ATTENTION: IDI's...please explain.....

[UKGuy]

Are the fibers from Patsy's sweater under the tape UNDER JB's mouth and in the garrotte and in the paint box another red flag. Ames is not saying her opinion is enough to convict anyone. She is however pointing out evidence that would convict if we had an honest group of District Attorneys in Boulder. The fibers alone put Patsy with Jon Benet in the cellar. John's fibers were found in the vaginal area. Splinters were found inside Jon Benet. We are talking circumstantial evidence here UK, most people are convicted on circumstantial evidence.

Ames posted one of the most astute posts in months yesterday. Patsy did not move when she heard Fleet call "get an ambulance". It SPEAKS VOLUMES. Volumes.

Solace,

She is however pointing out evidence that would convict if we had an honest group of District Attorneys in Boulder.

That would amount to a Kangaroo court, circumstantial evidence is plainly that, you can also cite JonBenet's pageant activities which reflect upon Patsy's character, adding more circumstantial evidence of her guilt, but these are arguments that could be magicked up by slick attorneys to convince gullible juries.

The circumstantial evidence does neither demonstrate or prove that Patsy killed JonBenet.

At most it places Patsy at the alleged scene of the crime, to go further and say she killed JonBenet is simply jumping to conclusions.


.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

That would amount to a Kangaroo court, circumstantial evidence is plainly that, you can also cite JonBenet's pageant activities which reflect upon Patsy's character, adding more circumstantial evidence of her guilt, but these are arguments that could be magicked up by slick attorneys to convince gullible juries.

The circumstantial evidence does neither demonstrate or prove that Patsy killed JonBenet.

At most it places Patsy at the alleged scene of the crime, to go further and say she killed JonBenet is simply jumping to conclusions.


.

We are not talking about pageants. We are talking about lies from the mouths of the parents and the brother the night of this child's murder. The lies are substantial and held by all three.

90% of all cases that go to trial are with circumstantial evidence whether you like it or not UK. The circumstantial evidence in the Scott Peterson case sentenced him to the Death Penalty. But you already know this but for lack of a better argument, present it over and over again.

The circumstantial evidence places her with JonBenet at some point in the CELLAR with the her sweater fibers on the tape that is over JB's mouth, intertwined in the garrotte and in the paint box. A reasonable person might say "well she lived there and that is why the fibers are in the paint box and one could see that. HOWEVER, the fibers under the tape and in the garrote are different. She denies ever being there. Circumstantial evidence where one could "reasonably" conclude that there is a far more serious reason for her lying. Her fingerprints are on the bowl in the kitchen. She denies this. One could "reasonably" conclude that there is a far more serious reason for her lying. She says JonBenet walked into the house, she changes the story later. John says he read to both children. He changes his story later. Facts one could "reasonably" conclude that lead to a more serious reason for both parents now lying. Their child is dead and they do not remember if she walked into the house or was asleep, but later on they remember clearly that she was "zonked" out.

Berke also says his sister walked in the house, but changes his story later. This is extremely coincidental that all three remember it one way and then remember it differently. One could reasonably conclude that there is evidence that Berke was told to change his story.

If you go to bed and it is not snowing and wake up and there is snow on the ground although you did not see it, you can conclude it "snowed" last night. That would be a reasonable assumption. The circumstantial evidence is hardly jumping to conclusions. And I will go one step further to say that if they had come to trial anyplace other than Boulder, the would be in jail at this moment.

 

[Ames]

Wow tough crowd here. LOL No I'm not making excuses just calling it as I see it. Thank goodness I have never had to experience the death of a child. I have no idea how I would react and neither does anyone else unless they've walked in her shoes. Fact: Although situations can be similar; people DO react differently. I don't know if Patsy killer JonBenet or not; but I won't judge her based on what I perceive to be "proper behavior"; but hey that's me.

LOL...sorry...I didn't mean to come down on you because of your opinion. I just get all huffed up (mad) when I think about Patsy just sitting there looking at photos with her friends...while JB is "missing"...and THEN when John yells.."I found her"...and Fleet yells..."CALL AN AMULANCE"...she still just sits there. Not knowing if her child is alive or dead....wouldn't YOU be just a bit curious?? I mean to remain frozen in the sitting position on the couch, makes no sense...she wasn't too frozen to take out a photo album and thumb through it with her friends....but, when John yells..."I FOUND HER"...and Fleet..."CALL AN AMBULANCE"...she doesn't even BUDGE. If I had of her those words, coupled with the fact that she was found INSIDE the house....my thought would be that she was alive and injured, and I would be rushing to her side, to see if I could help her....but HEY...that's me.

