Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[Ellie9]

If you read in PMPT that there were two different, distinct DNA samples obtained from the panties you better provide a quote and a page number because I think you are mistaken and as such are spreading false information. There were two blood spots, yes, but not two DNA samples.

"The CBI had already determined that the stain on JonBenét’s underpants—which appeared to be blood and turned out indeed to be blood—was not solely hers. A D1S80 DNA test showed that the stain came from at least two different sources." - Perfect Murder Perfect Town

This exactly three paragraphs after part two, the hatfields and the mccoys. I have this on EBook format and as such there are no page numbers.

Maybe they mean JB and 1 other person. That's possible! I don't have the Kolar book yet, I just read passages where I can online. Someone summed up his writing on the DNA evidence on this forum discussion: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...NA-revisited-in-light-of-James-Kolar%92s-book

According to this thread, which I found really helpful and a good overview, the DNA evidence comes from at least six unique people, excluding JB, and other Ramseys since they live in the house so it'd be everywhere anyway. I think the presence of six distinct profiles, small as they were, is proof enough that there are so many explanations for DNA. Also this forum link discusses the accuracy of the saliva test on the one sample. Basically it's up for debate on how sure they are that saliva enzymes were actually present, and how the test can produce false positives.

I am sorry about asking for non-DNA evidence - I saw you posted that before and I missed this post. I see it now. Not sure if this is the best evidence honestly.

Fibers and animal hairs are so easily transferred. Anyone with a cat for example can attest to their hair getting stuck to your clothes. Any guest at any time while they lived in the house could have brought in unique fibers and animal hair.

The idea that the R's couldn't have done a thing like this is just an opinion. We have no idea what people are capable of when it comes down to it.

The behaviour of the R's after the crime is evidence against them. They failed to work with the police and keep getting caught telling lies. For example, since we're on the subject of panties, PR kept saying she put those too-big-panties in JB's panty drawer. But investigators on the scene only found her regular size in there.

As for the ransom note, it matches almost exactly PR's handwriting. Also, after being 'under an umbrella of suspicion' PR reportedly changed the way she wrote the lowercase "a" and she changed her phrasing, styles, indentations, etc. None of the other R's did this.

Some behaviour does seem to fit IDI, though. PR was reportedly pointing out the flaws in the ransom note. For example she commented that John wasn't even from the south. I think this is interesting. It could be her trying to cover her tracks though. Especially if she realized how dumb the note was after seeing the cops look at it strangely.

Edit: Let me throw in the quote I most recently read which led me to believe (maybe wrongly) that the DNA in the panties was from two people that weren't JB.

"Further confounding the experts was the stain found on JonBenét’s panties, which was a mixture of DNA from two or more people. Here further testing was needed. The detectives were advised to take saliva swabs from possible suspects. The list of people to be tested in connection with the mixed DNA was long and included many of JonBenét’s playmates. If a match could be found, it might provide a simple explanation—for example, two children sharing the same underwear. In that case, an important door would be closed in the case: No defense attorney would be able to claim that the unidentified DNA found on the panties belonged to a unknown person—an intruder or stranger who might have killed JonBenét." - Perfect Murder Perfect Town, Chapter 30. (Bolding mine)

 

[InstantProof]

Some behaviour does seem to fit IDI, though. PR was reportedly pointing out the flaws in the ransom note. For example she commented that John wasn't even from the south. I think this is interesting. It could be her trying to cover her tracks though. Especially if she realized how dumb the note was after seeing the cops look at it strangely.

It seems like an intentional dig- you're not from the south and have no good sense. Husband and wife banter.

 

[Anti-K]

"The CBI had already determined that the stain on JonBenét’s underpants—which appeared to be blood and turned out indeed to be blood—was not solely hers. A D1S80 DNA test showed that the stain came from at least two different sources." - Perfect Murder Perfect Town

This exactly three paragraphs after part two, the hatfields and the mccoys. I have this on EBook format and as such there are no page numbers.

