Fingerprints on Waterglass Identified as Burke's

[narlacat]

Yep.

It's absolutely crazy what some people will come up with.

The funniest thing I've read is that the perp was living at the Ram's in the basement for months beforehand!
Yeah right

 

[shiloh]

Not only did it not happen, Brefie, it hasn't happened again in almost ten years!

"That's why you cannot believe ANYTHING in the ransom note."

Let's see: the killer is a pedophile...NO! He wants ransom...he wants John's bonus...he must be a vengeful employee...No! He's a terrorist! He's an Islamic militant, that's why he said behead her...no! He's an extreme-left, anti-corporate home-grown nutjob...

This is confusing!

No, Patsy was offering her as a sacrifice and had bound her with cords. No, JBR wet her bed the same as she had done in the past without any prior abuse, but for some reason, Patsy decided to hit her on the head with a baseball bat that particular night. After all, she did admit to ST that she did not kill her baby, therefore, she must have! What a dolt.

 

[narlacat]

Well, you know....if my child had been brutally murdered and had been force fed pineapple just prior to her death, I certainly would not have turned around and decorated my house with pineapple wallpaper.
What a fess.

 

[BBB167893]

"No, Patsy was offering her as a sacrifice and had bound her with cords. No, JBR wet her bed the same as she had done in the past without any prior abuse, but for some reason, Patsy decided to hit her on the head with a baseball bat that particular night. After all, she did admit to ST that she did not kill her baby, therefore, she must have! What a dolt."

I think you misunderstood, shiloh. I was describing the competing motives in the note, not competing theories of the case!

And it probably wasn't a baseball bat.

And I think there was prior abuse and some SERIOUS mental problems at work.
Be more than happy to provide some quotes in that regard, as well.

 

[aussiesheila]

About the fingerprints, I sincerely doubt that those would be washed away in the dishwasher unless that particular area had be wiped off beforehand, or dried off afterwards, so I really don't think fingerprints on bowls or glasses are necessarily significant.

I would like to be a bit more sure about fingerprints and how long and under what circumstances they remain on kitchenware. I think that in going through a dishwashing cycle most fingerprints would be removed by the harsh action of the detergents used. On the other hand, if the item was simply handwashed by running water over it without even mild detergent, fingerprints could very well remain especially if left to drain on the sink and not wiped with a teatowel. So did Patsy/Linda put everything through the dishwasher or did they handwash? No-one knows, so we can choose and rationalise till the cows come home whichever method was used for each item under discussion. Which is probably what we will all do to get the fingerprint data to fit with our own pet theory. And yes I will be guilty of that too, I'll admit it.

 

[aussiesheila]

It's absolutely beyond belief that an intruder would forcefeed pineapple down JBR using rubber gloves so that the police would only find Ramsey prints on their own dishware!

twinkiesmom, I suppose you and most others would also find it beyond belief that a Santa with his white cotton gloves might feed JonBenet one of her favourite foods and that she might eat it willingly.

 

[aussiesheila]

But, historically, fingerprints have likely convicted more criminals than any other single item of forensic evidence.


BlueCrab

Yes they have BlueCrab, and sometimes erroneously, in fact.

Analysis of fingerprint data is not absolute, there is an interpretation factor in there somewhere, leaving room for biased investigators to nudge the result in the desired direction.

 

[aussiesheila]

I'm just now reading PTPM or PMPT, whichever. John says he carried sleeping JonBenet to her room, undressed her, Patsy helped put pj's on her, then he READ to her. I know the experts all say you should read to your children, but doesn't make much sense to read to a sleeping child.

He was misquoted, he actually said he put the sleeping Jonbenet to bed then went to bed himself and read a book. Schiller has acknowledged there were small (unintentional) errors in his book.

 

[aussiesheila]

True again, BUT they weren't! Even the batteries inside were wiped down.

How and when did 'no fingerprints obtained from batteries' become 'batteries were wiped down'? And who started it?

 

[twinkiesmom]

twinkiesmom, I suppose you and most others would also find it beyond belief that a Santa with his white cotton gloves might feed JonBenet one of her favourite foods and that she might eat it willingly.

Santa has been cleared in this case.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

He was misquoted, he actually said he put the sleeping Jonbenet to bed then went to bed himself and read a book. Schiller has acknowledged there were small (unintentional) errors in his book.

ST's book, hb, page 23

Officers reconstructed some of the timeline of the previous night from the parents' recollection. John Ramsey said the family returned home from the party about ten o'clock, and he read to both children before they went to sleep. He confirmed to Arndt that he had read to JonBenet after tucking her in. He would later deny these statements as well.

