The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[vlpate]

Yeah, it's me. I was briefly confused. After 10 years of this, it happens.



I'm with you on that one.



It's a troublesome field, I grant you. But I'm glad you decided to tune in, Smelly Squirrel. I know some people who probably refused.



It's tough, all right.



Absolutely I can!

The reference to wanting the reports and being refused because of Grand Jury secrecy laws was taken from an exchange between Darnay Hoffman and Lin Wood during John Ramsey's 2001 deposition (it's right before Wood's infamous bragging about how much money he's made off this case). Wood says in it that Haddon turned him down because of the Grand Jury secrecy laws, but now ("now" being December 2001) that the GJ Secrecy law has been struck down, he'd be only too happy to get those reports and shut Hoffman up.

That didn't happen, and we know it didn't happen, because as late as 2006, Hoffman stated publically that Haddon was STILL refusing. He stated this on Bill O'Reilly's TV show in August 2006.

Does that help?

Here you go:

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9939"]http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9939[/ame]

4 And so for the purposes of this
5 record, I would indicate that that might not be
6 available to counsel.
7 MR. WOOD: I have asked Hal Haddon
8 since that ruling to produce those for me, and he
9 declined.

 

[BBB167893]

Here you go:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9939

4 And so for the purposes of this
5 record, I would indicate that that might not be
6 available to counsel.
7 MR. WOOD: I have asked Hal Haddon
8 since that ruling to produce those for me, and he
9 declined.

You're a gem, vlpate!

 

[runsdeep]

Unforunately I don't think we'll ever know the truth. Especially since PR is no longer here.

similar enough to the anthony case. we wont know what went down, but a little girl is dead (this one's last moments horrible) and the parents were evasive and deceptive about it. PR and JR can be anywhere between guilty of cover-up to murder.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

They can also be completely innocent.

 

[DeeDee249]

They can also be completely innocent.

Certainly that is possible, But it isn't probable. Their behavior after the murder, stemming from that first ADMITTED phone call from JR to his lawyer/friend, along with their stonewalling and all the rest of it tells me they know something- they know what happened, and they at the very least covered it up.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

You mean the phone call that another friend recommended after seeing the LE attitude? Hm, don't see how "they know what happened" follows from that.

How about how John Ramsey gave the ransom note notepad to LE himself? Does that indicate knowledge of what happened?

Observers who claim they know for a fact what happened in this case or who's responsible are fooling themselves.

 

[DeeDee249]

You mean the phone call that another friend recommended after seeing the LE attitude? Hm, don't see how "they know what happened" follows from that.

How about how John Ramsey gave the ransom note notepad to LE himself? Does that indicate knowledge of what happened?

Observers who claim they know for a fact what happened in this case or who's responsible are fooling themselves.

I don't think anyone can say they know for a fact exactly what happened. BUT there are some things that ARE known facts. There is no known evidence of an intruder. The DNA is skin cells and as such may have come from a source unrelated to the crime. That is a fact. The DNA IS SKIN CELLS. Easily transferrable. We all have them on us and our clothing every day. Our own and other people's skin cells, some of whom we may not even have had primary contact with ourselves- that is how easily skin cells transfer from one person to another- via actual contact OR transferred from an item one person touched to the hand of another person who touched the same item. The Rs were in a very social situation that day- a gathering with plenty of males not related to them. Many of these males were never tested against that male DNA (the male children at the party). Male DNA does not mean ADULT male DNA. It merely means male DNA, especially since it is skin cells. Had it been semen we would at least presume it came from a male who had reached puberty.
But the skin cells alone do not and can not prove an intruder. A donor MUST be identified BY NAME and must be someone known to have been in Boulder at the time of the crime. And even then, since the cells appear ONLY on the clothing found on the body, there is a chance that the donor may have been someone the stager or killer had contact with that day (or even that they touched the same item) and not have anything to do with the crime.
Without the male DNA linking someone, the intruder theory has nothing. There simply is no other evidence.

 

[BBB167893]

How about how John Ramsey gave the ransom note notepad to LE himself? Does that indicate knowledge of what happened?

Interesting question. Are you interested in hearing some answers?

 

[Junebug99]

The DNA in her underwear was not touch DNA, they think it was salvia. If a factory worker sneezed, why would their skin cells be on the side of JBR's long johns, right where someone would grab them to pull them down? And also end up under her fingernails? Dont say contamination in the coronors office or police department, they have been tested. Idi theories obviously have some merit, the Ramseys have been exonerated and apologized to, there is absolutely evidence of an intruder, some people choose to ignore it.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Interesting question. Are you interested in hearing some answers?

