Could Patsy's Cocktails Have Played A Part In Her Rage Attack?

[BlueCrab]

Do you know the source for that, BlueCrab?

rashomon,

I was afraid someone might ask that. All I can remember is reading somewhere a long time ago that Patsy drank Chardonnay. I'll spend some time trying to dig it up.

BlueCrab

 

[icedtea4me]

It's probably from a tabloid interview with LHP.


-Tea

 

[coloradokares]

It's probably from a tabloid interview with LHP.


-Tea

Tea.....no LHP wasnt the source and I distinctly remember reading Chardonnay too and the year.... I dont' like I can't remember where and I thought nothing of it at the time.......it was not like it was putting forth the concept of an alcohol problem. But in retrospect I should have paid closer attention

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

There is not one shred of physical evidence left by an intruder and in a crime this horrific, there should be something.

Uh, male DNA, as long as it remains unmatched to a person who works at a factory, can be a shred of physical evidence left by an intruder.

2 1/2 pages of ransom note writing is another shred.

These are, in fact, possible shreds of evidence left by an intruder.

The statement that there is 'not one shred of physical evidence' is nothing more than your opinion, stated as fact.

 

[icedtea4me]

Tea.....no LHP wasnt the source and I distinctly remember reading Chardonnay too and the year.... I dont' like I can't remember where and I thought nothing of it at the time.......it was not like it was putting forth the concept of an alcohol problem. But in retrospect I should have paid closer attention

Okay, it's just that I can visualize having read something someone said (maybe a different housekeeper?) about wine and a refrigerator. Perhaps it was from a Peter Boyles interview?


-Tea

 

[coloradokares]

Okay, it's just that I can visualize having read something someone said (maybe a different housekeeper?) about wine and a refrigerator. Perhaps it was from a Peter Boyles interview?


-Tea

I just spent nearly an hour and a half googling PatsyRamsey Chardonnay. Its possible it was Peter Boyles. I just can't find a thing on it ..... They also did have a different housekeeper that had been interviewd anything is possible. I hope this is not early onset alzheimers...

 

[BlueCrab]

Tea.....no LHP wasnt the source and I distinctly remember reading Chardonnay too and the year.... I dont' like I can't remember where and I thought nothing of it at the time.......it was not like it was putting forth the concept of an alcohol problem. But in retrospect I should have paid closer attention

coloradokares,

That's the way I remember it too. It might have been in that published long interview with Linda Wilcox, the housekeeper prior tp LHP taking over.

BlueCrab

 

[Solace]

Uh, male DNA, as long as it remains unmatched to a person who works at a factory, can be a shred of physical evidence left by an intruder.

2 1/2 pages of ransom note writing is another shred.

These are, in fact, possible shreds of evidence left by an intruder.

The statement that there is 'not one shred of physical evidence' is nothing more than your opinion, stated as fact.

Male DNA, unmatched as it is, is evidence. It is also evidence of DNA that is much older than JonBenet's and was not put there the night of the murder. But this is all the Ramseys have to work with and if someone knows nothing about DNA and markers, etc., they are likely to believe an intruder left it. But as soon as they are informed of its age and the fact that there are only 10 markers, they soon realize that this is not the DNA of an intruder that night and more than likely the DNA of the packager from some time ago.

As far as the ransom note goes, the only fingerprints found on the ransom note are Patsy's, John's and I believe Officer French (not sure about French). There are six experts who believe Patsy wrote the note including Chet Ubowski of the CBI. He says there are 24 out of 26 matches of the alphabet. Of course there are many who dispute it, because Patsy's lawyers have done a great job of creating doubt. The similarities are incredible.

But the fact is it took Patsy quite a few times to pass a lie detector test. She at first says JB walked into the house, then changes her story. Berke says JB walked into the house and also walked with Patsy to deliver presents on the way home. Patsy's fingerprints are found on the bowl in the kitchen with leftover pineapple, the same pineapple remnants that are found in JB's stomach. Patsy denies touching the bowl or giving them pineapple. John also lies and says JB was carried into the house. They also lie and say Berke was asleep. Berke later admits that he was awake and pretended to be asleep. Very damaging to Patsy is the fact that she says she "saw" the red heart painted on JB's hand the morning of December 26th. She says this 3 times to Detective Haney. The next morning before beginning her interview again, she says she wants to clarify that maybe she did not see it but read it in the autopsy reports. Meanwhile, in another room, John is telling Lou Smit that they do not read autopsy reports. John also lies and says he was never asked to take a lie detector test.

My point is this. If you have nothing to do with the crime, why are you so emphatic that JonBenet was carried into the house. Because you want her asleep when you are with her. You want to end that line of questioning. There is more and more. The list is almost endless of how this crime points to the guilt of someone in that family. More than likely Patsy and possibly John.

