Separating FACT from fiction

[Let_Forever_Be]

Add in the fact that the tape was cut to fit on JonBenet's mouth meaning it was done when she was dead
THIS is utter speculation. The tape could have benn put on JB before she was dead, YOU DO NOT KNOW THESE "FACTS" for sure.

Tennison, please go read all the facts because you are absolutely WRONG.If the duct tape was added before or after she died does not explain 'innocently' why Patsy Ramsey's fibres from he top she had on the 25th December were on the tape. The tape was cut for the specific purpose of covering JonBenet's mouth. It was done within the proximity of the event. How would Patsy's fibres get on that? Got an answer that doesn't involve making stuff up? Oh, but just to correct you -- the tape was added after she died as the tape had a bloody mucous on it and a perfect set of child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance. You know, no resistance as it was applied when she was dead.

AGAIN your knowledge of fibre transfer is Acutely poor, Fibres can be carried on anything, john and patsy's fibres could have already been on JB, in her bedroom on the stairs bloody everywhere, and could have beeen transfered while retrieving underwear?

Utter nonsense. Please go educate yourself on the facts because Tennison, you are wrong here. JonBenet's genital/thigh area was wiped down. Yet, even after being cleaned, John's fibres from his shirt were on her genital area. Add it the FACT that the underwear JonBenet was found in were brand-new from a pack never before worn and that they weren't actually underwear meant for JonBenet.Of all the places on the body -- do you not think it strange that John's fibres were found in her genitals -- you know, a part of the body that is private and was being molested at the time she died. Oh sorry, I've asked a good question there. Of course you don't accept that -- because according to you, JonBenet wasn't molested at all. Her injuries were all accidental.

I do NOT deny JB was molested, i merely do not believe that the molestation was as extensive or OLD as you make out.

Nonsense. You have denied molestation -- your posts testify to this fact. And I haven't made out anything so please do not lie and misconstrue anything I say. It's an objective fact JonBenet was molested both acutely and chronically. That means she was molested at the time she died and at least 48-72 hours prior. Thus, your deceitful statement there that I claim the abuse was extensive is a complete fabrication. I claim what the experts claim. Nothing more, nothing less.But you are manifestly wrong to say that the abuse wasn't extensive in any form -- the bare facts testify to how JonBenet had to have been molested at least twice. Given that her hymen was eroded aswell as her genital opening being twice the normal size, it is indicative that the abuse was extensive as per the experts' claims. Thus, your refusal to accept these blindingly obvious facts is not rooted in reason but rather a desire on your part to defend an illogical view your hold for whatever reason.

 

[tennison]

Tennison, please go read all the facts because you are absolutely WRONG.If the duct tape was added before or after she died does not explain 'innocently' why Patsy Ramsey's fibres from he top she had on the 25th December were on the tape. The tape was cut for the specific purpose of covering JonBenet's mouth. It was done within the proximity of the event. How would Patsy's fibres get on that? Got an answer that doesn't involve making stuff up? Oh, but just to correct you -- the tape was added after she died as the tape had a bloody mucous on it and a perfect set of child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance. You know, no resistance as it was applied when she was dead.





Utter nonsense. Please go educate yourself on the facts because Tennison, you are wrong here. JonBenet's genital/thigh area was wiped down. Yet, even after being cleaned, John's fibres from his shirt were on her genital area. Add it the FACT that the underwear JonBenet was found in were brand-new from a pack never before worn and that they weren't actually underwear meant for JonBenet I've asked a good question there. Of course you don't accept that -- because according to you, JonBenet wasn't molested at all. Her injuries were all accidental.