Maybe they mean JB and 1 other person. That's possible! I don't have the Kolar book yet, I just read passages where I can online. Someone summed up his writing on the DNA evidence on this forum discussion: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...NA-revisited-in-light-of-James-Kolar%92s-book

According to this thread, which I found really helpful and a good overview, the DNA evidence comes from at least six unique people, excluding JB, and other Ramseys since they live in the house so it'd be everywhere anyway. I think the presence of six distinct profiles, small as they were, is proof enough that there are so many explanations for DNA. Also this forum link discusses the accuracy of the saliva test on the one sample. Basically it's up for debate on how sure they are that saliva enzymes were actually present, and how the test can produce false positives.

I am sorry about asking for non-DNA evidence - I saw you posted that before and I missed this post. I see it now. Not sure if this is the best evidence honestly.

Fibers and animal hairs are so easily transferred. Anyone with a cat for example can attest to their hair getting stuck to your clothes. Any guest at any time while they lived in the house could have brought in unique fibers and animal hair.

The idea that the R's couldn't have done a thing like this is just an opinion. We have no idea what people are capable of when it comes down to it.

The behaviour of the R's after the crime is evidence against them. They failed to work with the police and keep getting caught telling lies. For example, since we're on the subject of panties, PR kept saying she put those too-big-panties in JB's panty drawer. But investigators on the scene only found her regular size in there.

As for the ransom note, it matches almost exactly PR's handwriting. Also, after being 'under an umbrella of suspicion' PR reportedly changed the way she wrote the lowercase "a" and she changed her phrasing, styles, indentations, etc. None of the other R's did this.

Some behaviour does seem to fit IDI, though. PR was reportedly pointing out the flaws in the ransom note. For example she commented that John wasn't even from the south. I think this is interesting. It could be her trying to cover her tracks though. Especially if she realized how dumb the note was after seeing the cops look at it strangely.

Edit: Let me throw in the quote I most recently read which led me to believe (maybe wrongly) that the DNA in the panties was from two people that weren't JB.

"Further confounding the experts was the stain found on JonBenét’s panties, which was a mixture of DNA from two or more people. Here further testing was needed. The detectives were advised to take saliva swabs from possible suspects. The list of people to be tested in connection with the mixed DNA was long and included many of JonBenét’s playmates. If a match could be found, it might provide a simple explanation—for example, two children sharing the same underwear. In that case, an important door would be closed in the case: No defense attorney would be able to claim that the unidentified DNA found on the panties belonged to a unknown person—an intruder or stranger who might have killed JonBenét." - Perfect Murder Perfect Town, Chapter 30. (Bolding mine)

Hi Ellie9
I have a pretty good understanding of the DNA evidence, and I have Kolar’s book. I find Kolar’s reasoning to be, at times, uh – not reasonable.

Anyway, thank you for the quotes. I also have PMPT in digital format. The samples being discussed here turned out to be from two sources, yes, that’s true. But, the primary source turned out to be Jonbenet. The unidentified, male DNA was commingled in her blood.

You’ve raised too many points for me to reply to all at once without risking going on so long that I begin to even bore myself! However…

Fiber/hair is fiber/hair and if one can be innocently transferred then it all can be innocently transferred and all fiber/hair evidence would forever be useless and btw bye-bye to any Ramsey fibers that you may believe in. The fiber/hair we are talking about were all found in incriminating locations like the victim’s hands, her genital area, the ligatures, the tape. This is trace evidence of the exact type that her killer may have left and it is in the exact locations where he could have left them. I don’t even know where to begin with this one, and I’m trying to keep things short, so, moving on…


I wonder if one of the fundamental differences between IDI and RDI might be the way that they view Ramsey post-crime behavior. Huge topic. IMO, the RDI interpretation of post crime behavior is heavily biased and does not adequately take into account alternative interpretations. but trying to keep it short…

For IDI, the ransom note is huge IDI evidence.