Dave, it was a rhetorical question, because the obvious answer is it indicates he had no idea the pad was used for the RN. But this is a discussion forum, you can give give whatever opinion you want.

 

[UKGuy]

The DNA in her underwear was not touch DNA, they think it was salvia. If a factory worker sneezed, why would their skin cells be on the side of JBR's long johns, right where someone would grab them to pull them down? And also end up under her fingernails? Dont say contamination in the coronors office or police department, they have been tested. Idi theories obviously have some merit, the Ramseys have been exonerated and apologized to, there is absolutely evidence of an intruder, some people choose to ignore it.

Junebug99,

The DNA in her underwear was not touch DNA, they think it was salvia.

Who thinks? And do you have source to back up your claim?

Biologically saliva cells are different from skin cells so can be easily typed.

You might think Team Ramsey would be shouting Saliva from the rooftops, it has the same significance as a Semen deposit, why have we heard nothing?


Nice try, but it does not fly!


.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't think anyone can say they know for a fact exactly what happened. BUT there are some things that ARE known facts. There is no known evidence of an intruder. The DNA is skin cells and as such may have come from a source unrelated to the crime. That is a fact. The DNA IS SKIN CELLS. Easily transferrable. We all have them on us and our clothing every day. Our own and other people's skin cells, some of whom we may not even have had primary contact with ourselves- that is how easily skin cells transfer from one person to another- via actual contact OR transferred from an item one person touched to the hand of another person who touched the same item. The Rs were in a very social situation that day- a gathering with plenty of males not related to them. Many of these males were never tested against that male DNA (the male children at the party). Male DNA does not mean ADULT male DNA. It merely means male DNA, especially since it is skin cells. Had it been semen we would at least presume it came from a male who had reached puberty.
But the skin cells alone do not and can not prove an intruder. A donor MUST be identified BY NAME and must be someone known to have been in Boulder at the time of the crime. And even then, since the cells appear ONLY on the clothing found on the body, there is a chance that the donor may have been someone the stager or killer had contact with that day (or even that they touched the same item) and not have anything to do with the crime.
Without the male DNA linking someone, the intruder theory has nothing. There simply is no other evidence.

DeeDee249,

There is no known evidence of an intruder.

Exactly, absolutely nothing e.g. Zero.

Although there is touch-dna on JonBenet's clothing here is no touch-dna on any of the artifacts used in her killing, assuming they have all been tested.

Also we have not been told if there is any Ramsey touch-dna on JonBenet's clothing. And if so, which items? I reckon John's touch-dna should not be on her size-12's.

Is there any Ramsey touch-dna on the artifacts used to kill JonBenet, since if they were brought into the house, presumably they should be free of certain Ramsey touch-dna, barring cross-contamination?

You think the intruder was trying to frame John by wearing a black Israeli shirt after inadvertently leaving those black fibers on JonBenet's gential area?


All this talk about exoneration, which is a religious term anyway, not a civil legal term is patent nonsense. Makes you wonder how thick the brown envelope was that exchanged pro quid pro?


Just like to mention again the Ramsey claim about the DNA plays on the fallacy that touch-dna and DNA are equivalent in biological terms!



.
.

 

[DeeDee249]

The DNA in her underwear was not touch DNA, they think it was salvia. If a factory worker sneezed, why would their skin cells be on the side of JBR's long johns, right where someone would grab them to pull them down? And also end up under her fingernails? Dont say contamination in the coronors office or police department, they have been tested. Idi theories obviously have some merit, the Ramseys have been exonerated and apologized to, there is absolutely evidence of an intruder, some people choose to ignore it.

"They think".... is not the same as "they KNOW". They have the ability to know. And maybe they do know. But it has never been stated as fact by LE or any other investigatory agency that it was saliva.
I refuse to even mention the fingernail DNA for the reason that it must be completely disregarded. And it did not match the other DNA. The male DNA was found in two places- the waistband of the panties and the longjohns.

 

[Junebug99]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/23/earlyshow/living/main662681.shtml

Dee Dee, you keep denying the Dna under the fingernails matched, it absolutely matched.
Read the link above, it states it very clearly........