Nonsense. You have denied molestation -- your posts testify to this fact. And I haven't made out anything so please do not lie and misconstrue anything I say. It's an objective fact JonBenet was molested both acutely and chronically. That means she was molested at the time she died and at least 48-72 hours prior. Thus, your deceitful statement there that I claim the abuse was extensive is a complete fabrication. I claim what the experts claim. Nothing more, nothing less.But you are manifestly wrong to say that the abuse wasn't extensive in any form -- the bare facts testify to how JonBenet had to have been molested at least twice. Given that her hymen was eroded aswell as her genital opening being twice the normal size, it is indicative that the abuse was extensive as per the experts' claims. Thus, your refusal to accept these blindingly obvious facts is not rooted in reason but rather a desire on your part to defend an illogical view your hold for whatever reason.

i REALLY DONT KNOW WHAT TO SAY TO SUCH IGNORANT COMMENTS AS :

1) If the duct tape was added before or after she died does not explain 'innocently' why Patsy Ramsey's fibres from he top she had on the 25th December were on the tape. ANSWER = FIBRE TRANSFER

How would Patsy's fibres get on that? Got an answer that doesn't involve making stuff up? ANSWER = FIBRE TRANSFER

2) JonBenet's genital/thigh area was wiped down. Yet, even after being cleaned, John's fibres from his shirt were on her genital area. ANSWER = FIBRE TRANSFER

the tape was added after she died as the tape had a bloody mucous on it and a perfect set of child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance. You know, no resistance as it was applied when she was dead.[/COLOR] WHERE IS THE LINK TO THIS EVIDENCE

3) JonBenet's genital/thigh area was wiped down. Yet, even after being cleaned, John's fibres from his shirt were on her genital area. Add it the FACT that the underwear JonBenet was found in were brand-new from a pack never before worn and that they weren't actually underwear meant for JonBenet. AGAIN FIBRE TRANSFER

4) because according to you, JonBenet wasn't molested at all. Her injuries were all accidental. [/COLOR] THIS IS UTTER NONSENSE THE AUTOPSY REPORTS ARE CLEAR ON THE GENITAL MOLESTATION I JUST DONT NECESSARILY BELIEVE IT WAS JOHN OR PATSY.

5) You have denied molestation -- your posts testify to this fact. And I haven't made out anything so please do not lie and misconstrue anything I say . POSTS PLEASE?????????????????????

6) It's an objective fact JonBenet was molested. It's an objective fact JonBenet was molested both acutely and chronically.
A FACT CANNOT BE OBJECTIVE< THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED A FACT.

7) genital opening being twice the normal size. PROOF OF THIS PLEASE

YOU are clearly ignorant of the forensic details of this case, there was just as much to suggest an intruder theory, Fibres, DNA, footprints, Foreign pubic hair, open cellar window, unidentified palm prints ect as parental guilt.
WE obviously disagree and i think it is best left at that and i hope one day one of us will be proved wrong, at least JB will get justice finally.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

i REALLY DONT KNOW WHAT TO SAY TO SUCH IGNORANT COMMENTS AS :

Nothing ignorant. Speaking the truth is never ignorant.

1) If the duct tape was added before or after she died does not explain 'innocently' why Patsy Ramsey's fibres from he top she had on the 25th December were on the tape. ANSWER = FIBRE TRANSFER

Fibre transfer. Not possible. Can you comprehend that the fibres found on the tape were those from the top Patsy had on duirng the 25th. Also, the tape was added to JonBenet's mouth AFTER she died. That's not speculation. That's a fact. Deal with it. JonBenet's lips made a perfect imprint onto the tape -- that means that the tape was added when she was dead as no condensation from her live breath was on the tape thus the prints were clear as it was added when she was not breathing. Thus, it is impossible for the fibres to be there innocently.Patsy could not have transfered fibres innocently without having came into contact with the tape. And before you speculate wrongly again, and say Patsy came into contact when JonBenet was found by John, the tape was left in the cellar thus after the police arrived on the 26th, Patsy did not touch the tape. Her contact was from earlier and after she died.

2) JonBenet's genital/thigh area was wiped down. Yet, even after being cleaned, John's fibres from his shirt were on her genital area. ANSWER = FIBRE TRANSFER

Total ignorance from you here. Fibre transfer? Are you being deliberately dismissive just to be controverisal? A little girl is molested and killed and you are dismissing cold, hard truths in order to make up illogical stories. Fibre transfer is simply not possible. John's fibres were in JonBenet's genital area, inside her underwear. JonBenet's genitals had been molested. She was dead. Her genitals had been bleeding and wiped down.She had size 12, brand new underwear added to her after she was killed. And still, John's fibres were there. After the molestation, wiping down of the genital/thigh area John's fibres were still there. Oh, and JonBenet also had longjohns on. So John's fibres innocently found themselves under both pieces of clothing.