We’ll talk more. Thank you.
…

AK

 

[Ellie9]

Hi Ellie9
I have a pretty good understanding of the DNA evidence, and I have Kolar’s book. I find Kolar’s reasoning to be, at times, uh – not reasonable.

Anyway, thank you for the quotes. I also have PMPT in digital format. The samples being discussed here turned out to be from two sources, yes, that’s true. But, the primary source turned out to be Jonbenet. The unidentified, male DNA was commingled in her blood.

You’ve raised too many points for me to reply to all at once without risking going on so long that I begin to even bore myself! However…

Fiber/hair is fiber/hair and if one can be innocently transferred then it all can be innocently transferred and all fiber/hair evidence would forever be useless and btw bye-bye to any Ramsey fibers that you may believe in. The fiber/hair we are talking about were all found in incriminating locations like the victim’s hands, her genital area, the ligatures, the tape. This is trace evidence of the exact type that her killer may have left and it is in the exact locations where he could have left them. I don’t even know where to begin with this one, and I’m trying to keep things short, so, moving on…


I wonder if one of the fundamental differences between IDI and RDI might be the way that they view Ramsey post-crime behavior. Huge topic. IMO, the RDI interpretation of post crime behavior is heavily biased and does not adequately take into account alternative interpretations. but trying to keep it short…

For IDI, the ransom note is huge IDI evidence.

We’ll talk more. Thank you.
…

AK

Yes as I have been reading these quotes over, specifically focusing on the use of 'two' you're right in that it does seem to indicate they meant JB and at least one other male.

I wasn't aware unknown fibers were found in those locations (genitals, tape, etc.) This should be considered by all parties for sure. It should also be noted that fibers from Patsy's clothes were found on her and the tape. However, with 'in house' stuff it's so difficult, especially when John pulled the tape away before police got to the body, and then carried her. And then she was moved yet a third time, by a detective, I think? The shoddy police work (I believe it is anyway) works for both sides, however.

The ransom note might be where we disagree the very most. This is why I ask you or anyone else to please point me to a some good IDI ransom note threads. This ransom note seems like one of the top most incriminating pieces of evidence against the R's usually in the RDI discussions! For example, I'm sure you have seen this, but check out this post comparing samples from PR's writing and the ransom note. And this is just writing alone. Phrasing, punctuation, indentation, and other things are all used to form a cohesive big picture, and the comparisons between notes really seem to point the finger at Patsy.

In all honesty looking at that comparison, and the note as a whole compared to Patsy's stylistics, really makes it painfully obvious she wrote it. I'm just so unsure about what IDI see in this that doesn't point to PR? And of course with the ransom note, there were pages ripped out never recovered that apparently contained another long practice ransom note. I mean, this is huge. Whoever did this sure had a whole lot of time to spare without a single fear about someone finding him.

But I really do want your favourite link please, if you can, to your best ransom note analysis for IDI. Can be this forum, another, another analysis by an expert, anything. I'd truly enjoy a chance to see it from the other perspective in order to take everything in as a whole.

 

[UKGuy]

Hi Ellie9
I have a pretty good understanding of the DNA evidence, and I have Kolar’s book. I find Kolar’s reasoning to be, at times, uh – not reasonable.

Anyway, thank you for the quotes. I also have PMPT in digital format. The samples being discussed here turned out to be from two sources, yes, that’s true. But, the primary source turned out to be Jonbenet. The unidentified, male DNA was commingled in her blood.

