The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

Did Patsy lie about the Bloomingdale’s panties?

  • Yes

    Votes: 164 77.7%
  • No

    Votes: 14 6.6%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 33 15.6%

  • Total voters
    211
I'm curious, being new to the case, as you stated, how did you so quickly come to the above opinions about Patsy and John? Patsy incredibly deviant and John useless and creepy...?

The first TV interviews I saw PR in, plus ransom note, plus the pageant stuff and the 911 call. Those interviews were very telling, as was the note.

I also consider a mother who rapes her daughter to be a real deviant. "Staging", my rear. She raped her. Period.

John did what his wife told him to do, IMO. He didn't even have the balls to make the 911. He helped to cover up a crime to save his standing in his company. The man can't speak without lying, and he didn't love his own child enough to protect her against her aggressive, wacko mother. He is uselsss.

Again, just my opinion.:rocker:
 
BBM: Where was this said, and how could Meyer distinguish differences in the blood during an autopsy? How did he know what the blood looked like that was wiped away...since it was, after all, wiped a way.

I'm sorry, I have forgotten so much - I know she was wiped down, but I don't remember there being evidence of what was wiped away being blood. I should read the books again.

What was wiped away WAS blood. Her blood. When the fluoroscope was first passed over her body, the black light revealed the presence of the substance found in blood, semen and urine. LE jumped at the thought that it must be semen. But the fluoroscope does not determine which of these it it. For that, a swab must be taken and the substance analyzed. This was done. It was JB's own blood.
The coroner did not mean that the kinds of blood didn't match up- it was where the blood was noted on the panties (just a few drops) that didn't match up with where the blood would have dripped from the vagina. It seemed to me that the blood spots were in a different place on the panties that they should have been and/or that the amount of blood that was wiped (determined by the surface area that was wiped) would indicate that there should have been more that just a few drops of blood in the panties.
It did not mean that any tests were done to determine of the blood was from a living or dead child. As far as I know, that was not done (though it should have been). It would have answered the question about the bleeding having been staging or molestation. The bruising that was found, both inside and on the labia, however, happened only when she was alive. Bruising does not occur in dead people. This is not the same as the purplish blotching that occurs after death- that is not a true bruise, but rather the result of leaking from the blood vessels as the structure breaks down.
Blood from a dead person does not contain oxygen, for one, and does show evidence of the breakdown of the cells. Chemical changes that occur after death happen right away- within minutes, if not sooner.
 
What was wiped away WAS blood. Her blood. When the fluoroscope was first passed over her body, the black light revealed the presence of the substance found in blood, semen and urine. LE jumped at the thought that it must be semen. But the fluoroscope does not determine which of these it it. For that, a swab must be taken and the substance analyzed. This was done. It was JB's own blood.
The coroner did not mean that the kinds of blood didn't match up- it was where the blood was noted on the panties (just a few drops) that didn't match up with where the blood would have dripped from the vagina. It seemed to me that the blood spots were in a different place on the panties that they should have been and/or that the amount of blood that was wiped (determined by the surface area that was wiped) would indicate that there should have been more that just a few drops of blood in the panties.
It did not mean that any tests were done to determine of the blood was from a living or dead child. As far as I know, that was not done (though it should have been). It would have answered the question about the bleeding having been staging or molestation. The bruising that was found, both inside and on the labia, however, happened only when she was alive. Bruising does not occur in dead people. This is not the same as the purplish blotching that occurs after death- that is not a true bruise, but rather the result of leaking from the blood vessels as the structure breaks down.
Blood from a dead person does not contain oxygen, for one, and does show evidence of the breakdown of the cells. Chemical changes that occur after death happen right away- within minutes, if not sooner.

BBM: I'm sorry, I've read the autopsy and the notes over and over and I don't see where this was said. I see the importance though...please show me where he said or indicated this because I can't even interpret it this way. Thanks :)
 
The first TV interviews I saw PR in, plus ransom note, plus the pageant stuff and the 911 call. Those interviews were very telling, as was the note.

I also consider a mother who rapes her daughter to be a real deviant. "Staging", my rear. She raped her. Period.

John did what his wife told him to do, IMO. He didn't even have the balls to make the 911. He helped to cover up a crime to save his standing in his company. The man can't speak without lying, and he didn't love his own child enough to protect her against her aggressive, wacko mother. He is uselsss.