Thus, your 'fibre transfer' excuse is a generalised response lacking in detail. It is not congruent with the facts. It is actually quite ignorant of facts.

3) JonBenet's genital/thigh area was wiped down. Yet, even after being cleaned, John's fibres from his shirt were on her genital area. Add it the FACT that the underwear JonBenet was found in were brand-new from a pack never before worn and that they weren't actually underwear meant for JonBenet. AGAIN FIBRE TRANSFER

See above answer.

4) because according to you, JonBenet wasn't molested at all. Her injuries were all accidental. [/COLOR] THIS IS UTTER NONSENSE THE AUTOPSY REPORTS ARE CLEAR ON THE GENITAL MOLESTATION I JUST DONT NECESSARILY BELIEVE IT WAS JOHN OR PATSY.

The autopsy report does not say molestation happened or did not happen. It presents the body conditions of JonBenet when found dead.However, the facts of the autopsy indicate JonBenet was chronically and acutely molested.

To say a Ramsay did not do it is illogical from you. You have no proof for an intruder. There is none. There is no proof of breaking and entering. No conclusive dna left by the intruder. No logic to tie the ransom note tot he intruder when most experts agree Patsy wrote it. Further, the only people in the Ramsey house on the night JonBenet died were the family. No-one else.

Thus, we know JonBenet was molested and we know no intruder was there because NO EVIDENCE exists for one. Put 2+2 together and try to come to 4 please. Not the 7 or whatever number you have been inventing.

5) You have denied molestation -- your posts testify to this fact. And I haven't made out anything so please do not lie and misconstrue anything I say . POSTS PLEASE?????????????????????

Your posts. It's only recently you have started saying JonBenet was molested. A few days ago you were actually arguing no evidence exists for molestation. But nonetheless, your lack of facts is no the determinant of the truth. It's a testament that you have failed to understand the case.

6) It's an objective fact JonBenet was molested. It's an objective fact JonBenet was molested both acutely and chronically.
A FACT CANNOT BE OBJECTIVE< THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED A FACT.

Objective means free from speculation. Using the word 'objective' before the word 'fact' is meant to reinforce the truth of the statement because they are noted facts. Anyway, my correct usage of English and your attempts to try to 'correct' it are a tad unnecessary. I'd rather you tried to correct your flawed arguments because ultimately, you are making up speculations based on falsities and not facts.

7) genital opening being twice the normal size. PROOF OF THIS PLEASE

YOU are clearly ignorant of the forensic details of this case, there was just as much to suggest an intruder theory, Fibres, DNA, footprints, Foreign pubic hair, open cellar window, unidentified palm prints ect as parental guilt.
WE obviously disagree and i think it is best left at that and i hope one day one of us will be proved wrong, at least JB will get justice finally.

There was proof for an intruder? Really -- where? Where was this person's dna. Where was this person's entry point? Why was only John and Patsy's fibres on JonBenet's body in places that make innocent 'fibre transfer' impossible? Why did handwriting experts agree Patsy wrote the ransom note? Gee golly, if she was innocent, why did she write such a thing? Oh, she didn't -- it was the intruder. So, this intruder, who managed to get into the house without displaying a noted entry point, also left a ransom note using Patsy's pen and paper because em, when you're trying to molest and kidnap a child, everybody knows you wait until you get to the home in question to use the owner's paper/pens to write your ransom.............

Open cellar window -- uh huh, that cellar that John Ramsey was left alone in for over 40 minutes on the morning of the 26th. Of course, he couldn't have opened it..............