You’ve raised too many points for me to reply to all at once without risking going on so long that I begin to even bore myself! However…

Fiber/hair is fiber/hair and if one can be innocently transferred then it all can be innocently transferred and all fiber/hair evidence would forever be useless and btw bye-bye to any Ramsey fibers that you may believe in. The fiber/hair we are talking about were all found in incriminating locations like the victim’s hands, her genital area, the ligatures, the tape. This is trace evidence of the exact type that her killer may have left and it is in the exact locations where he could have left them. I don’t even know where to begin with this one, and I’m trying to keep things short, so, moving on…


I wonder if one of the fundamental differences between IDI and RDI might be the way that they view Ramsey post-crime behavior. Huge topic. IMO, the RDI interpretation of post crime behavior is heavily biased and does not adequately take into account alternative interpretations. but trying to keep it short…

For IDI, the ransom note is huge IDI evidence.

We’ll talk more. Thank you.
…

AK

Anyway, thank you for the quotes. I also have PMPT in digital format. The samples being discussed here turned out to be from two sources, yes, that’s true. But, the primary source turned out to be Jonbenet. The unidentified, male DNA was commingled in her blood.

This quote: PMPT, Hard Back , pp184, 2nd chapter into Hatfields and the McCoys

"The CBI had already determined that the stain on JonBenét’s underpants—which appeared to be blood and turned out indeed to be blood—was not solely hers. A D1S80 DNA test showed that the stain came from at least two different sources." - Perfect Murder Perfect Town

CBI are citing blood not simply dna, is it possible that two samples of blood were mixed?


.

 

[Annapurna]

UKguy, as I've always understood it the stain is JB's blood plus unknown.

 

[Annapurna]

I agree Ellie9

I don't understand how anyone looking at those samples thinks they don't look similar. Painfully obvious is right. The R's hired their own experts. They were cleared (very nearly) extremely quickly. I have some trouble believing their impartiality. Handwriting experts are not usually studying handwriting that is disguised.

I guess it just depends where you're coming from but I truly see this as one of the mot damning pieces of evidence against PR. I guess if you're just sticking to your guns and doubling down on idi you'd want to deny that.

 

[Anti-K]

This quote: PMPT, Hard Back , pp184, 2nd chapter into Hatfields and the McCoys


CBI are citing blood not simply dna, is it possible that two samples of blood were mixed?


.

holy cow, you guys. The samples you’re all talking about is one part Jbr’s and one part, unknown male, probably saliva – this is the CODIS sample.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I agree Ellie9

I don't understand how anyone looking at those samples thinks they don't look similar. Painfully obvious is right. The R's hired their own experts. They were cleared (very nearly) extremely quickly. I have some trouble believing their impartiality. Handwriting experts are not usually studying handwriting that is disguised.

I guess it just depends where you're coming from but I truly see this as one of the mot damning pieces of evidence against PR. I guess if you're just sticking to your guns and doubling down on idi you'd want to deny that.

Because similarities are common and expected and normal to see. This is why experts are required and layperson’s opinions are useless.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Yes as I have been reading these quotes over, specifically focusing on the use of 'two' you're right in that it does seem to indicate they meant JB and at least one other male.

I wasn't aware unknown fibers were found in those locations (genitals, tape, etc.) This should be considered by all parties for sure. It should also be noted that fibers from Patsy's clothes were found on her and the tape. However, with 'in house' stuff it's so difficult, especially when John pulled the tape away before police got to the body, and then carried her. And then she was moved yet a third time, by a detective, I think? The shoddy police work (I believe it is anyway) works for both sides, however.

The ransom note might be where we disagree the very most. This is why I ask you or anyone else to please point me to a some good IDI ransom note threads. This ransom note seems like one of the top most incriminating pieces of evidence against the R's usually in the RDI discussions! For example, I'm sure you have seen this, but check out this post comparing samples from PR's writing and the ransom note. And this is just writing alone. Phrasing, punctuation, indentation, and other things are all used to form a cohesive big picture, and the comparisons between notes really seem to point the finger at Patsy.