ST's book, hb, page 173

(JR is being interviewed by Thomas and Trujillo)

But even with that cursory reading, John Ramsey said he found "errors or misunderstandings." He said not only did he not check every door in the house the night before but he did not believe he checked any door. Also incorrect was the police notation that Ramsey said he read to the kids before going to bed. "That did not happen. I mean what happened was the kids went to bed and then I read."

I asked, "Do you attribute that simply to an officer's error in recollection, or might you have said that?"

"No, I wouldn't have said that. I think that maybe the way I said it was misinterpreted. I clearly did not read to the kids that night. JonBenet was asleep, we wanted Burke to get to sleep. We were going to get up early the next morning."

To believe him now, one would have to believe that three police officers - Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant eichenbach - were all mistaken about what Ramsey had told them.

 

[aussiesheila]

Santa has been cleared in this case.

By whom? He only gave fingerprint, handwriting and DNA samples. Just because none of these matched samples from the crimescene does not give him a pass. So he wore white cotton gloves, didn't write the ransom note and probably covered his face as he took his turn in molesting her.

 

[aussiesheila]

ST's book, hb, page 23

Officers reconstructed some of the timeline of the previous night from the parents' recollection. John Ramsey said the family returned home from the party about ten o'clock, and he read to both children before they went to sleep. He confirmed to Arndt that he had read to JonBenet after tucking her in. He would later deny these statements as well.

I think I've said this to you before Nuisanceposter, ST should not be used as a source for anyone looking for facts in this case IMO.

 

[Britt]

I think I've said this to you before Nuisanceposter, ST should not be used as a source for anyone looking for facts in this case IMO.

Why not?

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I think I've said this to you before Nuisanceposter, ST should not be used as a source for anyone looking for facts in this case IMO.

I edited my post to add more from Thomas's book. Please read it.

I know a lot of people want to discount Steve Thomas's book, but that's rather narrow-minded if you ask me. He has some personal sentiment in his book, but much of it is facts that can be backed up by police reports - for example, the part I just added about the reports of the three police officers who spoke to JR on the morning of the 26th and all noted that his story later changed from what they had originally been told by him.

I sorry Thomas's theory doesn't work into yours, aussiesheila, but that doesn't mean everything he says can be shrugged off as non-fact. I'm sorry John Ramsey changing his story doesn't help your theory, but it's true - John Ramsey changed his story.

 

[rashomon]

Toltec,

I reckon JonBenet was carried down to the basement in those blankets.

Probably by Patsy, the forensic evidence suggests she was placed in the wine-cellar but not according to Fleet White.

imo she was hidden away to simulate a kidnapping in the hope that the Ramsey social status would deflect suspicion away from them.

It was all doomed to fail until John made some late changes to the script then discovered JonBenet's corpse, the rest is history.

UKGuy: what exactly do you mean by John's 'late changes to the script'

 

[rashomon]

twinkiesmom, I suppose you and most others would also find it beyond belief that a Santa with his white cotton gloves might feed JonBenet one of her favourite foods and that she might eat it willingly.

Santa has been cleared in this case.

Santa has been cleared, but to tell you the truth, I'd sleep better if Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer's alibi for that night had been checked too.
You know, that animal hair found down in the basement ... Steve Thomas says it was beaver hair, but since "ST should not be used as a source for anyone looking for facts in this case", as one poster wrote, it probably was not beaver hair, but reindeer's hair left by Rudolph.
But who forgot to question Rudolph as a possible accomplice? The 'inexperienced detective' Steve Thomas of course. Shame on him!

 

[Britt]

lol Rashomon ... and what about those suspicious elves? Faction??? The North Pole is "foreign," isn't it?

Have intruder theorists ever shown why Thomas should be dismissed as a source? Other than his inconvenient theory, what exactly discredits the information he reported? Schiller published the same info. Both of them simply reported what was in the case files, police reports and expert opinions.

 

[trixie]

He was misquoted, he actually said he put the sleeping Jonbenet to bed then went to bed himself and read a book. Schiller has acknowledged there were small (unintentional) errors in his book.

He was NOT misquoted. He told 3 different LE officers the same story, independant of each other knowing what he had said to the other.

He, like Patsy, simply changed his story.

 

[RiverRat]

Thank you, Trixie. Sometimes, just a reminder of the facts should go a long way.

It's a shame to see that posts are allowed to stand here that defame Steve Thomas, a man that obviously had more concern for JonBenet than most Boulderites.

The one man that had absolutely not one financial tie to the Ramseys or their defense attorneys.

The one man that spent four months investigating and interviewing EVERYONE but John and Patsy Ramsey before they finally "cooperated" with the investigation of their daughter's homicide.

The one man who knew when it was time to fight fire with fire after witnessing the District Attorney's Office hand everything over to the Ramseys and the media.

He's The Man, all right. The Man that prevented evil from total victory, and for that, I can see where the defeated would have a problem with him.