 

[DeeDee249]

There was NO pubic hair. How many times do we have to keep correcting the same lies and errors? That hair that the R lawyers jumped all over was PROVEN, TESTED and found to have been an ancillary hair from the forearm of Patsy Ramsey.
There were NO intruder fibers. Not even ONE. The only fibers found that have been sourced to a person were those belonging to Patsy (the duct tape, paint tote and garrote knot) and JR (the inside of JB's panty crotch).
While there were other fibers (as there would be in any home and on any person, living or dead), NONE were proven to be from an intruder, and none have ever been SAID to belong to an intruder by anyone except IDI.
Tennison, you clearly do not know the case. You base you theories on lies and misconceptions that have LONG been disproved. Even Judge Carnes did not know all the facts. Did you know she never even read all the evidence?

 

[madeleine]

Open cellar window -- uh huh, that cellar that John Ramsey was left alone in for over 40 minutes on the morning of the 26th. Of course, he couldn't have opened it...........

two people were down there BEFORE JR allegedly saw the open window,FW and the officer.you would think they would have reported a broken open window,this was a kidnapping,right?and why didn't JR report it??he even admits he felt it was the intruder's entry point.but he said NOTHING.

 

[CanManEh]

Hey I like the red in your font makes you say I'm frustrated I like it n that's a fact

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Hey I like the red in your font makes you say I'm frustrated I like it n that's a fact

I used red as I was responding to several questions within a post. It was for ease of reading.

 

[BBB167893]

don't worry,I understand you,this happens a lot,you ran out of arguments anic: and you're starting to become rude.

Lot of that going around!

 

[BBB167893]

So your point is you dont believe there is any chance of this murder having anything to do with anyone else except the ramseys.
If this is such an obvious fact why hasnt there been any ARRESTS or PROSECUTIONS?

Why would BPD allow all your evidence to languish without making some sort of attempt to conclude this?:floorlaugh:

How much time do you have, tennison? I'd be more than happy to go over it with you, but you might not like the answer. I can tell you I sure as **** don't like it!

 

[BBB167893]

I used red as I was responding to several questions within a post. It was for ease of reading.

Sort of like how I use orange. (A fire-breathing dragon!)

 

[vlpate]

Fact: A deliberate and sustained force was required to create the deep furrow around JBR's neck. This can only be reasonably construed as deadly force. This is supported by evidence, including local hemorrhaging that would not have occurred if she was already dead.

Fact: The strangulation was not staged. JBR was strangled.

Fact: Hitting over the head with a blunt instrument is common in murder and attempted murder, including some infamous ones.

Fact: JBR's fractured skull is most likely attributed to the use of additional deadly force, since its already been established that deadly force was being used.

Fact: JBR was most likely hit over the head with a blunt instrument.

Fact: The cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBenet_Ramsey).

Using "most likely" and fact in the same sentence is objectionable. It was never established as a "fact" how the gash in her skull happened.

It is not a fact that the strangulation was not staged. The autopsy states:

"Cause of Death. The official cause of death was "asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma."

The head wound may not have immediately killed her, therefore, the head wound could easily have happened prior to the strangulation and would have resulted in her death anyway and thus, does not prove the strangulation was not staged.

Actually, nothing in this post is "fact" and I ask that it be revised or removed.

 

[cindysue]

What I don't get is that if the perp was JR and or PR as most believe and they went to all the trouble to wipe down the flashlight and the batteries inside it so that no evidence would connect them to the crime. ( which they said wasn't theirs) Then why leave oblivious evidence such as the paper pad sitting there and some practice RN notes in the trash, oh and let's use PR paintbrush and write down JR bonus too. That won't be suspicious at all. my point is why clean up just part of the crime scene "the flashlight and batteries" so and leave obvious evidence for the cops to find. Someone wiped down what they used but made it look like a sloppy crime. Imo

 

[runsdeep]

i have not seen anything "official" that states that she was conclusively molested over time, nor about what was used to molest her that night, nor what could have caused partial hymen damage, nor about if traces of anything but urine on her bed. things i have read are conflicting reports.

i have not seen anything about the current relationship between burke and his dad & half bro and sis.

in this case, i have no theory, just all questions.