In all honesty looking at that comparison, and the note as a whole compared to Patsy's stylistics, really makes it painfully obvious she wrote it. I'm just so unsure about what IDI see in this that doesn't point to PR? And of course with the ransom note, there were pages ripped out never recovered that apparently contained another long practice ransom note. I mean, this is huge. Whoever did this sure had a whole lot of time to spare without a single fear about someone finding him.

But I really do want your favourite link please, if you can, to your best ransom note analysis for IDI. Can be this forum, another, another analysis by an expert, anything. I'd truly enjoy a chance to see it from the other perspective in order to take everything in as a whole.

The handwriting is one area where things SHOULD be pretty clear as we have the Carnes report which went into this aspect of the evidence in great detail. Say what you want about Carnes, but it gave us the bottom line on the handwriting and it gave us Thomas vs Smit (Thomas lost, badly).

None of the experts deemed credible by the Court identified Mrs Ramsay as the author, and – this includes the BPD experts – the general consensus was that she did NOT write the note.

Yes, I know you can always find an expert or an RDI poster with a different opinion. But, it is a fact that the Court has spoken on THIS matter – Mrs Ramsey did not write the note.

I only know of two supposed linguistic experts that looked at the note. one was Foster – discredited and justifiably so. The only other, legitimate and respected forensic linguistic examiner that I know of who looked at the note was McMenamin who relates his methods and his findings in his book Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics. McMenamon is very clear about this – neither Ramsey had anything to do with writing this note.

You can read an excerpt from McMenamon here: http://tinyurl.com/jfzt9ml Also, if you can find it, Fisher’s “Forensics Under Fire” has a pretty decent chapter on the handwriting analysis, and, yes, that’s right – Mrs Ramsey is NOT identified as the author.

Of course, there are other reasons to disbelief that the Ramseys wrote that note. For example – and, I’ve said this many times – a kidnapping contradicts what, if RDI, the Ramseys needed to do: explain a dead body in the house. In fact, no person in the history of the planet in a similar position has ever done such a thing because it is a contradiction!

Other factors to consider are the length – this, if RDI, is self-created, self-incriminating evidence. even morons know to keep things like this short. They handed the notepad over to the cops, didn’t even try to hide it (never mind that if RDI, they could have written it on something more difficult to trace to the house. but, wait, oh yeah! if RDI, they wouldn’t have written it to begin with).

The ransom note is one (of a few) pieces of evidence where the RDI case is overstated and grossly exaggerated. The evidence simply does not support their position. Facts are facts.

BTW, you can read my own take on the ransom note here (iirc, a 4 part post): http://tinyurl.com/qa5mfbh no worries; it is only speculation.
…

AK

 

[TeaTime]

I think the that JBR was injured at the last house they visited that night, which is why she was so sleepy all of a sudden and had to be carried upstairs. I think the instrument that caused her head fracture was a hockey puck slammed through a room by a hockey stick or even a golf club and that Burke shot the puck. PR knew she was hit by the puck but didn't tell JR because he was vehemently against BR playing hockey, but his friend - the kid at the last house they visited - had given him an old puck that JR let him keep. In one of the books they made a big deal about hockey and hockey pucks. Why? The hockey puck makes more sense than a flashlight.

I believe they lied when they said that JBR didn't go into the house and is the reason the son didn't spend the night at the Rs and why that family left early the next day.

After JR put JBR to bed, PR got her and called Nedra and told her that JBR had a depression in her head and Nedra told her to give the child pineapple and tea to reduce the swelling. PR knew it wasn't swelling but rather a depression in the bone itself but did what mom said anyway and forced the pineapple and tea on JBR. This is why LE never got the phone records from the night of the death. When JBR's condition worsened, PR finally told JR and they knew it was too late to revive her, she would be a vegetable and they weren't going to let her live in a vegetative state. She lingered on and they couldn't handle it so they decided to pull the cord around her neck until she stopped breathing. JR added the molestation to hide the history of sexual abuse they knew she had suffered.