Again, just my opinion.:rocker:

I've been on this for 14 years and I have seen nothing that indicates Patsy violently raped JBR and left her half naked and posed in the basement for John to clean up. Seems pretty far-fetched, IMO.
 
I've been on this for 14 years and I have seen nothing that indicates Patsy violently raped JBR and left her half naked and posed in the basement for John to clean up. Seems pretty far-fetched, IMO.

It makes sense to me. I don't have a problem with believing a woman is capable of sexual abuse, because I've seen it.

:Banane47:
 
Heyya Whaleshark,

Here's an addendum to JD:
Unarresting the Arrested:FBI Profiler John Douglas on the case against Amanda Knox & Raffaele So
September 28, 2011

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Unarresting-the-Arrested-FBI-Profiler-John-Douglas_1/2941619


"Criminal Behavioral Profiling has also proved to be a useful tool in exonerating the wrongly accused or convicted, of which Douglas also dedicates his time.​

Probably the most well-known of these was the JonBenét Ramsey case. The case is notable for both its longevity and the media interest it generated. The media and local law enforcement agencies considered the girl's parents and brother to be suspects. Douglas was the first to publicly proclaim their innocence, long before DNA legally exonerated them. He was vilified not only in the press, but by his colleagues as well."​


"This is like the Ramsey case. DNA eliminated the family as suspects. The family did not do it. Besides, I saw what'd been done to the child (JonBenet Ramsey), how she was sexually assaulted. Parents kill, they do. But not these parents. Not in the way, and method that child was killed. They're not the type to kill their daughter.

Again, 'they're not the type'... sighhhh.

Thanks to KK for finding this and posted on other forum:
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10027"]http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10027[/ame]

DENVER AND THE WEST
Parents who kill their kids not always insane, expert says

By Electa Draper

The Denver Post

POSTED: 05/27/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT
UPDATED: 05/27/2011 08:18:15 AM MDT

People tend to believe that any parent who kills a child — especially a mother — must be crazy, but a leading expert on the crime says it isn't true.

"The view that parents who deliberately kill their children are 'mad or bad' is too simple," said Dr. Phillip Resnick, director of forensic psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

Mental illness is a big factor, he said, but so is desperation.

[snip]

Researchers estimate 250 to 300 children are murdered by their parents each year in the U.S.

"Historically, one out of 33 homicides is a parent killing a child younger than 18," Resnick said.

Five types of filicide

Filicide, the deliberate act of a parent killing his or her own child, is the third-leading cause of death in American children ages 5 to 14, Resnick found in a 2005 study.

Those bleak statistics are echoed in FBI Uniform Crime Reports indicating the murder of sons and daughters accounted for 3.1 percent of the 90,869 homicides in the U.S. from 1995 through 2000.

In a 40-year career, Resnick said, he has identified five main types of filicide, which vary according to parent gender.

The first is "altruism." When severe stress, depression, mental illness or claim of mental illness is involved in a case, a mother likely will explain her motive was unselfish — the child was killed to prevent suffering.

"The woman is still trying to be a good mother but no longer knows what to do," Resnick said.

While only one of 23 suicide attempts is successful in the U.S., Resnick said, one-fourth of women who kill their children also kill themselves.

A woman often sees the child as an extension of herself, Resnick said, and the line between a mother's suicide and the murder of her child can be blurred.

"But it's harder to kill yourself than your children," Resnick said.

A second circumstance of filicide is an acutely psychotic parent who has lost touch with reality.

[snip]

The third type of filicide involves fatal battering. Resnick said this accounts for 80 percent of homicides of children younger than 1.

A fourth type of filicide is that a parent doesn't want the child or feels incapable of caring for it. Some believe the child is endangering or preventing another, more valued relationship. Other parents are unprepared and overwhelmed by the needs of a baby.

"You were more likely to be killed by your parents on the day you were born than any other day," Resnick said.

"The child was unwanted" is the motive given in 85 percent of homicides of newborns, Resnick said.

[snip]

Revenge against spouse

A fifth type is revenge against a spouse for infidelity or other perceived failing. Custody disputes sometimes trigger killings.