 

[DeeDee249]

i have not seen anything "official" that states that she was conclusively molested over time, nor about what was used to molest her that night, nor what could have caused partial hymen damage, nor about if traces of anything but urine on her bed. things i have read are conflicting reports.

i have not seen anything about the current relationship between burke and his dad & half bro and sis.

in this case, i have no theory, just all questions.

The autopsy report indicated chronic abuse. There was evidence of erosion, as well as an abnormally large vaginal canal for a child that age. The coroner does not put his opinions as to what caused this damage in the report, he just puts in what he finds. But he did tell the two detectives (Arndt and Trujillo) who were there to witness the autopsy that the injuries he saw were consistent with digital penetration. This same opinion is shared by several other forensic experts who studied the report and saw the autopsy photos.
That is official enough for me.
It is an established fact that traces of creatinine (dried urine) were found on her bedsheets.
Try reading the JonBenet archives here: http://www.acandyrose.com

It will answer many of your questions.

 

[runsdeep]

The autopsy report indicated chronic abuse. There was evidence of erosion, as well as an abnormally large vaginal canal for a child that age. The coroner does not put his opinions as to what caused this damage in the report, he just puts in what he finds. But he did tell the two detectives (Arndt and Trujillo) who were there to witness the autopsy that the injuries he saw were consistent with digital penetration. This same opinion is shared by several other forensic experts who studied the report and saw the autopsy photos.
That is official enough for me.
It is an established fact that traces of creatinine (dried urine) were found on her bedsheets.
Try reading the JonBenet archives here: http://www.acandyrose.com

It will answer many of your questions.

i will surely read. thanks

 

[tennison]

The autopsy report indicated chronic abuse. There was evidence of erosion, as well as an abnormally large vaginal canal for a child that age. The coroner does not put his opinions as to what caused this damage in the report, he just puts in what he finds. But he did tell the two detectives (Arndt and Trujillo) who were there to witness the autopsy that the injuries he saw were consistent with digital penetration. This same opinion is shared by several other forensic experts who studied the report and saw the autopsy photos.
That is official enough for me.
It is an established fact that traces of creatinine (dried urine) were found on her bedsheets.
Try reading the JonBenet archives here: http://www.acandyrose.com

It will answer many of your questions.

WHERE in the coroners report is chronic abuse indicated? I really hope you add a link for a change because you must have seen another report than i have.
We will see....................................
So hearsay is enough for you?
It wasnt in the report because there was no hard evidence for it, only speculation:maddening:
All of boulder police force wanted a perp, they needed it after the botch job they made of the initial enquiry so you think these detectives would have said to mayer, OK you believe long term abuse evidence is there but you dont want to put it in the report, thats fine we dont need evidence we will make it up as we go along, sling enough mud ect.
GET REAL,
you have already reported that a STUN GUN MANUAL was found in JB's house, which is ********, but its these little "factoids" that confuse the issue.
HARD COLD EVIDENCE, thats what we should be looking at, not some worn out witch-hunt opinion.
And advising people to visit "A candy rose"??????????? jesus. presme you know who runs that site.:sick:

 

[vlpate]

WHERE in the coroners report is chronic abuse indicated? I really hope you add a link for a change because you must have seen another report than i have.
We will see....................................

If you've seen the report then why ask for a link? DeeDee, like many other followers of this case, believes there was chronic sexual abuse. All are allowed to form their own opinions.

Her hymen was eroded - something happened to cause that - which is where we have to form an opinion. There was definitely sexual contact the night she died....again, one has to form their own opinion.

So hearsay is enough for you?
It wasnt in the report because there was no hard evidence for it, only speculation:maddening:

It's called websleuths - opinions are welcome. Why do you think the hymen was eroded? Do you believe the night of the murder was the only time she was sexually molested? If not, what have you to go on besides your own belief? There's no proof she wasn't. Again, opinion based on what's in the report.

All of boulder police force wanted a perp,

"Want" has nothing to do with it, their JOB was to find a perp.

they needed it after the botch job they made of the initial enquiry so you think these detectives would have said to mayer, OK you believe long term abuse evidence is there but you dont want to put it in the report, thats fine we dont need evidence we will make it up as we go along, sling enough mud ect.