 

[Ames]

Bear in mind that there was a ransom note which claimed that a foreign fction had the "missing" child. Now giving the Ramseys the benefit of the doubt.... if they thought that some unknown people were holding their chold - goodness knows where - what would be the point of searching round and about for her? I think if you were innocent and therefore believed in the note's authenticity, you wouldn't be searching your neighbourhood. Especially not if the kidnappers had threatened to behead your child.

Admittedly, I doubt I would have called all my friends around if the kidnappers said they were monitoring us and would behead our child if we spoke to a stray dog.... But then again, the Ramseys have done a lot of odd things.

BUT...yes, i agree...they don't search the neighborhood....(if not to look for JB...they could have looked for CLUES....tire tracks...pieces of clothing....ETC.), but they call over their friends (when the ransom note plainly states not to talk to so much as a DOG or she will be beheaded). What good did those friends do? Were they there for support? Remember though...is getting support from your friends, worth risking your child's life (don't speak to a DOG..or she will be beheaded). Were they called over to help search....they didn't do much of that. And even though that "may have" thought that a kidnapper had her....John stated that he DID search TWO places...under the beds and inside of a freezer down in the basement...why did he stop there? Why didn't they search the house for clues...why did they wait until the police arrived and had to be TOLD to look for things that were out of place (John and Fleet). I just don't get why they would disregard that ransom notes threats....UNLESS...they knew it was fake...and there really wasn't a small foreign faction kidnapper. This whole thread though, is about Patsy's reaction to "I FOUND HER!" and "CALL AN AMBULANCE"....she didn't budge....even though she was found INSIDE the house. She had to have known that JB was ALREADY dead...or else...IMO...she would have been making a beeline down that hall to see if there was anything that she could do to help her baby. That's what I would have done....who knows though...maybe I am just weird.

 

[Ames]

Just as there are people that would declare the Ramseys' guilty NO MATTER WHAT. Goes both ways, that can't be denied.

GOTCHA...only thing with that is...there is MORE evidence that points TOWARD the Ramsey's guilt, than AWAY from it. IMO

 

[Ames]

IMO it was definitely an indication of guilt. When John yelled he found her she very well could have still been alive - Patsy had no idea. The immediate relief you would feel at that point, thinking your daughter is alive, would not put you in a state of "shut down." All the fear would drain from your body and hope would surface and you would REACT!

If John had yelled, I found her and she is dead, yes, then I can see it, but he didn't.

Patsy didn't move because she knew JB was dead - now how the heck did she know that?

Yep, my thoughts exactly...and don't forget...that Fleet yelled to "CALL AN AMBULANCE". He didn't say..."SHE LOOKS DEAD...CALL AN AMBULANCE".. and why would you call an ambulance for a dead person, anyway? They are dead...what good is an ambulance? Now if he had of said to call "911"....or the police...or something like that..maybe Patsy would have assumed that JB was dead. And you are right...John didn't yell...."I FOUND HER, BUT SHE IS DEAD". So, at the very least...Patsy could have thought that JB was injured. At that point though, she supposedly didn't KNOW if she was alive or dead....if your child was missing..and you heard your spouse yell..."I FOUND HER"...and then another friend yells..."CALL AN AMBULANCE"....wouldn't you jump up from your seat, and thinking that she maybe injured...run as fast as you could to her side, to see if you could help her in anyway that you could? Especially since she was found INSIDE the house. Who in the world, if their child was missing...and they heard..."I FOUND HER!" and then "Call an ambulance"....and the child was found INSIDE the home...would just assume that the child was dead? NO...Patsy KNEW that JB was dead....and THAT...imo...is why her butt didn't move from that couch, and she had to be pulled down the hall. She didn't want to see her dead daughter...AGAIN.

 

[UKGuy]

If you go to bed and it is not snowing and wake up and there is snow on the ground although you did not see it, you can conclude it "snowed" last night. That would be a reasonable assumption. The circumstantial evidence is hardly jumping to conclusions. And I will go one step further to say that if they had come to trial anyplace other than Boulder, the would be in jail at this moment.

Solace,

Thats an attorney's job, if there is not enough evidence available, to present the circumstantial evidence in as incriminating manner as the court allows.