Researchers find that men who kill often feel they have lost control of their finances, families and relationships. They often kill in retaliation for something their wives or lovers have done.

Homicide is the leading cause of death in children 4 and younger. Of children murdered before the age of 5, 61 percent were killed by parents, Resnick found.

Friends of the family killed 30 percent of the children, according to a 1999 U.S. Department of Justice study. Other family members killed about 8 percent of the victims.

Filicides are hands-on murders. A 1988 Justice Department study found that while 61 percent of murder defendants used a gun, only 20 percent of parents who killed children used one. Children are beaten, shaken, drowned, smothered, poisoned and stabbed.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reports that women are likely to dispose of their children's bodies in ways suggestive of returning them to the womb — swaddled in blankets, wrapped in plastic, submerged in water.

Women, who committed only 13 percent of all violent crimes in the U.S. from 1995 to 2000, committed about half of all filicides, according to the FBI crime statistics.

[snip]

However, the Colorado Child Fatality Prevention System 2010 Annual Report included a comprehensive review of the 82 child homicides that occurred between 2004 and 2006.

They found that eight of the deaths were murder-suicide cases in which an adult killed one or more children and then committed suicide.

Most homicides, 59.8 percent, occurred among children under age 5. The perpetrator was the child's primary caregiver in 56.1 percent of the cases.

[snip] ___

Maybe J. Douglas needs to revise his criminal profile type for parents who kill their children....
 
Also, per John Douglas from that same article:

JD: The criminal profiling process alone does not convict anyone. The foundation of any case is a properly conducted, thorough and well planned investigation. If the investigation is not good, the results will be tainted. Garbage in…garbage out!

Hello...
 
BBM: I'm sorry, I've read the autopsy and the notes over and over and I don't see where this was said. I see the importance though...please show me where he said or indicated this because I can't even interpret it this way. Thanks :)

Unfortunately, this was another of Mayer's opinions that he never put in the written report. Like his opinion on the digital penetration- he said it to those present at the autopsy but did not put it in the report.
One thing to to understand about an autopsy report. The coroner's job is to put in the written report what he FINDS, not what he THINKS about what he finds. His opinions may be given to LE, but you will not find them in a written autopsy report.
 
not only this but at some point he says very clear that if IDI it definitely was someone known to the family,maybe someone hating JR.
and what does JR do?
he totally ignores it(remember all his comments,it was a monster,we don't know anyone that evil,bla,bla,fgs,stop and think for a minute,if the profiler says you know the guy then it probably is so).now why did you even hire the guy if you ignore the most important part of his profile,the WHY and the possible WHO?(because IMO this would have forced JR to answer more and more questions and we know he always avoided this)
nope,JR comes on TV months and years later and sells us LS's stranger pedo theory.now,if you were him,who would you rather believe when it comes to a profile,the super profiler or some detective?
if IDI JD's profile makes the most sense but they just ignored what he said.this was a big red flag for me!


[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three"]West Memphis Three - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

John E. Douglas, a former longtime FBI agent who has interviewed the country's most prolific serial killers during his years with the FBI and works as a profiler to help police in their searches for violent criminals, said the slayings of the three West Memphis boys weren't the work of three unsophisticated teenage killers, but that of a single person who set out to taunt and "punish" the victims.[47] Douglas was formerly FBI Unit Chief of the Investigative Support Unit of the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime for 25 years. Douglas stated in his report for Echols' legal team that there was no evidence for Satanic ritual involvement in the killings and agreed with the post-mortem animal predation explanation for the alleged knife injuries. Douglas believed that the perpetrator had a violent history and was familiar with the victims and geography. He stated that the victims had died from a combination of blunt force trauma wounds and drowning in a personal cause driven crime.[4]


:banghead::banghead:


not wanting to start a fight cause I know some of you believe the WM3 are innocent,but..............
 
yeah yeah they are ALL innocent,the WM3,the Ramseys,Amanda Knox,OJ,Casey.....:banghead:

i feel like throwing up when it comes to all these experts....experts my $%^^,they would probably even sell their souls for some cash....:banghead:

sorry and delete if this is too harsh but i am sick of it
 
well,at least Jeffrey McDonalds and Michael Peterson are still behind bars where they belong.....but who knows what the future will bring,nothing would surprise me anymore.....YUK.....in a few years we'll see even these two "exonerated"
 
yeah yeah they are ALL innocent,the WM3,the Ramseys,Amanda Knox,OJ,Casey.....:banghead:

i feel like throwing up when it comes to all these experts....experts my $%^^,they would probably even sell their souls for some cash....:banghead:

sorry and delete if this is too harsh but i am sick of it

I've never jumped on the bandwagon about the WM3, especially that camera-loving freak wouldn't keep from smirking throughout the trial. Johnny Depp might have the hots for him, but I don't.
 