Who, on the BPD ever said anywhere that there was chronic abuse? Certainly not the lead Investigator, Steve Thomas.

GET REAL,
you have already reported that a STUN GUN MANUAL was found in JB's house, which is ********, but its these little "factoids" that confuse the issue.

There was material found in the Ramsey home with stun gun information. Most RDI do not believe a stun gun was used.

HARD COLD EVIDENCE, thats what we should be looking at, not some worn out witch-hunt opinion.

The hard cold evidence eliminates the need for a witch hunt - the overwhelming majority of the hard cold evidence points directly to the Ramseys. The person who wrote the ransom note is the killer or is culpable - and the author was probably Patsy Ramsey. See Epstein.

And advising people to visit "A candy rose"??????????? jesus. presme you know who runs that site.:sick:

There is nothing about this case that's not in the archives on JonBenet Ramsey at acandyrose or in the archives here. I think most everyone knows who runs that site - one of the most ardent and unbiased documentarians there are when it comes to the JonBenet Ramsey murder case (and many others, frankly).

I'm not trying to speak for DeeDee, just my own opinion.

 

[tennison]

If you've seen the report then why ask for a link? DeeDee, like many other followers of this case, believes there was chronic sexual abuse. All are allowed to form their own opinions.

Her hymen was eroded - something happened to cause that - which is where we have to form an opinion. There was definitely sexual contact the night she died....again, one has to form their own opinion.


It's called websleuths - opinions are welcome. Why do you think the hymen was eroded? Do you believe the night of the murder was the only time she was sexually molested? If not, what have you to go on besides your own belief? There's no proof she wasn't. Again, opinion based on what's in the report.


"Want" has nothing to do with it, their JOB was to find a perp.



Who, on the BPD ever said anywhere that there was chronic abuse? Certainly not the lead Investigator, Steve Thomas.



There was material found in the Ramsey home with stun gun information. Most RDI do not believe a stun gun was used.


The hard cold evidence eliminates the need for a witch hunt - the overwhelming majority of the hard cold evidence points directly to the Ramseys. The person who wrote the ransom note is the killer or is culpable - and the author was probably Patsy Ramsey. See Epstein.



There is nothing about this case that's not in the archives on JonBenet Ramsey at acandyrose or in the archives here. I think most everyone knows who runs that site - one of the most ardent and unbiased documentarians there are when it comes to the JonBenet Ramsey murder case (and many others, frankly).

I'm not trying to speak for DeeDee, just my own opinion.

The whole point of my posts here are that opinions should be lauded, however, if you look at dedee's post you will see she states as fact chronic abuse was reported in the autopsy findings and it is not the first time either.

There are many reasons hymen can be eroded in children, physical activity like dancing horseriding cycling, childs own sexual exploration among others as well sinister reasons.
children who are chronicly abused show psychological signs usually noted by teachers doctors family friends ect, though not always, and we only have absence of such evidence.
It was DEEDEE who stated chronic abuse not me, so why do you ask me to provide evidence of this?

The stun gun "material" you say was found in Ramsays house, was an ad in a magazine, how many magazines do you have in your house and do they only advertise products you have in your home????????
Although the use of a stun gun is not belived by RDI, explaination of the burn/abraision marks on jonbenets face and body have to be identified so untill that happens NOTHING can be ruled out.

RE: Epstien.
Epstien never even saw the original ransom note.
In his report of February 25, 2001, referred to in his Wolf v. Ramsey deposition as Exhibit 6 (see p. 94:1), Epstein stated "This forensic examination was not undertaken with the belief that a definitive finding concerning the authorship of the note could be established with the type and quantity of known writ "Because I didn't have enough verbatim material. I didn't have enough of the same words, the same letter combinations, repeated sufficiently to be able to establish habituality, to be able to establish handwriting patterns" (p. 97:13-17).handwriting presently available." (p. 101:3-8). Earlier, Epstein conceded that "I asked Mr. Hoffman for additional writings. I asked him from the very beginning to attempt to locate the same normal course of business writings that had been previously used in the examinations when they were first done.
Not as concrete as you wuld have us believe.