Someone in that family killed Jon Benet. IMO.

 

[BBB167893]

CBS news sure tells a different story, by stating that the DNA was MIXED IN with JBR's blood. What do you have to say about that?

Plenty!

For starters, how about the fact that Tom Bennet felt compelled to say publically days later that the report was factually inaccurate?

Or how about the quote from Mary Lacy herself that the DNA is likely an artifact with no bearing on the case?

If you want the actual quotes, I'll dig 'em up for you.

Why not say the DNA was staged? Planted there to divert attention?

Not quite ready to jump off that precipice yet.

RDI, has used the 'staging' eplanation to displace the ransom note, garrote, and the injuries to JBR's body from the case evidence, because they all suggest an intruder.

You got that one wrong, friend. Those things you mention were themselves evidence of staging. Don't take my word for it. Ask CASKU. I'd be more than happy to refresh anyone who wants it.

Then, departing from this theme, instead claims the DNA was from a 'factory worker', having the same effect of displacing intruder evidence from the crime.

We're a creative bunch. LOL

It does appear that RDI goal #1 is to displace all intruder-suggesting evidence, doesn't it?

Find some, and we'll be happy to displace it!

You'll need a DNA match, handwriting match, from a known child kidnapper/killer with a signed confession, I guess.

It would help! Incidentally, that's exactly what the DA wants, too! Or don't you believe me?

The DNA is older of an inferior quality, does not have all the markers. This is simply a fact. We are looking at the evidence at hand. If this DNA was as fresh as Jon Benet's and not attributable to any one in the house, of course it would be something to look at. BUT IT IS NOT. There is not one shred of physical evidence left by an intruder and in a crime this horrific, there should be something. I believe Patsy did the staging and left fibers from her sweater. I am sure she was extremely careful and yet there are 4 tiny fibers inside the tape over JB's mouth from her sweater and in the garrote and in the paint box. My point is that the intruder would have done the same, somewhere. There is nothing.

I'm afraid that's where I stand as well.

I mean I could say it appears that the IDI goal is to suggest that the murderer/intruder to care to visit the crime scene at least months in advance knowing he was going to intrude and kill on Christmas night and wanted what DNA he left behind to be artifact and highly degraded

Careful! I know some IDI's who are dangerously close to that position now!

Uh, male DNA, as long as it remains unmatched to a person who works at a factory, can be a shred of physical evidence left by an intruder.

It might interest you to know that the police were willing to test those factory workers. At least Bob Grant says so.

2 1/2 pages of ransom note writing is another shred.

Oh, yeah?

Regardez:

http://www.acandyrose.com/02182003dh911motion.pdf

And lastly:

would you camp out in a stranger's home, all but impossible to navigate in the dark, capable of being spotted at any time, feed your victim pineapple, wait two more hours for it to digest, lead them to the basement, tie up their hands in a way that wouldn't restrain an infant, molest her so it only scratches the interior of the vagina, which you would need three arms to do because you have to pull the cord with one hand and hold her down with the other, using a cord with the wrong knot for your purposes, put tape on her mouth AFTER she's dead when that makes no sense (if you were worried about her screaming, you'd gag her first), sneak into the parents' room, steal their clothing, drip fibers in five areas (not even on the body), go back up, put the clothes back exactly the way you found them, redress the body (when leaving her naked under the tree would be so much better), put her favorite nightgown in the blanket with her, then write a ransom note that really says nothing, knowing you won't get any money, then leave bold as brass, only leaving a speck of DNA that couldn't have been left that night because it was so much older than JB's DNA...
WHEN it would be so much simpler to grab her when she's alone (playing in the yard, coming home from school, etc.,) take her to a place where you feel safe where there's no rush and you have her at leisure (like David Westerfield, Alejandro Avila, Dennis Dechaine et al have done)?

Anybody want to tackle that one, or am I just talking to myself?

 

[Credence]

Oh totally. It was nothing but a rage attack. Patsy was MORE than pissed at JB for whatever reason....and I believe that she probably was somewhat inebriated (although...I don't believe drunk....just tipsy)....and she let her emotions get the best....or in this case...the WORST of her.

She really wasn't a drinker and the cancer and meds affected her liver. But you do have a good and active imagination.

 

[angelwngs]

:laugh:

And lastly: Anybody want to tackle that one, or am I just talking to myself?

I've been waiting long months in fear that someday soon you would ask this very question.

In my heart of hearts, I knew that the day would eventually arrive.

I'm just thankful that tonight I happened by and read this particular thread,
before you had the chance to realize the awful truth for yourself
and then disappeared without another word...

It would have been so sad if I hadn't gotten the chance to tell you...........