Here's an addendum to JD:
Unarresting the Arrested:FBI Profiler John Douglas on the case against Amanda Knox & Raffaele So
September 28, 2011

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Unarresting-the-Arrested-FBI-Profiler-John-Douglas_1/2941619


"Criminal Behavioral Profiling has also proved to be a useful tool in exonerating the wrongly accused or convicted, of which Douglas also dedicates his time.​

Probably the most well-known of these was the JonBenét Ramsey case. The case is notable for both its longevity and the media interest it generated. The media and local law enforcement agencies considered the girl's parents and brother to be suspects. Douglas was the first to publicly proclaim their innocence, long before DNA legally exonerated them. He was vilified not only in the press, but by his colleagues as well."​

My heart bleeds. He deserved everything he got. Whaleshark said it: this guy flagrantly violated his own code of conduct for money. Like his pal Lou, he jumped on the "Everybody's wrong but me" wagon and never got off. His colleagues pointed this fact out, and he hates them for it. If that's being "vilified," so be it.

"This is like the Ramsey case. DNA eliminated the family as suspects. The family did not do it. Besides, I saw what'd been done to the child (JonBenet Ramsey), how she was sexually assaulted. Parents kill, they do. But not these parents. Not in the way, and method that child was killed. They're not the type to kill their daughter.​

I wonder how many killers have gotten away with it because they weren't "the type."

See, THAT's what makes me so damn angry. When that nonsense comes out of the mouth of someone who should know better and is considered an authority on the subject, that's DANGEROUS.

When I went on my rampage about how IDIs were partly responsible for other child murders, THIS is the guy I had in mind!

There are people on websites that hate me to this day because of the Ramsey case. I want to say to them, give it up! – but they just won’t do it."​

Damn right I hate him for it! And as for not giving up, he got THAT one right! I plan to hammer him even harder. Just wait 'til my book comes out, Johhny Boy.

It's clear he hates us, too. Personally, I consider it a badge of honor to be hated by this guy. Pettiness is my least favorite trait in humanity. It's a shame that someone in his line of work should embody it so deeply.
 
Maybe J. Douglas needs to revise his criminal profile type for parents who kill their children....

I'm sure he does. Question is, WILL he? I seriously doubt it. He's spent 15 years of his life backing the Rs on behalf of his ego. He's not gonna back off now.
 
I'm sure he does. Question is, WILL he? I seriously doubt it. He's spent 15 years of his life backing the Rs on behalf of his ego. He's not gonna back off now.

SuperDave,
Douglas knows the R's are guilty. He cannot be a profiler and not know, just like Lou Smit who trousered the Ramsay shilling, hook, line and sinker.

If we can all end up working out why it must be the R's and that there never was any intruder, more so when there is no evidence of an intruder, but of course the R's need a defense and the IDI serves this function.

The plain facts as a prologue to any account regarding Douglas, e.g. his alleged customising of reports, would assist any reader in deciding why Douglas might reach a verdict at variance with the forensic evidence.

The difference between Smit and Douglas is that the former claimed faith as a justification for working for the R's and promoting their agenda.


.
 
What better thread to put this on than the Big Bloomies on the grounds that it has the most views!

In case you hadn't twigged, I am trying to attract attention to a very worthwhile cause which I have explained in its rightful place here:-

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7457592&posted=1#post7457592

Ben Needham - missing since he was a toddler (20 years ago).

Recently, his Mum achieved a new breakthrough in getting Ben's DNA profiled and placed on record for comparisons. Now she needs your help in getting a message out and hopefully to the young man who doesn't know he is Ben Needham. She is trying to spread the word through Twitter and hoping to achieve a goal of 10,000 followers by Christmas.