 

[vlpate]

The whole point of my posts here are that opinions should be lauded, however, if you look at dedee's post you will see she states as fact chronic abuse was reported in the autopsy findings and it is not the first time either.

There are many reasons hymen can be eroded in children, physical activity like dancing horseriding cycling, childs own sexual exploration among others as well sinister reasons.
children who are chronicly abused show psychological signs usually noted by teachers doctors family friends ect, though not always, and we only have absence of such evidence.
It was DEEDEE who stated chronic abuse not me, so why do you ask me to provide evidence of this?

The stun gun "material" you say was found in Ramsays house, was an ad in a magazine, how many magazines do you have in your house and do they only advertise products you have in your home????????
Although the use of a stun gun is not belived by RDI, explaination of the burn/abraision marks on jonbenets face and body have to be identified so untill that happens NOTHING can be ruled out.

RE: Epstien.
Epstien never even saw the original ransom note.
In his report of February 25, 2001, referred to in his Wolf v. Ramsey deposition as Exhibit 6 (see p. 94:1), Epstein stated "This forensic examination was not undertaken with the belief that a definitive finding concerning the authorship of the note could be established with the type and quantity of known writ "Because I didn't have enough verbatim material. I didn't have enough of the same words, the same letter combinations, repeated sufficiently to be able to establish habituality, to be able to establish handwriting patterns" (p. 97:13-17).handwriting presently available." (p. 101:3-8). Earlier, Epstein conceded that "I asked Mr. Hoffman for additional writings. I asked him from the very beginning to attempt to locate the same normal course of business writings that had been previously used in the examinations when they were first done.
Not as concrete as you wuld have us believe.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/solving-jonbenet-case-0
Moreover, the ransom note was likely written by Patsy, according to Vassar professor and linguistic expert Don Foster (the author of Author Unknown , who unmasked Joe Klein as the author of Primary Colors), David Liebman, former president of the National Association of Document Examiners, and Gideon Epstein, director of the forensics unit of the documents lab at the Immigration and Naturalization Service until he retired in 2000.

"What is your degree of certainty as you sit here today," Ramsey attorney Wood asked Epstein in a deposition last year, "that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note?"

"I am absolutely certain she wrote the note," Epstein replied.

"Is that 60 percent certainty?" Wood asked.

"No, that's 100 percent certainty."

_________________
A handwriting expert doesn't necessarily have to have the original ransom note to form an opinion - the letter pattern and consistency doesn't change.

 

[pistolina]

snipped

The stun gun "material" you say was found in Ramsays house, was an ad in a magazine, how many magazines do you have in your house and do they only advertise products you have in your home????????
QUOTE]

I'm not sure where you got this information but it is not correct. It was a video from a store that JR admits to being in. NOT just some random ad in a magazine that anyone might have around.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/748967/detail.html
"No stun gun was found in the Ramsey house, however informational material for a stun gun was found."

The Ramseys also admit it in their book:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682467/Evidence of a Stun Gun
•Ramseys Did NOT Own Stun Gun. In their book, John Ramsey describes going to a spy store due to his concerns about risks to Access Graphics related to electronic bugging: "As we left, the clerk gave me a videotape catalog to take home. When I returned to Boulder, I threw it into a drawer and completely forgot about the tape. I surmise that as the police went through everything in our house, they found the video catalog, which apparently turned out to have an advertisement for....you got it....stun guns! Not too long after that the police reported to the media that they had found a stun gun "instructional video" in the Ramsey house. So on the one hand they were supporting the stun gun theory, but on the other hand they were not indirectly saying that I had used this weapon on my daughter. Of course, for a period of time the video created a significant uproar and cast further suspicion on me. Later we got a copy of the video catalog from the store in Coral Gables, and found it was recorded in Spanish! Not only had I never reviewed the tape; if I had I wouldn't have understood it" (Ramsey and Ramsey, 2001: 195).