The flashlight is the red herring. It was used to stage the scene but was not the murder weapon.

I also believe Nedra helped to compose the ransom note and someone in Atlanta, a family member, was supposed to call in and read it to JR after the police arrived but decided they didn't want to participate this much. This is why the note was left on the steps and starts with "Listen".

Where did I read that JR asked his lawyer that morning about the age of responsibility? The answer is 10 and BR was still 9. Did I read that a police officer heard this conversation outside the house that morning?

 

[Ellie9]

I think the that JBR was injured at the last house they visited that night....

I commend you on a totally new and interesting take on the night's events! The main problem I see with this theory is that if this happened it's so truly an accident without any malicious intent. The parents were right there. They would have called 911, I imagine, without any worries or hesitation.

The handwriting....

Thanks for taking the time to share your theories and your perspective on the ransom note. It's certainly a lot to think about.

 

[icedtea4me]

I think the that JBR was injured at the last house they visited that night, which is why she was so sleepy all of a sudden and had to be carried upstairs. I think the instrument that caused her head fracture was a hockey puck slammed through a room by a hockey stick or even a golf club and that Burke shot the puck. PR knew she was hit by the puck but didn't tell JR because he was vehemently against BR playing hockey, but his friend - the kid at the last house they visited - had given him an old puck that JR let him keep. In one of the books they made a big deal about hockey and hockey pucks. Why? The hockey puck makes more sense than a flashlight.

I believe they lied when they said that JBR didn't go into the house and is the reason the son didn't spend the night at the Rs and why that family left early the next day.

After JR put JBR to bed, PR got her and called Nedra and told her that JBR had a depression in her head and Nedra told her to give the child pineapple and tea to reduce the swelling. PR knew it wasn't swelling but rather a depression in the bone itself but did what mom said anyway and forced the pineapple and tea on JBR. This is why LE never got the phone records from the night of the death. When JBR's condition worsened, PR finally told JR and they knew it was too late to revive her, she would be a vegetable and they weren't going to let her live in a vegetative state. She lingered on and they couldn't handle it so they decided to pull the cord around her neck until she stopped breathing. JR added the molestation to hide the history of sexual abuse they knew she had suffered.

The flashlight is the red herring. It was used to stage the scene but was not the murder weapon.

I also believe Nedra helped to compose the ransom note and someone in Atlanta, a family member, was supposed to call in and read it to JR after the police arrived but decided they didn't want to participate this much. This is why the note was left on the steps and starts with "Listen".

Where did I read that JR asked his lawyer that morning about the age of responsibility? The answer is 10 and BR was still 9. Did I read that a police officer heard this conversation outside the house that morning?

Being hit in the head hard enough to cause an 8 1/2" skull fracture by a flying hockey puck would have done more than make JonBenet sleepy. It would have completely knocked her out.

 

[Annapurna]

I have an issue with the angle of the wound. JBR would have had to have been lying down at a strange angle. If she were hit with the hockey puck. It makes more sense that she was standing. I can't decide about the damn flashlight, it seems strange if it were really the murder weapon that it would be left out. They staged everything else so carefully, yet left that out?? Could have just put it back in the drawer and it would have probably never been suspected. It was definitely a blunt object, and probably cylindrical due to the shape of the fracture.

There is something seriously strange about the Stines though (the last house they said they were at). Susan Stine's relationship with PR is peculiar. They said they weren't that close before the incident, yet they let the R's live with them after. SS was the one who told the cops to go away at the party on the 23rd. She also sent emails impersonating Chief Mark Beckner (which is a crime she was never prosecuted for) months after. They also didn't call the Stines over to the "breakfast party" that morning. Just....odd. Patsy's bulldog someone described her as. The Stines have a son about Burke's age too. I don't really think he was directly involved as some have said, but there is something off about their behavior.