Please spread the word. It's a worthy cause, costs nothing but could reap a priceless reward.

http://twitter.com/#!/FindBenNeedham

(I'll go back into my box now :-))

Merry Christmas to all.
 
What better thread to put this on than the Big Bloomies on the grounds that it has the most views!

In case you hadn't twigged, I am trying to attract attention to a very worthwhile cause which I have explained in its rightful place here:-

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7457592&posted=1#post7457592

Ben Needham - missing since he was a toddler (20 years ago).

Recently, his Mum achieved a new breakthrough in getting Ben's DNA profiled and placed on record for comparisons. Now she needs your help in getting a message out and hopefully to the young man who doesn't know he is Ben Needham. She is trying to spread the word through Twitter and hoping to achieve a goal of 10,000 followers by Christmas.

Please spread the word. It's a worthy cause, costs nothing but could reap a priceless reward.

http://twitter.com/#!/FindBenNeedham

(I'll go back into my box now :-))

Merry Christmas to all.

Jayelles,
What a disgcracefull use of JonBenet's name. I do not wish to asssociate myself with such a promotion, consider me MIA!

.
 
Uk Guy, ...I guess I'm confused at what you're upset about....?

what 'promotion' are you referring to, or did you not read the note from Jayelles thoroughly?

If I am not mistaken, I believe that Jayelles is just trying to raise awareness to help find a missing child from twenty years ago, and simply put the links to the thread about it in this thread, and a link to the twitter thread about finding this missing child as well.

Every murdered person or missing child discussed in these threads is important, no?

And even Tricia herself often goes into heavy traffic threads and asks people to look at other unsolved case threads to bring more awareness to those not often viewed...she would often do that in the Casey Anthony thread where there was heavy traffic, and ask readers to take a break from Caylee's case and look into some other threads for a while...

I'm sorry, I don't understand your disdain.

Jayelles is not 'promoting' anything, but is rather asking those of us who care about these victims to look in the case of another victim as well, as far as I understand it.

...but maybe it's just me....
 
Uk Guy, ...I guess I'm confused at what you're upset about....?

what 'promotion' are you referring to, or did you not read the note from Jayelles thoroughly?

If I am not mistaken, I believe that Jayelles is just trying to raise awareness to help find a missing child from twenty years ago, and simply put the links to the thread about it in this thread, and a link to the twitter thread about finding this missing child as well.

Every murdered person or missing child discussed in these threads is important, no?

And even Tricia herself often goes into heavy traffic threads and asks people to look at other unsolved case threads to bring more awareness to those not often viewed...she would often do that in the Casey Anthony thread where there was heavy traffic, and ask readers to take a break from Caylee's case and look into some other threads for a while...

I'm sorry, I don't understand your disdain.

Jayelles is not 'promoting' anything, but is rather asking those of us who care about these victims to look in the case of another victim as well, as far as I understand it.

...but maybe it's just me....

Whaleshark,
I know this case and have read about his mothers ongoing campaign. I am not unsympathetic to it. I reckon I had one glass of wine too many, or had a bad hair day, and thought the topic distinct from the thread subject. So I apologise if I caused any offence, and hopefully we can move forward?


.
 
Appreciate the response and apology.

Let's get back to oversized undies then.....

We should really take apart and revisit the significance of Patsy Ramsey/the Ramseys producing that package of underwear all those years later with the Wednesdays missing (irrelevant if it is the exact pkg. or not).

I do believe it solidifies their involvement.

How can anyone ignore all that that means to the case, when taken with the circumstances, their own words, what theories that eliminates, etc.

And what's the word - it's more than arrogance - I need a word that describes profound arrogance and stupidity rolled into one - that also describes their own proclivity to think they are brilliant that their action in turning over this package somehow helped their case.

If I were the investigator, police, or whomever that received that package from them, I would know in that moment what I thought I knew, and be dumbfounded that the Ramseys themselves would not know all the pieces of the puzzle handing that package over would put into place.

How could they think that handing it over means, 'oh here, this why you didn't find the package, silly us, but we are still innocent?

It means everything.

Perhaps the word I'm looking for is hubris?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
92
Guests online
152
Total visitors
244

Forum statistics

Threads
608,639
Messages
18,242,779
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top