Was Burke Involved # 5

[UKGuy]

I was PDI at the beginning.

Knowing only an article, BDI, PDI mostly in it and few additional facts.
Taking some medicines and stressing herself in so many aspects...

BDI theories stink for me. I put my time in this case because of BDIs theories.
I said reasons why I am against BDI to Jameson and I hope this stinking source is not the only reason BDI arrived in this case.

archieil,
I used to be JDI, then PDI since Patsy's has forensic evidence linking to her all over the wine-cellar crime-scene. I now think that's because Patsy was staging to hide any links to BR.

The case could be PDI, JDI , BDI or IDI. There is no Smoking Gun, but its more likely to be RDI than IDI. We have ruled IDI out on this forum, i.e. its a waste of time discussing a theory with zero probability.

BDI is the theory that is the current flavor of the month, and if BR loses his litigation case against CBS, BDI will be all over the media with TV reruns and Spitz, et al doing interviews, so brace yourself.

.

 

[Deleted member 172065]

archieil,
Sure, could also be a plot from a Ken Kesey novel where someone has taken too much Acid, or a Charles Manson conspiracy from behind bars, you should read Helter Skelter. lots of clues in that book.

Some people think Patsy was mentally unhinged and a combination of stress and pill popping pushed her over the edge, even acting out some internal fantasy whereby JonBenet became a sacrificial lamb, in the Christian sense?

.

'In the Christian sense' --
In the Christian religion there is only one who is considered a sacrificial lamb. I think you know what I mean. Anyways, I suppose people probably could cook up any scenario if they are off a little bit or a big bit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

'In the Christian sense' --
In the Christian religion there is only one who is considered a sacrificial lamb. I think you know what I mean. Anyways, I suppose people probably could cook up any scenario if they are off a little bit or a big bit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Aydrianna523,
You are very likely right, especially if you attend seminary lectures, and like your theology neat with no exceptions. I am using Sacrificial Lamb in the Scapegoat sense.

From memory Sacrificial Lamb was a theological motif introduced to complement the goat motif in the Scapegoat scenario, or Shepherd to Flock, etc.

If you check the development of the depiction of Christ in art you can see this a linear progression from Adonis Youth to Hermaphrodite Youth, in the classical Greek style, to Man with Beard, onto Shepherd with Lamb, etc in the later Latin style.

Some have suggested Patsy's literary education, childhood trauma, marriage to JR, pill popping, stress all contributed to her flipping out and using motifs from The Prime of Jean Brodie, e.g. color purple, etc to justify killing JonBenet, although she might have been rationalising this as saving JonBenet from a darker fate, so her sacrifice is for the general good?

In short Patsy might have had some mental disorder, untreated from childhood, which developed into paranoid delusions in which JonBenet must be saved?

.

 

[Ambitioned]

Aydrianna523,
although she might have been rationalising this as saving JonBenet from a darker fate, so her sacrifice is for the general good?

In short Patsy might have had some mental disorder, untreated from childhood, which developed into paranoid delusions in which JonBenet must be saved?

.

Very possible.

She did make a statement about "at least JB won't have cancer." (para here) This struck me as bizarre. Most mothers would be talking about how much they miss their daughter and all the things they're missing out on (graduation, boyfriend, etc)

 

[UKGuy]

Very possible.

She did make a statement about "at least JB won't have cancer." (para here) This struck me as bizarre. Most mothers would be talking about how much they miss their daughter and all the things they're missing out on (graduation, boyfriend, etc)

Ambitioned,
I agree, that outline is roughly how I would structure a PDI. Patsy was under pressure to portray herself as the successful wife, etc. JR was 13 years older than her, so I reckon you have the trophy wife syndrome here, with Patsy out of her depth, and not a lot, bar her looks, to fall back on?

She was likely stressed out with Christmas organization, vacation details, packing, not to neglect her cancer treatment, all played a part in her needing pills to chill out. She might even have been self medicating, or addicted, some of her domestic behaviour makes you wonder if she just forgot because she was regulary on a pill induced high?

Some of LHP's remarks regarding Patsy's intimacy with JR tells me there was a tension there. It was not all sweetness and light as Patsy might lead us to believe.

.

 

[BBB167893]

Are you serious? You expect for someone going through the process of dying from end-stage cancer to be focused on anything other than simply getting through to the next day or the next hour?

Speaking from experience with my mother, she couldn't even speak those last few days.

