one of those "which side to believe" things, because I've seen this reported by more "reliable" sources (television specials), i.e. not just on the internet and/or on message boards.

I do agree that the unidentified DNA underneath her fingernails is relevant and suspicious. I am a RDI'er, mostly PDI'er, but this is a factor I can't simply dismiss outright like many can (which is fine, I'm just saying). I can dismiss the touch DNA "evidence" because touch DNA isn't strong enough -- everything has touch DNA -- but the DNA underneath her fingernails is the one thing that gives me pause.

 

[Userid]

That's a good question, Singularity. In Lou's obituary it says he has a daughter named Cindy.
Or it could be she's just a big fan of the Pixies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_Cindy


If it's the latter, IndieCindy, I commend you for your good taste even though we clearly disagree about a lot! I love them.

Me too! Although I haven't really listened to their newer stuff (for no particular reason, other than just not having got around to it). It's sad Kim Deal is out.

 

[UKGuy]

This is what's always so difficult when discussing cases like this: you have one side saying one thing (the debris in the window well was never disturbed) and another saying another (it was). I've heard both too, so I certainly don't blame you for believing this. Same thing about the foot-print marks in the snow.

But with regard to the scuff mark on the wall, this is clear: JR admitted to breaking that very window himself, and climbing through that very window, (months I want to say) before the murder took place -- and he never bothered to fix it. So obviously, the scuff mark could have very easily come from him as he slid down the wall and into the train room (if you look at the mark, to me, it looks like it has a downward trajectory, rather than upward).

With regard to the "high-tek" boot mark, again, I've heard two things: that no one in the house ever owned a pair of those boots, and that BR himself owned a pair. So again, it's one of those "which side to believe" things, because I've seen this reported by more "reliable" sources (television specials), i.e. not just on the internet and/or on message boards.

I do agree that the unidentified DNA underneath her fingernails is relevant and suspicious. I am a RDI'er, mostly PDI'er, but this is a factor I can't simply dismiss outright like many can (which is fine, I'm just saying). I can dismiss the touch DNA "evidence" because touch DNA isn't strong enough -- everything has touch DNA -- but the DNA underneath her fingernails is the one thing that gives me pause.

Userid,

With regard to the "high-tek" boot mark, again, I've heard two things: that no one in the house ever owned a pair of those boots, and that BR himself owned a pair. So again, it's one of those "which side to believe" things, because I've seen this reported by more "reliable" sources (television specials), i.e. not just on the internet and/or on message boards.

BBM: Have you actually researched this subject yourself, or do you simply rely on competing claims?

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,



BBM: Have you actually researched this subject yourself, or do you simply rely on competing claims?

.

UKGuy,

I know it was reported on two separate television programs; whether I read about it somewhere or not, I honestly couldn't recall considering -- yes (to answer your question) -- I have researched the subject myself on websites like acandyrose and pbworks. If you are more interested in refuting one side of the boot mark argument, that would be great; but if you are more interested in stoking your "veteran to wee newbie" ego, I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say please spare us.

Either way, both sides of the argument have been reported by television sources. This is indisputable.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*
He also pointed out that one of them, John I think, said she was "safe" now. Safe from what? She was murdered for crying out loud. It's like when the ransom note said JB was "safe and unharmed". No she wasn't. She was dead in the basement the whole time. And what strange language for a threatening note. We're willing to behead her at the slightest provocation but don't worry, she's "safe." "Unharmed" makes sense in a ransom note - you want your target to think they have a chance of recovering their loved one after the ransom drop, but "safe"?? Sounds more like Patsy's wishful thinking.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.acandyrose.com/12251996ransompage1.gif

Look at the word unharmed in the note. It is written like this: un harmed.

Dr Hodges in his book A Mother Gone Bad noted that the word doesn't hang together; therefore, it isn't true.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

I know it was reported on two separate television programs; whether I read about it somewhere or not, I honestly couldn't recall considering -- yes (to answer your question) -- I have researched the subject myself on websites like acandyrose and pbworks. If you are more interested in refuting one side of the boot mark argument, that would be great; but if you are more interested in stoking your "veteran to wee newbie" ego, I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say please spare us.

Either way, both sides of the argument have been reported by television sources. This is indisputable.

Userid,
We can definitely spare you the refutation.

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
We can definitely spare you the refutation.

.

Actually, if you read my post again, I wanted you to spare me/us the stoking of your ego; not the refutation of the boot argument. You may want to work on your reading comprehension.

 

[Userid]

http://www.acandyrose.com/12251996ransompage1.gif

Look at the word unharmed in the note. It is written like this: un harmed.

Dr Hodges in his book A Mother Gone Bad noted that the word doesn't hang together; therefore, it isn't true.

What I find strange about the note are the spaces after the periods. It just seems like a really big space; almost unnecessarily big. There are instances throughout, but look at the last period of the note before the very last line. Why would the writer make the space so large? I understand it's customary to use two spaces when typing after a period, but this is a written note. I've sometimes wondered if whoever wrote the note was trying to make it obvious that the writer had either a background in computers (i.e. typing on computers) or typewriter.

 

[AB1]

What I find strange about the note are the spaces after the periods. It just seems like a really big space; almost unnecessarily big. There are instances throughout, but look at the last period of the note before the very last line. Why would the writer make the space so large? I understand it's customary to use two spaces when typing after a period, but this is a written note. I've sometimes wondered if whoever wrote the note was trying to make it obvious that the writer had either a background in computers (i.e. typing on computers) or typewriter.

Hadn't considered that possibility.
Could it also be subconsciously following how PR types - wonder how it compares to her typed "we're a swell family" round robins that she sent out to everyone? Has anyone seen a true copy of one, rather than a re-typed version?

I had always thought the spaces indicated either that the writer was pausing to think, perhaps re-reading, then thinking of something to add or that the spaces indicated more than one imput, moments the writer discussed content with someone else or waited to be told what to write. There were film posters in the study and basement - didn't they belong to John?

I understand why the RN can be interpreted as hostile to JR and full of PR's subsumed anger. However I wonder if this was JR's diversionary plan - make it about the business and money, put the flak on him, "I can take it" - to draw attention away from the others left in the house. if John had input, then he knew before the 911 call at the very least.

If we could find an original email, and the spacing compared, your "typing theory" becomes a strong probability and with it the idea that PR acted alone on the RN.
If it is her alone, the hostile to JR interpretation also becomes the strongest contender.
Then it could be said that PR is seeking to remove herself and blame JR's personal failures for what has happened.

That's the problem with this case, it's all swings and roundabouts.
The only thing I can be truly certain of out of this whole mess is that PR wrote the RN - I have never seen anyone draft a 'q' like that. If I ever do, I'll phone BPD!