 

[Junebug99]

Police have never matched DNA found in JonBenet's underwear, thought to be a mix of her blood and the saliva of a white male, to any suspect in the case. Members of the Ramsey family, initially suspects in the killing, have been eliminated as having left the DNA.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200608/31/eng20060831_298460.html

 

[Junebug99]

From the link I provided for Dee Dee:

Augustin and Gray, private detectives hired by John and Patsy Ramsey in 1999, are convinced the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails.

 

[DeeDee249]

From the link I provided for Dee Dee:

Augustin and Gray, private detectives hired by John and Patsy Ramsey in 1999, are convinced the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails.

Your first sentence says it all. Private detectives hired by the Ramseys
are "convinced". Being "convinced" doesn't mean you have PROVED it. The FACT is that the coroner used unsterile clippers, and had this case gone to trial the fingernail DNA would not be allowed as evidence.
NO LE source involved in this case has identified the male DNA as saliva. Your own link said "though to be saliva". Then JMK goes on to say how "his saliva" got there. Except it wasn't HIS DNA and it wasn't his saliva and it wasn't saliva.
It was NEVER PROVED to be saliva.

 

[UKGuy]

Your first sentence says it all. Private detectives hired by the Ramseys
are "convinced". Being "convinced" doesn't mean you have PROVED it. The FACT is that the coroner used unsterile clippers, and had this case gone to trial the fingernail DNA would not be allowed as evidence.
NO LE source involved in this case has identified the male DNA as saliva. Your own link said "though to be saliva". Then JMK goes on to say how "his saliva" got there. Except it wasn't HIS DNA and it wasn't his saliva and it wasn't saliva.
It was NEVER PROVED to be saliva.

DeeDee249,

NO LE source involved in this case has identified the male DNA as saliva. Your own link said "though to be saliva". Then JMK goes on to say how "his saliva" got there. Except it wasn't HIS DNA and it wasn't his saliva and it wasn't saliva.
It was NEVER PROVED to be saliva.

Yo, no Saliva! The IDI protagonist has gone from DNA to touch-dna and on to Saliva DNA.

We all know there will never be a coherent IDI theory until someone external to the Ramsey house is identified as a suspect.

This is not a DNA case its a sexually motivated homicide with garnishings of staging.

I doubt John Ramsey will be reading, since he is probably honey-mooning in Acapulca or Brazil with his new concubine. Prior to marrying I wonder if he stayed in strange hotels and made frequent requests for exotic room service?


.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Going over some old replies I hadn't replied to...

Absolutely I can!

The reference to wanting the reports and being refused because of Grand Jury secrecy laws was taken from an exchange between Darnay Hoffman and Lin Wood during John Ramsey's 2001 deposition (it's right before Wood's infamous bragging about how much money he's made off this case). Wood says in it that Haddon turned him down because of the Grand Jury secrecy laws, but now ("now" being December 2001) that the GJ Secrecy law has been struck down, he'd be only too happy to get those reports and shut Hoffman up.

That didn't happen, and we know it didn't happen, because as late as 2006, Hoffman stated publically that Haddon was STILL refusing. He stated this on Bill O'Reilly's TV show in August 2006.

Does that help?

Dave, are you saying the reports don't exist or they didn't have those conclusions or they were all flawed reports?

I really don't see a reason to doubt that they say what's stated in Carne's ruling. Hoffman appeared to accept those opinions as stated as fact. Hunter also gave the same description of the experts as well. I don't understand the suspicion about the description of these reports, especially considering handwriting analysis isn't the most precise science, if a science.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I don't think anyone can say they know for a fact exactly what happened. BUT there are some things that ARE known facts. There is no known evidence of an intruder.

That is simply false. There is evidence of an intruder (open basement window, glass on suitcase, leaves and packing peanuts inside, kitchen door open, no duct tape roll found). None of this is conclusive evidence, but it is evidence indicating an intruder may have entered the house that night. There is also the unidentified DNA.

If you want "evidence" to mean only "conclusive evidence" (but it doesn't normally) then by that standard there is no "evidence" the Ramsey's killed Jonbenet.

The DNA is skin cells and as such may have come from a source unrelated to the crime. That is a fact.

Of course it may have, but it may have also come from the killer (which I think is more likely because it was found in multiple locations). The only reason to discount the DNA, or any other evidence that can point to an intruder, is if there were iron clad evidence a Ramsey did it. We don't have that iron clad evidence, neither singly nor in the totality of the evidence. That's why they haven't been tried.

To handwave away the DNA as though it's irrelevant is not good detective work.