 

[Deleted member 172065]

Aydrianna523,
You are very likely right, especially if you attend seminary lectures, and like your theology neat with no exceptions. I am using Sacrificial Lamb in the Scapegoat sense.

From memory Sacrificial Lamb was a theological motif introduced to complement the goat motif in the Scapegoat scenario, or Shepherd to Flock, etc.

If you check the development of the depiction of Christ in art you can see this a linear progression from Adonis Youth to Hermaphrodite Youth, in the classical Greek style, to Man with Beard, onto Shepherd with Lamb, etc in the later Latin style.

Some have suggested Patsy's literary education, childhood trauma, marriage to JR, pill popping, stress all contributed to her flipping out and using motifs from The Prime of Jean Brodie, e.g. color purple, etc to justify killing JonBenet, although she might have been rationalising this as saving JonBenet from a darker fate, so her sacrifice is for the general good?

In short Patsy might have had some mental disorder, untreated from childhood, which developed into paranoid delusions in which JonBenet must be saved?

.

Sounds complicated. Sacrificial lambs were actual lambs in the OT. In the NT depicted as Christ.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[questfortrue]

I probably shouldn't touch the subject of DNA (rimshot:giggle because I really don't know enough about it to feel comfortable with it. However, in reading the BODE report on the nightgown, I think Patsy was excluded because of the wording in the report.

There were four samples taken from the nightgown. Three of them were apparently not sufficient to "include or exclude" anyone whose DNA they compared it to. But one sample (2S07-101-07A, the exterior and interior of the bottom front of the nightgown) was good enough to get at least two "hits." Here is the exact wording:

The DNA profile obtained from sample 2S07-101-07A contains a mixture of at least two individuals including the victim and at least one male contributor. The individuals associated with samples John B. Ramsey, John Andrew Ramsey, and Melinda Ramsey are excluded as possible contributors to the mixture profile obtained from sample 2S07-101-07A. The individuals associated with Burke Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey cannot be excluded as possible contributors to the mixture DNA profile obtained from sample 2S07-101-07A.
​

As I read this, one of the two individuals in the DNA sample is the victim (JonBenet would be expected since she had worn it at some time). The other portion of the mixture belongs to a male. In the male portion, they were able to exclude John, John Andrew, and Melinda (as matching the DNA profile). Patsy and Burke could not be excluded as the contributor to the sample. IOW their DNA profiles came close to the one found in the sample, but not enough to say it definitely belonged to either one. But here's the part some overlook: They have already said it belonged to a "male contributor" -- and that would exclude Pasty.

Actually, I wouldn't have been surprised to find that Patsy's or Linda H-P's DNA was on it, considering that one of them might have taken it out of the dryer and folded it. Perhaps it's a matter of where the sample was taken. That area (or the other sampled areas) might not have been touched when folding it (if it had been folded). Investigators took the samples where they thought it most likely an assailant might have touched it. The bottom front of her nightgown had JonBenet's and Burke's DNA on it. As they say: Do the math.

A slight correction to your post about the nightgown DNA. The description of the nightgown DNA was weak in all but one of the samples; the weak verbiage neither excluded nor included BR and PR. However, the language for the DNA on the hem sample was somewhat stronger. That sample indicated that it included the victim (JonBenét), a male (thought to be BR based on his allele sample), and another contribution by someone else, (in this case thought to be Patsy). The reason for that conclusion is that there were too many differing alleles at one of the loci, for it to be only JonBenét and a male, i.e., BR.

If I am understanding the terminology of DNA reporting, when it is stated that Person A and Person B cannot be included or excluded, the results are inconclusive. As I said in the above paragraph the nightgown hem had stronger language. Bode stated that BR and PR could not be excluded as contributors to that sample of DNA on the hem of the nightgown. (JR was excluded, as was JAR and daughter MR.)

Often a lab will provide statistical frequencies regarding the rarity of the particular set of genetic information observed in the unknown evidence sample as compared to the DNA extracted from a general database. In this case they determined that the probability that this DNA belonged to an unknown person was 1 in 50,000 in the Caucasian Population; 1 in 220,000 in the US African Population; 1 in 43,000 in the US SW Hispanic Population and 1 in 58,000 in the SE Hispanic Population.

No smoking gun just probabilities that it is most likely the DNA of BR and PR. Where have we seen this combo before? Oh yeah, prints on the bowl of pineapple. But she explained that whole bowl of pineapple, humongous spoon and the glass of tea was just not her setup. A real gift for denial . When confronted with any forensic evidence PR was always able to rely on, “There’s someone out there!”