Your example of reasonable assumption is fine for day to day use, but is not fit for judging homicides.

Lou Smit offered reasonable assumptions backed up with years of sleuthing, he profiled a sociopathic, sexually deviant intruder, many people believed his reasonable assumptions including the media, so the focus was removed from the Ramseys.

Steve Thomas put forward reasonable assumptions for his Toilet Rage theory backed up by circumstantial evidence, but its inconsistent with the forensic evidence.

If you go to bed and it is not snowing and wake up and there is snow on the ground although you did not see it, you can conclude it "snowed" last night. That would be a reasonable assumption. The circumstantial evidence is hardly jumping to conclusions.

You can conclude anything you wish, and it may be based on a reasonable assumption, but that does not make it correct.

To conclude it "snowed" last night is an example of inductive reasoning, its helpful, but its not conclusive.


.

 

[Ames]

Right on,they would have been ripping that house apart,not to mention the entire yard and neighborhood,esp since they'd obv. let LE know,in spite of being told they were being 'monitored'.
Looking at pictures is something ppl do after a death,as well as I don't think PR would have let herself be sedated if JB was truly missing..she would have wanted to have all the energy she could have so she could help out.

I agree...and even though, as one poster stated..."why should they search the house, when they thought that kidnapper's had her"...this poster was saying...why bother searching? Well, I believe that they would have been so frantic, that it would have been an instinct to search the house...and John DID say that he searched PART of the house, he looked under some beds, and in the freezer in the basement. Personally, I do not believe that John searched anywhere...and that was a lie...because he KNEW JB was dead and in the basement. BUT....IF an intruder had of done it (which they didn't)....and the ransom note was real (which it wasn't)....and John had of searched a couple of places, under the beds..and inside the freezer (which he didn't) like he SAID he did...WHY STOP THERE???? If he and Patsy had of thought for ONE SKINNY SECOND that JB may still be in that house....(now...keep in mind....the thought "MUST" have occurred to them, because JOHN says he "searched" under the beds, and in the freezer in the basement)...then they wouldn't they have turned that house upside down and inside out....why stop at "under the beds" and "inside the freezer" in the basement? It makes no sense...why would you search just a couple of places...and then give up? And one other thing....IF they had of thought that a kidnapper had taken her out of the house....WHY DIDN'T they search the house for clues....why did they wait until the police got there, and THEN John and Fleet did it, AFTER they were told to. Why didn't John and Patsy do it, while waiting on the police to arrive? It MAKES NO SENSE....they are as guilty as they come. IMO

 

[Ames]

Ames,

Your opinion is not enough to convict Patsy in a court of law, some evidence is required, otherwise it's trial by opinion.


Patsy may have known JonBenet was dead, but from this it does not follow that she was the person who killed her!

Patsy's behaviour is simply yet another red-flag!


.

Yes, I agree that it IS a another red-flag...but, I do happen to think that Patsy is the one that killed her. I COULD be wrong...and IF she didn't...then she knows who did. And she KNEW that JB was dead...when she was sitting on that couch with her friends, looking at photos of JB, and walking down "memory lane".

 

[Ames]

Are the fibers from Patsy's sweater under the tape UNDER JB's mouth and in the garrotte and in the paint box another red flag. Ames is not saying her opinion is enough to convict anyone. She is however pointing out evidence that would convict if we had an honest group of District Attorneys in Boulder. The fibers alone put Patsy with Jon Benet in the cellar. John's fibers were found in the vaginal area. Splinters were found inside Jon Benet. We are talking circumstantial evidence here UK, most people are convicted on circumstantial evidence.

Ames posted one of the most astute posts in months yesterday. Patsy did not move when she heard Fleet call "get an ambulance". It SPEAKS VOLUMES. Volumes.

You are right, I am not saying that my OPINION is enough to convict anyone...but Scott Peterson, among many others...have went to jail on LESS circumstantial evidence.

 

[Ames]

I am definitely not an IDI and I believe that PR and JR are responsible for what happened to JBR. However, I do not think that the fact that they were not tearing up the house is an indication of guilt since there was a ransom note indicating that JBR had been taken form the house. I believe I would rush to her room and her brother's room to search there and check that the other child was okay. I would also run around the house looking for her and check for doors and windows that might show an intruder's entrance and probably run outside hoping for some evidence for which direction she was taken, but I doubt I would spend hours and hours searching in closets and drawers and under beds if there was a ransom note. I would be sitting at that phone waiting for that call for instructions to get my child back safe and sound.