We all banded together long ago and made a pact of silence.
You are so very well versed,
with such a vast array of knowledge of how each tiny piece of this puzzle fits together...
We all wanted to sit in awe,
and wait for you to explain! :angel:

 

[Ames]

She really wasn't a drinker and the cancer and meds affected her liver. But you do have a good and active imagination.

Its not my imagination....Patsy herself, in one of her interviews ADMITTED to having a couple of cocktails at the White's party. I didn't just pull that out of thin air. My point was, that she could have not been used to drinking, and it affected her differently than it would have, if she drank all the time. Therefore, making her more aggitated than normal.

 

[Solace]

Its not my imagination....Patsy herself, in one of her interviews ADMITTED to having a couple of cocktails at the White's party. I didn't just pull that out of thin air. My point was, that she could have not been used to drinking, and it affected her differently than it would have, if she drank all the time. Therefore, making her more aggitated than normal.

And lets not forget those pesky tranquilizers. Patsy had to have been taking tranquilizers when she was going through the cancer treatments. And I bet she was taking xanax as well. It is almost a miracle worker as far as eliminating depression, but it is notoriously addictive. It will addict you in a month. I know that she tells Kane she was taking xanax for anxiety attacks that happened to pop up one day - (Right Patsy, you did not know what it was. You just headed for the shrinks office - could it be that you are having anxiety over the fact that your daughter was murdered. This woman is so full of it). My point is that I do not believe her for a minute that she did not know what she was feeling and I do not believe for a minute it was the first time she took xanax.

 

[Credence]

I have this to say about that:


"That's one of the possibilities, but that's not the only possibility," said the scientist, who asked that his name not be used. It's impossible to say whether the DNA belonged to an adult or a child, according to the scientist.
<just want to address this statement>

So you would believe a scientist that refuses to give his name over one that specifically gives his? Anonymous sources are not credible IMO.

 

[Solace]

So you would believe a scientist that refuses to give his name over one that specifically gives his? Anonymous sources are not credible IMO.

Credence: I do not need a scientist to tell me that DNA that is "unsourced' and "older" and has only 10 markers is SUSPECT and cannot be and should not assumed to be that of an INTRUDER. I can figure that out for myself. No one disagrees about the above three facts. Just because you have unsourced DNA does not immediately mean that it is that of an intruder and then when you add the fact that it is "older" meaning it was there before the night of the murder and it is "degraded" and does not have the needed 13 markers, I can assume and correctly so that this DNA would more than likely be aged and from someone who was NOT in the house that night.

If we are trying to get at the truth in this case, why don't we use the "facts". The case is hard enough as it is and bending evidence to suit a theory is a waste of time. If we are going to do that, why bother talking about the case at all. Dr. Baden was on Fox news when the Karr thing was going strong and a very uninformed interviewer looked very foolish when she said this unsourced DNA proves the Ramseys are innocent. He looked incredulous and said I don't mean to be rude, but how and why would you ever get a notion like that is beyond me. And then he explained the above. All I am saying is that the Ramseys have lept on this unsourced DNA like it was "gospel" of their innocence (most likely because they are hanging on by their fingernails with the evidence they had) and hoping that those who are uninformed will believe it. And some have.

I do not and neither do most of the people who have read about this case in depth. It is just another smokescreen and sometimes it works, even to this day, but usually when it is analyzed, it is realized that this is just not true.

 

[BBB167893]

I've been waiting long months in fear that someday soon you would ask this very question.

In my heart of hearts, I knew that the day would eventually arrive.

I'm just thankful that tonight I happened by and read this particular thread,
before you had the chance to realize the awful truth for yourself
and then disappeared without another word...

It would have been so sad if I hadn't gotten the chance to tell you...........







We all banded together long ago and made a pact of silence.
You are so very well versed,
with such a vast array of knowledge of how each tiny piece of this puzzle fits together...
We all wanted to sit in awe,
and wait for you to explain!

I'm afraid I don't follow you, angelwngs. Is that a shot this way?

 

[Solace]

I'm afraid I don't follow you, angelwngs. Is that a shot this way?

I was wondering that myself.

 

[angelwngs]

I'm afraid I don't follow you, angelwngs. Is that a shot this way?

Lord NO, Super Dave! You are my hero in the JBR case. It was meant with genuine sincerity. I come here often to read and catch up, and my biggest fear is that one day, I will come here and your very brilliant mind and vast knowlege will have 'moved on'.

Dedicated humans such as yourself are my only imaginable hope of ever seeing justice for JBR actually come to pass....

I'm so sorry you questioned otherwise. I hold you in very high reguard. :angel:

 

[BBB167893]

Don't beat yourself up over it.

 

[angelwngs]

Don't beat yourself up over it.

Too late. Afraid I've already successfully done quite a good job of doing just that...