 

[otg]

A slight correction to your post about the nightgown DNA.

Thanks, quest. Maybe I should've stopped after my first sentence.

I've always maintained my lack of knowledge about the DNA aspects of this case. It just seemed to me that by parsing the wording in the Bode lab reports, Patsy could be excluded as the other contributor. Especially considering the weakness of the other samples, I guess the one they got the best results from (2s07-101-07a) might still be weak, but just strong enough to get acceptable indications. Thanks again for the correction.

Since the only DNA found belongs to people who lived in the house, it can all be dismissed as explainable by reasons other than being associated with the crime. But would I be correct (anyone, anyone, Beuler?) in thinking that Burke's DNA on the hem of the nightgown would exclude the probability of the nightgown having come directly from the clothes dryer because of static cling? (I really don't think Patsy had him helping with the laundry. She didn't even make him pick up his clothes from the floor or flush the damn toilet.)

 

[Deleted member 172065]

Thanks, quest. Maybe I should've stopped after my first sentence.

I've always maintained my lack of knowledge about the DNA aspects of this case. It just seemed to me that by parsing the wording in the Bode lab reports, Patsy could be excluded as the other contributor. Especially considering the weakness of the other samples, I guess the one they got the best results from (2s07-101-07a) might still be weak, but just strong enough to get acceptable indications. Thanks again for the correction.

Since the only DNA found belongs to people who lived in the house, it can all be dismissed as explainable by reasons other than being associated with the crime. But would I be correct (anyone, anyone, Beuler?) in thinking that Burke's DNA on the hem of the nightgown would exclude the probability of the nightgown having come directly from the clothes dryer because of static cling? (I really don't think Patsy had him helping with the laundry. She didn't even make him pick up his clothes from the floor or flush the damn toilet.)

I don't understand why such little DNA.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

Thanks, quest. Maybe I should've stopped after my first sentence.

I've always maintained my lack of knowledge about the DNA aspects of this case. It just seemed to me that by parsing the wording in the Bode lab reports, Patsy could be excluded as the other contributor. Especially considering the weakness of the other samples, I guess the one they got the best results from (2s07-101-07a) might still be weak, but just strong enough to get acceptable indications. Thanks again for the correction.

Since the only DNA found belongs to people who lived in the house, it can all be dismissed as explainable by reasons other than being associated with the crime. But would I be correct (anyone, anyone, Beuler?) in thinking that Burke's DNA on the hem of the nightgown would exclude the probability of the nightgown having come directly from the clothes dryer because of static cling? (I really don't think Patsy had him helping with the laundry. She didn't even make him pick up his clothes from the floor or flush the damn toilet.)

otg,
Much as I would like otherwise, the dna could survive a spin in the washing machine. Static cling is a just so story, someones rationalization, nobody is going to fake a crime-sene and allow static cling to arrive on board.


Burke's dna and JonBenet's bloodstain suggest proximity, something only explained via a homicide scenario.

Occam says Burke and JonBenet were in contact in her bedroom ...


.

 

[otg]

otg,
Much as I would like otherwise, the dna could survive a spin in the washing machine. Static cling is a just so story, someones rationalization, nobody is going to fake a crime-sene and allow static cling to arrive on board.


Burke's dna and JonBenet's bloodstain suggest proximity, something only explained via a homicide scenario.

Occam says Burke and JonBenet were in contact in her bedroom ...

How does JonBenet's blood and Burke's tDNA on her nightgown suggest proximity to her bedroom; and even more, how is it "only explained via a homicide scenario?"

 

[otg]

I don't understand why such little DNA.

"Touch" DNA. The method of collection allows them to pick up fewer cells than current technology is able to accurately analyze (IMO). But someone with more knowledge biggrin might be able to give a better explanation.

 

[UKGuy]

How does JonBenet's blood and Burke's tDNA on her nightgown suggest proximity to her bedroom; and even more, how is it "only explained via a homicide scenario?"

otg,
Because there is a bloodstain on the pillow case located as I understand in JonBenet's bedroom.

There were two bloodstains on the Pink Nightgown and two bloodstains on her White Gap Top. Also there were blodstains on the white blanket, JonBenet's underwear and person.

You also have BR's touch-dna as being as located on the Pink Nightgown.

Make of that as you wish?

Me, I reckon JonBenet, i.e. source of the blood was in contact with the pillow case, nightgown, white top, underwear, and blanket.