I DO agree with the original post that Patsy's refusal to move in the direction of her found daughter suggests that she already knew the child was dead. Fleet's cry for an ambulance would imply that there was at least hope that she was alive.

No, I do not believe that the fact that they didn't tear up the house looking for JB is an indication of guilt, either. But, it IS a red flag...that they didn't at least tear it apart looking for clues....(like the ones that you mentioned)...why did John wait until the police arrive, and had to be told for him and Fleet to "look for anything out of place". That's what they should have had the party of friends help them do, before the police arrive. I don't get why they called them over in the first place...if it was for support....why risk your child's life (don't talk to anyone...or she is beheaded)...in order to get support? Makes no sense.

 

[Ames]

Solace,

That would amount to a Kangaroo court, circumstantial evidence is plainly that, you can also cite JonBenet's pageant activities which reflect upon Patsy's character, adding more circumstantial evidence of her guilt, but these are arguments that could be magicked up by slick attorneys to convince gullible juries.

The circumstantial evidence does neither demonstrate or prove that Patsy killed JonBenet.

At most it places Patsy at the alleged scene of the crime, to go further and say she killed JonBenet is simply jumping to conclusions.


.

I am thinking that by your screen name, and the fact that you don't know what you are talking about...that you do not live in the US. (NO OFFENSE)

 

[Ames]

We are not talking about pageants. We are talking about lies from the mouths of the parents and the brother the night of this child's murder. The lies are substantial and held by all three.

90% of all cases that go to trial are with circumstantial evidence whether you like it or not UK. The circumstantial evidence in the Scott Peterson case sentenced him to the Death Penalty. But you already know this but for lack of a better argument, present it over and over again.

The circumstantial evidence places her with JonBenet at some point in the CELLAR with the her sweater fibers on the tape that is over JB's mouth, intertwined in the garrotte and in the paint box. A reasonable person might say "well she lived there and that is why the fibers are in the paint box and one could see that. HOWEVER, the fibers under the tape and in the garrote are different. She denies ever being there. Circumstantial evidence where one could "reasonably" conclude that there is a far more serious reason for her lying. Her fingerprints are on the bowl in the kitchen. She denies this. One could "reasonably" conclude that there is a far more serious reason for her lying. She says JonBenet walked into the house, she changes the story later. John says he read to both children. He changes his story later. Facts one could "reasonably" conclude that lead to a more serious reason for both parents now lying. Their child is dead and they do not remember if she walked into the house or was asleep, but later on they remember clearly that she was "zonked" out.

Berke also says his sister walked in the house, but changes his story later. This is extremely coincidental that all three remember it one way and then remember it differently. One could reasonably conclude that there is evidence that Berke was told to change his story.

If you go to bed and it is not snowing and wake up and there is snow on the ground although you did not see it, you can conclude it "snowed" last night. That would be a reasonable assumption. The circumstantial evidence is hardly jumping to conclusions. And I will go one step further to say that if they had come to trial anyplace other than Boulder, the would be in jail at this moment.

Excellent post! I can't even believe that Patsy even used the words..."zonked out"....in her interview. But she did...I have read it myself. Yep...JB was "ZONKED OUT" alright. Personally, I think that it was a bit tasteless of her to describe her daughter that way...after she had been found with her head bashed in.

 

[coloradokares]

Right on,they would have been ripping that house apart,not to mention the entire yard and neighborhood,esp since they'd obv. let LE know,in spite of being told they were being 'monitored'.
Looking at pictures is something ppl do after a death,as well as I don't think PR would have let herself be sedated if JB was truly missing..she would have wanted to have all the energy she could have so she could help out.

One thing you have to give Scott Peterson he at least looked for Lacey. If for no other reason than to give the proper appearances. Not Patsy. Or John. I know good and well . We were moving into a new home. A roll of carpet was on the basement awaiting the carpet layers. Our oldest son 6 at the time crawled down just inside that roll and went to sleep. My husband and I tore the place wide apart there was a ditch that led to a huge culvert that led to the lake my husband even walked that culvert to the lake. Over 3 miles. We ran we screamed we enlisted neighbors called the police. We tore every part and parcel of that new home apart. Last place our younger son had seen his brother was in the basement. So we both ran back downstairs. I dont' know what made Bill do it but he cut the protective banding from the carpet and unrolled it ........there was our son snug as a bug. We freaked I looked in the garbage cans the new Refrigerator the stove everything I must have knocked on every door. What an impression for the new neighbors I couldn't keep track of one little 6 year old boy. I think most parents go through something like this. They get out of sight just for a few minutes and you panic and tear the world apart. Not get out the photo album and walk down the memory lane.