ETA: I almost forgot the strangest thing: The Stines left good jobs in Boulder and moved to ATL with the R's.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-susan-n-glenn-stine.htm

 

[Ellie9]

There is something seriously strange about the Stines though (the last house they said they were at). Susan Stine's relationship with PR is peculiar. They said they weren't that close before the incident, yet they let the R's live with them after. SS was the one who told the cops to go away at the party on the 23rd. She also sent emails impersonating Chief Mark Beckner (which is a crime she was never prosecuted for) months after. They also didn't call the Stines over to the "breakfast party" that morning. Just....odd. Patsy's bulldog someone described her as. The Stines have a son about Burke's age too. I don't really think he was directly involved as some have said, but there is something off about their behavior.

ETA: I almost forgot the strangest thing: The Stines left good jobs in Boulder and moved to ATL with the R's.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-susan-n-glenn-stine.htm

I never knew that about the Stines. This really reminds me of a certain type of person, though. I know a couple of people like this.

Whenever there is a major dramatic event, they throw themselves directly in the middle of it. If there is a messy divorce, they are suddenly best friends with one or the other partner. If there is an addiction problem they're suddenly involved, taking on the other person's problem almost as if it were their own child/spouse, and then venting about how hard their life is to anyone who will listen.

Drama queen/king isn't the right word exactly (but it's close) - it's more like they're severely attracted to drama. I don't know much more dramatic than what the R's went through, whether or not they played a hand in the death or cover-up. I'm wondering if the mother in this family is one of these people. Tragic event, she decides she's PR's bestie suddenly, and then throws herself directly in the fray. She probably then whined to everyone else about how hard her life was and how she suffered so terribly, for attention of course.

 

[Annapurna]

You know Ellie, I bet you're right. PR would have loved the audience too. I've never encountered someone like that, but I'm not surprised a drama queen like PR would attract hangers-on. Especially because the R's were somewhat "glamorous". I forgot they also went on vacation to NY (where they bought the bloomies incidentally) together before christmas 96. They probably did like being part of their fancy life or whatever.

 

[UKGuy]

I have an issue with the angle of the wound. JBR would have had to have been lying down at a strange angle. If she were hit with the hockey puck. It makes more sense that she was standing. I can't decide about the damn flashlight, it seems strange if it were really the murder weapon that it would be left out. They staged everything else so carefully, yet left that out?? Could have just put it back in the drawer and it would have probably never been suspected. It was definitely a blunt object, and probably cylindrical due to the shape of the fracture.

There is something seriously strange about the Stines though (the last house they said they were at). Susan Stine's relationship with PR is peculiar. They said they weren't that close before the incident, yet they let the R's live with them after. SS was the one who told the cops to go away at the party on the 23rd. She also sent emails impersonating Chief Mark Beckner (which is a crime she was never prosecuted for) months after. They also didn't call the Stines over to the "breakfast party" that morning. Just....odd. Patsy's bulldog someone described her as. The Stines have a son about Burke's age too. I don't really think he was directly involved as some have said, but there is something off about their behavior.

ETA: I almost forgot the strangest thing: The Stines left good jobs in Boulder and moved to ATL with the R's.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-susan-n-glenn-stine.htm

Annapurna,
Following JonBenet's death, Burke Ramsey outlined to Doug' Stine, in detail, how JonBenet was killed, describing her head injury, which allegedly he never saw, to this day BR and DS are buddies.

Susan and Glenn Stine
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-susan-n-glenn-stine.htm

.

 

[andreww]

The handwriting is one area where things SHOULD be pretty clear as we have the Carnes report which went into this aspect of the evidence in great detail. Say what you want about Carnes, but it gave us the bottom line on the handwriting and it gave us Thomas vs Smit (Thomas lost, badly).

None of the experts deemed credible by the Court identified Mrs Ramsay as the author, and – this includes the BPD experts – the general consensus was that she did NOT write the note.

Yes, I know you can always find an expert or an RDI poster with a different opinion. But, it is a fact that the Court has spoken on THIS matter – Mrs Ramsey did not write the note.

I only know of two supposed linguistic experts that looked at the note. one was Foster – discredited and justifiably so. The only other, legitimate and respected forensic linguistic examiner that I know of who looked at the note was McMenamin who relates his methods and his findings in his book Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics. McMenamon is very clear about this – neither Ramsey had anything to do with writing this note.

You can read an excerpt from McMenamon here: http://tinyurl.com/jfzt9ml Also, if you can find it, Fisher’s “Forensics Under Fire” has a pretty decent chapter on the handwriting analysis, and, yes, that’s right – Mrs Ramsey is NOT identified as the author.

Of course, there are other reasons to disbelief that the Ramseys wrote that note. For example – and, I’ve said this many times – a kidnapping contradicts what, if RDI, the Ramseys needed to do: explain a dead body in the house. In fact, no person in the history of the planet in a similar position has ever done such a thing because it is a contradiction!

Other factors to consider are the length – this, if RDI, is self-created, self-incriminating evidence. even morons know to keep things like this short. They handed the notepad over to the cops, didn’t even try to hide it (never mind that if RDI, they could have written it on something more difficult to trace to the house. but, wait, oh yeah! if RDI, they wouldn’t have written it to begin with).

The ransom note is one (of a few) pieces of evidence where the RDI case is overstated and grossly exaggerated. The evidence simply does not support their position. Facts are facts.

BTW, you can read my own take on the ransom note here (iirc, a 4 part post): http://tinyurl.com/qa5mfbh no worries; it is only speculation.
…

AK

Patsy wrote the note. No examiner could eliminate her. And Carnes simply didn't allow the examiners that were anti Patsy to testify.

And let's not forget that Patsy's print was on that page despite her denials of ever touching it.

Patsy wrote the note.

Just because the Ramsey's lawyers were far better, and were clever enough to convince Carnes, does not make her decision to disallow certain handwriting experts correct. Just because they weren't allowed to speak, it does not negate what they had to say.

Just like when Johnny Cochrane said the glove didn't fit, it didn't mean the glove didn't fit. All it meant was that he was a better lawyer than Chris Darden.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ellie9]

Patsy wrote the note. No examiner could eliminate her. And Carnes simply didn't allow the examiners that were anti Patsy to testify.

And let's not forget that Patsy's print was on that page despite her denials of ever touching it.

Patsy wrote the note.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And also she changed the way she wrote starting with the handwriting samples. At least her letter a. I mean, it really doesn't look good. Similarities can be dismissed to a point, but going around trying to disguise your writing post ransom note looks really, really bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Annapurna]

Annapurna,
Following JonBenet's death, Burke Ramsey outlined to Doug' Stine, in detail, how JonBenet was killed, describing her head injury, which allegedly he never saw, to this day BR and DS are buddies.

Susan and Glenn Stine
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-susan-n-glenn-stine.htm

.

I forgot about that! This is one of those things that really makes you wonder.

When asked again what he thought had happened, Burke advised without hesitation that he knew what had happened to JonBenét and that she had been killed. He stated that he thought someone had quietly carried her downstairs to the basement and that person had then either stabbed JonBenét or struck a blow to her head with a hammer.
A chill ran down the back of my neck as I watched Burke twice physically imitate the act of striking a blow with his right arm during his casual discussion of this matter.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 353

Stine appeared to Kaempfer to have been disturbed by the conversation and had listened to Burke and Doug talk about how JonBenét had been strangled. Based upon Kaempfer’s statement, it appeared that Stine had over overheard the boys discussing whether or not manual strangulation had been involved in JonBenét’s death.
Stine described the conversation as being “very impersonal,” and it struck her that the discussion about the details of JonBenét’s death was like the boys were “talking about a TV show.”
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 353


The R's claimed more than once that the never spoke to Burke about that night. Makes you think!