The common factor is the blood and with one item being sourced from her bedroom, so it appears JonBenet might have gone to bed wearing the pink nightgown, but was changed into the white top and Burke's long johns so to match the R's version of events?

All this staging simply caused forensic transfer and in the case of the pillow case confirmation that she was probably initially assaulted in her bedroom?

Every human cell contains a complete genome, i.e. all the genetic information required for making a baby and discounting copying errors they are all nearly identical.

All that is needed to identify a person is one of their cells, but more are normally used to create profiles and increase the confidence in the testing procedure.

Touch-Dna now more commonly known as trace-dna since it can easily be transferred between people and the objects they touch, this includes the objects themselves, e.g. washing machine.

This means no firm conclusions can be derived from knowing BR's touch-dna is present on JonBenet's nightgown. It simply links him to the wine-cellar

What has not been released is the results of any other dna tests which might show trace-dna originating from BR on either JonBenet's body or her clothing, e.g. think long johns. Nice cover move maybe?

.

 

[icedtea4me]

If I recall correctly, Burke's t-dna was said to be on the bottom front of JonBenet's pink Barbie nightgown. I believe that she may have had some difficulty getting the nightgown on over her head and may have asked Burke to help her. He then grabbed the nightgown at the bottom front and pulled it down.

 

[BoldBear]

John's, Patsy's, Burke's, JB's and LHP's tDNA are expected to be everywhere throughout the house. It can even be on freshly laundered garments. If they live in the home or work there, tDNA means next to nothing. It is everywhere and can be transferred. Even if they find someone's tDNA who has never been in the home, it can come from a transfer.

 

[UKGuy]

John's, Patsy's, Burke's, JB's and LHP's tDNA are expected to be everywhere throughout the house. It can even be on freshly laundered garments. If they live in the home or work there, tDNA means next to nothing. It is everywhere and can be transferred. Even if they find someone's tDNA who has never been in the home, it can come from a transfer.

BoldBear.

tDNA means next to nothing.

BBM: Not quite. Since you do not expect to find a persons touch-dna on a specific object at a crime-scene, e.g. JonBenet's genitals. Just as Patsy's fibers link her directly to the wine-cellar and similarly for JR via his black shirt, then BR's touch-dna on the nightgown link him in the same manner.

Also we are not being told about any other dna discoveries, or the distribution, say on JonBenet's body. We also have a Get Out Of Jail Card for BR as Patsy redressed JonBenet in a pair of his long johns, thus likely transferring lots of his touch-dna, i.e. he has plausible deniability, and we have a rationale for Patsy dressing JonBenet in such a manner.

The current state of play suggests the Ramseys might have been much more forensically aware than we gave them credit for?

.
.

 

[BoldBear]

BoldBear.


BBM: Not quite. Since you do not expect to find a persons touch-dna on a specific object at a crime-scene, e.g. JonBenet's genitals. Just as Patsy's fibers link her directly to the wine-cellar and similarly for JR via his black shirt, then BR's touch-dna on the nightgown link him in the same manner.

Also we are not being told about any other dna discoveries, or the distribution, say on JonBenet's body. We also have a Get Out Of Jail Card for BR as Patsy redressed JonBenet in a pair of his long johns, thus likely transferring lots of his touch-dna, i.e. he has plausible deniability, and we have a rationale for Patsy dressing JonBenet in such a manner.

The current state of play suggests the Ramseys might have been much more forensically aware than we gave them credit for?

.
.

You and I will have to disagree on this point. tDNA is everywhere. It doesn't all come out in the wash, but gets mixed in with the clothing. It gets washed through the clothing. Some does rinse out, but not all of it. You use the example of JB's genitals, but it can be transferred onto any surface. It doesn't make any distinctions about where it goes. We're talking about something that's basically the size of a few skin cells. It's everywhere. Take an article of clothing, brush it against a surface and you've just transferred particles from the surface to the article of clothing. The reverse also works. It can come from an article of clothing to whatever surface you brush it against.

I agree that we're not being told about any new DNA discoveries. We're all in the dark on that one.

Seriously, we slough off about 30,000 to 40,000 skin cells every minute. You leave your tDNA absolutely everywhere. Your skin cells travel as dust too so they travel through the air. tDNA from the family is expected to be found on everything in the house.

 

[otg]

otg,
Because there is a bloodstain on the pillow case located as I understand in JonBenet's bedroom.

I’m not certain which pillow or its location when they were asking Patsy about it in her 1998 interview. Here is the only questioning that was the basis for our belief that there was blood on her pillow:

0425
16 TOM HANEY: That is 73, 74, 75, and 76 now.
17 PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible).
18 TOM HANEY: That I couldn't tell you right at
19 this moment. Do you remember any staining on that
20 pillow the night you put her to bed?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: No. It was dark in there, you
22 know.
​

...and later:

0428

15 TRIP DEMUTH: Did JonBenet ever have nose
16 bleeds at night?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Not that I remember.
18 Sometimes she might pick her nose, maybe cause it to
19 bleed, but she wouldn't have one of those, you know,
20 dry, you know, to hold her head back kind of thing.
​

Because of our lack of knowledge about the amount of blood on the pillow, I asked Kolar for clarification about it in his AMA. Here is the question and his answer (https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/30nfvc/hi_im_chief_marshall_james_kolar_ama/):

Q: Because of a line of questioning in one of Patsy Ramsey’s police interviews, there is speculation about blood on JonBenet’s pillow. Is this just a small smear (like from wiping her nose), or is there an actual blood stain as might be expected from some type of injury?

A: My apologies, but in some instances it has been years since I reviewed information about specific topics or evidence and my memory is a little vague in some areas. With that qualifier, it is my recollection that any blood observed on her pillow was minimal and not attributable to an ‘injury.’ For sake of clarification, the only bleeding sustained from an injury was due to the vaginal intrusion. The blow to JBR’s head did not break the scalp and there was no exterior bleeding from that wound. Further, the coroner made no mention of an injury to her nose, or nasal bleeding. Draw your own conclusions.
​

As Kolar suggested, “Draw your own conclusions.” For myself, I can’t; so I’ll choose not to base any theories on it. I’ll just hold on to it as a possibility.

There were two bloodstains on the Pink Nightgown and two bloodstains on her White Gap Top. Also there were blodstains on the white blanket, JonBenet's underwear and person.

That’s pretty much my understanding also, but I’m not sure where you got the information that there were two bloodstains on the nightgown. The photo of it shows about a half dozen cutouts that were tested before it was retested by Bode for tDNA. To me, it looks like it might even have a couple of bloodspots that were not cut out:

But (IMO) not knowing when they happened doesn’t make it possible to attribute them to a location.

You also have BR's touch-dna as being as located on the Pink Nightgown.

Make of that as you wish?

I do, but I still don’t know where he was located when he deposited it.

Me, I reckon JonBenet, i.e. source of the blood was in contact with the pillow case, nightgown, white top, underwear, and blanket.

For the reasons given above, I can’t include the pillowcase. I also consider that the source of the blood on her legs and panties might be different from that found on her white top. and blanket.

The common factor is the blood and with one item being sourced from her bedroom, so it appears JonBenet might have gone to bed wearing the pink nightgown, but was changed into the white top and Burke's long johns so to match the R's version of events?

You’re connecting her pillow as being sourced from her bedroom? Ordinarily that would be a good (but not conclusive) assumption. We know there was at least one pillow that seemed to have been moved around on the morning while BPD and half of Boulder was in the house before her body was found.

All this staging simply caused forensic transfer and in the case of the pillow case confirmation that she was probably initially assaulted in her bedroom?

I simply disagree because of too many unknowns.

Every human cell contains a complete genome, i.e. all the genetic information required for making a baby and discounting copying errors they are all nearly identical.

All that is needed to identify a person is one of their cells, but more are normally used to create profiles and increase the confidence in the testing procedure.

(Here we go again into an area I don’t feel comfortable with because of my lack of knowledge.) If only one cell is needed, why such difficulty in getting complete profiles of individuals?

Touch-Dna now more commonly known as trace-dna since it can easily be transferred between people and the objects they touch, this includes the objects themselves, e.g. washing machine.

This means no firm conclusions can be derived from knowing BR's touch-dna is present on JonBenet's nightgown. It simply links him to the wine-cellar

Actually I think it just links him to the nightgown -- regardless of where it, she, or he were at the time of the transfer.

What has not been released is the results of any other dna tests which might show trace-dna originating from BR on either JonBenet's body or her clothing, e.g. think long johns. Nice cover move maybe?

Like everyone else, I’m looking forward to any information they might release as a result of the additional testing. I just wonder if they will release everything they find.

 

[Jennifer17]

Read just about everything and I am still PDI.