Right. It doesn't. But Patsy LYING about even owning the bowl or pineapple speaks volumes. There was no reason they had to lie about feeding her the pineapple in the first place anyway. No big deal- a kid's bedtime snack. It is the LIE that puts them in the middle of it all. Their story was she was carried into the house asleep and they never saw her again. The pineapple found at autopsy puts the TOD too close to the family's arrival home to make an intruder seem plausible. So they HAD to lie about her being awake that late and eating it.
Why did the Grand Jury not indict the Ramseys?
- Thread starter Roy23
- Start date
New Posts
-
Japan - Miyazawa family of 4 murdered, Setagaya, Tokyo, 30 Dec 2000 #3- Latest: Lalalacasbah
-
Right. It doesn't. But Patsy LYING about even owning the bowl or pineapple speaks volumes. There was no reason they had to lie about feeding her the pineapple in the first place anyway. No big deal- a kid's bedtime snack. It is the LIE that puts them in the middle of it all. Their story was she was carried into the house asleep and they never saw her again. The pineapple found at autopsy puts the TOD too close to the family's arrival home to make an intruder seem plausible. So they HAD to lie about her being awake that late and eating it.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 89
I was thinking that maybe JB herself took the bowl out of the fridge.But her prints weren't found on the bowl,right?
So it's either PR,Burke or someone wearing gloves .
But we still can't say for sure it was PR.What if it was Burke and PR had no idea about it.
Btw,they didn't test that spoon for dna(saliva),did they?
So it's either PR,Burke or someone wearing gloves .
But we still can't say for sure it was PR.What if it was Burke and PR had no idea about it.
Btw,they didn't test that spoon for dna(saliva),did they?
Ravyn
New Member
As I understand it , PR and BR fingerprints was found on the bowl...This is why I often wonder why not just be honest about JonBenet eating pineapple only thing I can come up with is that someone didn't think about the digest track...
JB prints were not on the bowl. I do recall reading somewhere that JB would not have been able to get the bowl out of the fridge herself.
I have never read that the spoon was tested for DNA. It would be truly a grave error if it hasn't been, and no reason why it shouldn't have been.
Then again, the "powers that be" in Boulder don't want any REAL breakthroughs in this case. By that I mean DNA that actually can be linked to a specific person. And if JB's saliva is on that spoon, it means that the pineapple in her stomach came from THAT bowl and THAT spoon was in her mouth. Of course, we already know that... the pineapple in her stomach was tested and found to be consistent with the pineapple in the bowl.
As far as I know, the only items regarding the pineapple that were ever tested for prints (at least that were publicly mentioned) were the bowl and glass. I'd have loved to have the RIM of the glass tested for saliva as well as the small tag on the tea bag tested for prints. I would hope they still had these items in evidence. I'd love for the new DA to have the courage to truly re-open the case and look at the additional evidence that was missed.
The spoon, glass, and teabag are good places to start, as well as looking for touch DNA on the knot, cord, tape.
Instead of jumping at the chance to exonerate the family, Lacy could have tested those items. If you have a match- well, it does make the parents seem like they are closer to being TRULY innocent.
Yet no testing has been done on these items, though they are intimately part of the murder of a child. It's a no-brainer to me. The cord was actually ON her neck, pulled deep into a furrow. The tape was on the mouth of a dead child. Aren't these two items "worthy" of DNA testing as well?
Unless they HAVE been...and the result is not to Lacy's liking. Can't see another reason not to test them and make the results as pubic as the results for the other Touch DNA.
Well, Roy--and I KNOW you're out there--what have you got to say about it now?
Charterhouse
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 908
- Reaction score
- 3
I am very glad that a grand juror spoke. I hope it will help others to give more information.
Chris_Texas
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,926
- Reaction score
- 5
Why? What's new?
otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 194
In case you don't realize it, SuperDave in 2009 (read the first page of this thread) speculated that the GJ had indeed voted to indict, and that AH simply chose not to pursue the case. This, of course, was before the recent "revelation" that that was indeed what happened.
(Good to see you back again and posting, SD.) We're all anxiously awaiting word about when the book will be available.
madeleine,
Well they might suggest Patsy hosted the pineapple snack?
Else her prints are from another point in time, but then who took the bowl out ?
Here is a picture of the spoon
Here is a picture of the tea-glass
Both these items have one thing in common: They both bear Burke Ramsey's fingerprints!
Burke Ramsey was the resident tea drinker.
I think everyone will accept that if the R's were going to change their staging and amend their version of events then they might also fix the physical evidence, right?
So why did Patsy not remember to tidy up the breakfast bar, she was there right? She served JonBenet the pineapple right?
What if she never, what if neither parent knew JonBenet had eaten pineapple, what if neither even knew what happened to JonBenet the night before, that she had been sexually molested after eating the pineapple?
If they never knew, just what can you do, when faced with incontrovertible evidence that JonBenet was up and walking about, snacking pineapple and being molested all when she should have been asleep in bed?
Well you just deny it of course, i.e. lie, lie and lie again.
The pineapple event is a rare example where JR is seen to be backing up Patsy, and attempting to fix the evidence, yet failing.
Patsy has form here, she exhibits the same behaviour regarding the size-12's, i.e. an absence of knowlege, or in WS terminology, she is inconsistent, i.e. she lies, but alike the pineapple event, she should actually know what she is talking about, but her statements contradict this.
So we have John covering for Patsy, and Patsy covering for ... ?
I think the conclusion is inescapable although not a smoking gun.
Darlene733510
Active Member
Since we heard that the GJ voted to indict the R's we have not heard a peep from anyone.