 

[Ames]

Solace,

Thats an attorney's job, if there is not enough evidence available, to present the circumstantial evidence in as incriminating manner as the court allows.

Your example of reasonable assumption is fine for day to day use, but is not fit for judging homicides.

Lou Smit offered reasonable assumptions backed up with years of sleuthing, he profiled a sociopathic, sexually deviant intruder, many people believed his reasonable assumptions including the media, so the focus was removed from the Ramseys.

Steve Thomas put forward reasonable assumptions for his Toilet Rage theory backed up by circumstantial evidence, but its inconsistent with the forensic evidence.


You can conclude anything you wish, and it may be based on a reasonable assumption, but that does not make it correct.

To conclude it "snowed" last night is an example of inductive reasoning, its helpful, but its not conclusive.


.

Last time I checked...this was a forum to voice your OPINION...not to pretend you are an attorney. We are simply stating our opinion....just as you state yours. And we have as much right to ours, as you do to yours. (I don't mean to sound harsh....sorry, if you take it that way.)

 

[julianne]

I am thinking that by your screen name, and the fact that you don't know what you are talking about...that you do not live in the US. (NO OFFENSE)

Just as you say that everyone has a right to their opinions, UKGuy has a right to his---just because you don't agree with him, it doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. I find UKGuys posts very informative, as do others here.

Typing "NO OFFENSE" after an insult doesn't make it any less of an insult.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

Thats an attorney's job, if there is not enough evidence available, to present the circumstantial evidence in as incriminating manner as the court allows.

Your example of reasonable assumption is fine for day to day use, but is not fit for judging homicides.

Lou Smit offered reasonable assumptions backed up with years of sleuthing, he profiled a sociopathic, sexually deviant intruder, many people believed his reasonable assumptions including the media, so the focus was removed from the Ramseys.

Steve Thomas put forward reasonable assumptions for his Toilet Rage theory backed up by circumstantial evidence, but its inconsistent with the forensic evidence.


You can conclude anything you wish, and it may be based on a reasonable assumption, but that does not make it correct.

To conclude it "snowed" last night is an example of inductive reasoning, its helpful, but its not conclusive.


.

Interesting post. Tell it to Scott Peterson and his lawyers while you are at it. If this had been New York and the police were called, they would have been separated; they would have been charged and more than likely they would have been convicted on the very indicative "circumstantial" fibers.

Yes one reasonable assumption may not be correct, HOWEVER, when there is more than one and even several instances of circumstantial evidence, one can reasonably conclude that there is evidence of something more serious going on and since a child has died, it is all the more reasonable that the people lying know more than they are saying. This is a murder case UK; this is not a divorce where people forget things so easily.

 

[Ames]

Just as you say that everyone has a right to their opinions, UKGuy has a right to his---just because you don't agree with him, it doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. I find UKGuys posts very informative, as do others here.

Typing "NO OFFENSE" after an insult doesn't make it any less of an insult.

All I am saying is that since he doesn't live in the US...he probably doesn't know much about the courts here....just like we here in the US...probably know dittly squat about the court system in the UK....I was NOT trying to offend ANYONE.

 

[Solace]

Just as you say that everyone has a right to their opinions, UKGuy has a right to his---just because you don't agree with him, it doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. I find UKGuys posts very informative, as do others here.

Typing "NO OFFENSE" after an insult doesn't make it any less of an insult.

Julianne, You may not have noticed that UKGuy can be downright rude at times and condescending in his posts. I for one understand why Ames would post the way she does.

And just because UK does not agree with Ames or myself doesn't mean we do not know what we are talking about either.

 

[Jayelles]

All I am saying is that since he doesn't live in the US...he probably doesn't know much about the courts here....just like we here in the US...probably know dittly squat about the court system in the UK....I was NOT trying to offend ANYONE.

I am also in the UK - as are quite a few of our members. Scotland even has a different legal system from England and Wales but the differences are in the details - in general there aren't too many differences between us all - certainly not enough to rule our opinions inconsequential.