I think it is time to bombard the Daily Camera Newspaper about this case. There doesn't seem to be anyone in Boulder who is concerned about this case being re-opened.
We have heard that there is evidence that was not tested. AH probably gave the order to not test certain items, because he was in the Ramsey camp. What else is stashed away that would convinct the person who murdered JB? I believe there is a lot we don't know, and it's time to "rock the boat", and perhaps get some action.
For sure we could let ML and AH know how they let a little 6 year girl down.
I think it is time to bombard the Daily Camera Newspaper about this case. There doesn't seem to be anyone in Boulder who is concerned about this case being re-opened.
We have heard that there is evidence that was not tested. AH probably gave the order to not test certain items, because he was in the Ramsey camp. What else is stashed away that would convinct the person who murdered JB? I believe there is a lot we don't know, and it's time to "rock the boat", and perhaps get some action.
For sure we could let ML and AH know how they let a little 6 year girl down.
midwest mama
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2012
- Messages
- 1,303
- Reaction score
- 46
:great: Great news - LOOK AT THIS:
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_22843869/colorados-cold-case-murder-team-convenes-boulder
There's an email address at the end of the article to a reporter. Now is the time to send notes and
lease:
Darlene733510
Active Member
OMG - I sent an E-mail to Mr. Brennan at the Daily Camera. I told him that there are many people who want this case to be scrutinized by Mr. Gannet and others. He replied right away, but didn't say much. I think that was because he knew about this article, as it was yesterday that I sent the message to him.
I told him the people of CO need a refresher course on this case, and he should put the resignation letter of S.Thomas into print to remind everyone of what happened. He said he did read "Foreign Faction." I asked him to do another article with excerpts from the book.
I was totally surprised that he replied within one half hour from the time I sent my E-mail.
Mr. Brennan writes for this newspaper, but I see that another reporter wrote the article that mm is referring to, so please send your message ASAP to byarsm@dailycamera.com The reporters name is Mitchell Byars.
The Assistant DA is in charge of the cold case files. His name is Ryan Brackely.
I told him the people of CO need a refresher course on this case, and he should put the resignation letter of S.Thomas into print to remind everyone of what happened. He said he did read "Foreign Faction." I asked him to do another article with excerpts from the book.
I was totally surprised that he replied within one half hour from the time I sent my E-mail.
Mr. Brennan writes for this newspaper, but I see that another reporter wrote the article that mm is referring to, so please send your message ASAP to byarsm@dailycamera.com The reporters name is Mitchell Byars.
The Assistant DA is in charge of the cold case files. His name is Ryan Brackely.
eileenhawkeye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 8,755
- Reaction score
- 132
I am just so confused about how anyone can be put on trial in this case. Patsy is dead. Burke was too young. I think the statue of limitations has run out for anything against John. Is there something that John can still be charged with? I feel like the attitude is that John hasn't killed again, they've already spent over $2 million on the case, and who knows if they would even get a conviction at this point.
Nom de plume
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 730
- Reaction score
- 24
MURDER! There is no statute of limitations on murder.
There are those that believe JB's death was "accidental". Those that believe it was "unintentional". And then there are those that believe it was intentional, premeditated "MURDER" to stop her from exposing her abuser(s).
I hope and pray that they do bring charges against JR, but I don't see the chances of that happening being very good. :banghead: I do think the chances are better now that AH, MKL, LS and a few others are gone though.
eileenhawkeye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 8,755
- Reaction score
- 132
So those who think John can be charged with murder, you believe that John was the one who delivered the head blow? Manslaughter statue of limitations is 3 years...so it would have to be either 1st degree or 2nd degree. How would they prove either one? John could just blame it on Patsy.
Some people think that JonBenet's murder was premeditated? By her parents? So it didn't happen in the heat of the moment...but was instead planned? There was no argument...no disagreement...no intense furor? Just "I'm going to kill JonBenet later" and then pick up a blunt object and...?
Nom de plume
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 730
- Reaction score
- 24
Being charged and being convicted are two very different things. You are correct that JR would just blame PR, or the mythical intruder. Personally, I don't see much chance of him being charged, much less convicted. Not for lack of evidence, as I do believe that there is much more evidence that we don't know about, and a lot that was never actually tested. I don't think he'll be charged for the same reasons he wasn't charged anytime in the last 16 years. Money, connections, and powerful attorneys. Back then there was also the problem of AH, MKL, LS and others too, perfect examples of some of his powerful connections.
I do think her murder was planned for at least a few days, but not by her mother or her brother. I don't think it was something he wanted to do, but if it came down to being labeled a child molester, losing everything, and going to prison vs. killing her, I think he chose to kill her. IMO the plan probably started to formulate about the time JB started complaining to PR about hurting "down there". I believe the three calls to Dr. Beuf, and the 911 call tie in as well, and probably added to the urgency to shut her up before she said too much. (There were also rumors that JB told people about being abused by people in black robes and candles being lit.) Can't forget that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up prior abuse. Therefore, who ever killed her knew that there was something to cover up. Why can't covering up abuse be a motive for murder?
As hard as it is to comprehend, there are parents that would rather sacrifice a child than face the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, it happens all the time. Casey Anthony ring a bell? She didn't want to face the consequences of having unprotected sex, because her child interfered with her partying. If she can kill her daughter because she's inconvienent, why is it so hard to believe someone would kill their daughter to save their own :butthead:? Those type of people are extremely self centered and narcissistic. They're always concerned about their feelings, their reputation, their life. Sound like anyone in particular? :waitasec:
All just :moo: and my :twocents: