Forensic evidence

[Ames]

could be,if it was something innocent,which may very well be the case.If not,then I have to wonder if the 'secret visit' referred to a visit from a molester(JR) dressed in a Santa suit as a disguise.
The visit reffered to after Christmas,and it was a secret--from Santa.Was after Xmas (x=greek word for Christ,so no offense to anyone) that night,after everyone got home and the day was over?Remember the Santa suit was questioned about in the interviews.And there were pics found in the basement of JB that were taken in the basement.ODD.It points to molestation,IMO.Combine it with JR trying to account for his underwear fibers in her room,his fibers found on JB's body,and the word 'incest' being looked up....

So, do you think that JR molested JB dressed as Santa??? Would JB not recognize her own dad...even if he was wearing a santa suit?? Maybe his voice?? I have a funny story to tell....my dad used to call my oldest daughter and pretend that he was Santa...he was good at it too. One year he called, and I didn't know at the time, but she had somehow managed to climb on the counter, and somehow read the Caller ID. After Santa and my daughter hung up, she said..."I know that was PAPA...pretending to be santa, because I saw his name on the caller ID". I had know idea that she could read his name.

 

[JMO8778]

So, do you think that JR molested JB dressed as Santa??? Would JB not recognize her own dad...even if he was wearing a santa suit?? Maybe his voice?? I have a funny story to tell....my dad used to call my oldest daughter and pretend that he was Santa...he was good at it too. One year he called, and I didn't know at the time, but she had somehow managed to climb on the counter, and somehow read the Caller ID. After Santa and my daughter hung up, she said..."I know that was PAPA...pretending to be santa, because I saw his name on the caller ID". I had know idea that she could read his name.

I don't know,perhaps that was his plan? any disguise is better than none.
That's cute

 

[UKGuy]

If BR saw anything,I think he blocked it out.JR?I think he's all about money.

JMO8778,

If BR saw anything,I think he blocked it out

I doubt this, he has to know why he is changing his version of events, and then falling silent on other issues, JR states Burke was awake after JonBenet was placed in bed. His fingerprints link him with JonBenet's pineapple snack, so he was awake, as was JonBenet, he knows what took place that night because at a minimum he heard it all happen?

JR?I think he's all about money.

He may be but why should he defend Patsy and fail to assist JonBenet, why should he involve himself in what he knows is a homicide?

The notion that JonBenet died as the result of an accident does not seem to add up.


.

 

[Ames]

JMO8778,


I doubt this, he has to know why he is changing his version of events, and then falling silent on other issues, JR states Burke was awake after JonBenet was placed in bed. His fingerprints link him with JonBenet's pineapple snack, so he was awake, as was JonBenet, he knows what took place that night because at a minimum he heard it all happen?


He may be but why should he defend Patsy and fail to assist JonBenet, why should he involve himself in what he knows is a homicide?

The notion that JonBenet died as the result of an accident does not seem to add up.


.

Finally, something that we can agree on. I also believe that Burke might not have been in the same room, but you KNOW that he had to have heard something...he even admits to hearing "noises...and voices" that night. Oh yeah, he for sure knows more than he is saying....and he is protecting a family member...or TWO family members. IMO

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,


I doubt this, he has to know why he is changing his version of events, and then falling silent on other issues, JR states Burke was awake after JonBenet was placed in bed. His fingerprints link him with JonBenet's pineapple snack, so he was awake, as was JonBenet, he knows what took place that night because at a minimum he heard it all happen?


He may be but why should he defend Patsy and fail to assist JonBenet, why should he involve himself in what he knows is a homicide?

The notion that JonBenet died as the result of an accident does not seem to add up.


.

I mean it's possible he blocked out any major events,such as hearing screaming.He clearly doesn't know what's going on the next morning,as per the 911 call.As to why he would lie..I think he was very likely told by attorneys that LE was wrongly out to get his family for JB's death...so there is a need to get together and keep all version of events the same, so none of the different versions will be questioned.I don't think that was something overly complicated for someone his age at the time.

 

[Eagle1]

First, UKGuy, I believe that's just what I said, that we have no proof there were intruders, or that there were NOT. Just another way of putting it. BTW, do you ever read Scalawag magazine? If so, I want to PM you a question about an article re someone's real estate there, and if there was ever a followup.

Toltec, "She heard a loud crack"? Aren't we only getting this by reading "between the lines"?

Guys, all of us know all of this that we've been discussing from day one, but venturing into another direction and assuming nobody was acting alone, so there's no need to defend anyone, WHAT ABOUT those 12-15 (?) other dead children on that celtic harp?

We only have peoples' word for it that everything and everyone was investigated thoroughly. We also have the expression "Police Bungling".

At least one, maybe more of the friends belonged to a "Unity" church which did experiments for Comparative Religions education, once did a ritual written by Jesse McReynolds' wife, according to posters at another forum.
JonBenet's death doesn't sound like a ritual, unless something like a tree sacrificing itself for the pleasure of (many?) others. About all I know from searching is that celtic harps were considered magical, and children had some kind of sex games to make sure they would be ready at the proper time, and one poster found that at least one little boy on the harp had been murdered. She couldn't find names.

Was there a coverup? The daughter of one of the couples had a friend who was molested by a masked man allegedly, and records of whatever investigation there was disappeared.

Were the Ramseys so anxious to get along well with everyone and everything, evidently for business reasons, that they might belong to some cult revival group? Just asking, not saying it's my opinion they were. Just trying to broaden our horizons a bit.

We have NO proof, just the Rs' word for it, that they were even the only ones in the house, and I don't claim to know if they knew exactly what happened, or whether they took part and would be more ashamed of having that exposed than having a murder pinned on them. In the VanDam case, the parents had to face some embarrassment about what had been going on in the house. Like the R's, they at the very least weren't paying enough attention to their little daughters, no matter how you slice it.

 

[UKGuy]

First, UKGuy, I believe that's just what I said, that we have no proof there were intruders, or that there were NOT. Just another way of putting it. BTW, do you ever read Scalawag magazine? If so, I want to PM you a question about an article re someone's real estate there, and if there was ever a followup.

Toltec, "She heard a loud crack"? Aren't we only getting this by reading "between the lines"?

Guys, all of us know all of this that we've been discussing from day one, but venturing into another direction and assuming nobody was acting alone, so there's no need to defend anyone, WHAT ABOUT those 12-15 (?) other dead children on that celtic harp?

We only have peoples' word for it that everything and everyone was investigated thoroughly. We also have the expression "Police Bungling".

At least one, maybe more of the friends belonged to a "Unity" church which did experiments for Comparative Religions education, once did a ritual written by Jesse McReynolds' wife, according to posters at another forum.
JonBenet's death doesn't sound like a ritual, unless something like a tree sacrificing itself for the pleasure of (many?) others. About all I know from searching is that celtic harps were considered magical, and children had some kind of sex games to make sure they would be ready at the proper time, and one poster found that at least one little boy on the harp had been murdered. She couldn't find names.

Was there a coverup? The daughter of one of the couples had a friend who was molested by a masked man allegedly, and records of whatever investigation there was disappeared.

Were the Ramseys so anxious to get along well with everyone and everything, evidently for business reasons, that they might belong to some cult revival group? Just asking, not saying it's my opinion they were. Just trying to broaden our horizons a bit.

We have NO proof, just the Rs' word for it, that they were even the only ones in the house, and I don't claim to know if they knew exactly what happened, or whether they took part and would be more ashamed of having that exposed than having a murder pinned on them. In the VanDam case, the parents had to face some embarrassment about what had been going on in the house. Like the R's, they at the very least weren't paying enough attention to their little daughters, no matter how you slice it.

Eagle1,

Scalawag magazine, Ive never read it.

We have NO proof, just the Rs' word for it, that they were even the only ones in the house, and I don't claim to know if they knew exactly what happened, or whether they took part and would be more ashamed of having that exposed than having a murder pinned on them. In the VanDam case, the parents had to face some embarrassment about what had been going on in the house. Like the R's, they at the very least weren't paying enough attention to their little daughters, no matter how you slice it.

On this point I think you are correct, but you will have a hard time persuading all those PDI adherents.

There may have been a conspiracy, a liberal lifestyle party, who knows, maybe the evidence was contained on the missing vhs tapes. I personally think something was covered up that reached out among those in authority, moneyed and connected with the Ramsey's. It may be something not connected directly to JonBenet's death, possibly the wealthy swinging, and/or indulging in controlled substances, adultery etc. A call, from the Ramsey house, was placed to the governor of Colorado the morning that JonBenet died, and its guaranteed it was no social call!

Remember Andrew Luster the Max Factor heir? The fact he had more money behind him than the Ramsey's ever had, suggests its not simply a matter of money?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

I also believe BR knows more than we think. And I believe he was up late with his sister having a snack. He could have eaten pineapple too, for all we know. BUT there is one thing about all fingerprints. They can't be "dated". It can't be proved that because the glass with the teabag (and BR's prints) is sitting on the table next to the bowl of pineapple (with PR's prints) that they were consumed at the same time. The tea COULD have been from breakfast, with the teabag plopped in the glass after being used to make a cup of hot tea. I don't recall ever seeing whose prints were on the spoon, or if the spoon was even tested. DNA could have been taken from saliva on that spoon, or even from the remaining pineapple in the bowl because if there was milk in the bowl too, and the spoon had dipped back into it, saliva (and DNA) would be there. Then there would be no way the R's could deny JBR had eaten the pineapple.
Now if BR's prints are also on the bowl/spoon, then that WOULD show he was at that table at the same time as his sister.
Of course, I don't believe his lawyers ever let him be asked that, did they?

 

[JMO8778]

The pineapple was consistant,right down to the rind,with what was in her stomach,so they can deny it all they want,PR's prints are on the bowl,no 'intruder' served her pineapple that night.

 

[UKGuy]

I also believe BR knows more than we think. And I believe he was up late with his sister having a snack. He could have eaten pineapple too, for all we know. BUT there is one thing about all fingerprints. They can't be "dated". It can't be proved that because the glass with the teabag (and BR's prints) is sitting on the table next to the bowl of pineapple (with PR's prints) that they were consumed at the same time. The tea COULD have been from breakfast, with the teabag plopped in the glass after being used to make a cup of hot tea. I don't recall ever seeing whose prints were on the spoon, or if the spoon was even tested. DNA could have been taken from saliva on that spoon, or even from the remaining pineapple in the bowl because if there was milk in the bowl too, and the spoon had dipped back into it, saliva (and DNA) would be there. Then there would be no way the R's could deny JBR had eaten the pineapple.
Now if BR's prints are also on the bowl/spoon, then that WOULD show he was at that table at the same time as his sister.
Of course, I don't believe his lawyers ever let him be asked that, did they?

DeeDee249,
From memory Burke and Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl. But as you suggest this does not date them it simply locates them. No information, to my knowledge, has ever been released about fingerprints being on the spoon, with the pineapple residue in JonBenet's stomach, the fingerprints would only confirm what we already know, e.g. that she was awake when the parents said she was asleep.

Its possible to recognise why JR in his statement said Burke was with him for a period after arriving home, e.g. he was not sipping tea with JonBenet. As a working assumption Burke can be assumed to accompany JonBenet during her pineapple snack, simply because he is linked by forensic evidence, and he has the opportunity, e.g. if JonBenet was awake, and Burke is awake, and there is snacking to do, then late at night they will do it together. If Patsy's fingerprints were on the glass another interpretation would be possible, and if Burke had consumed the tea at an earlier point in the day then possibly it may have already been cleaned away, otherwise, why is only his glass left on the table, did JonBenet have any breakfast, fruit juice etc?

So the forensic evidence tells you that JonBenet was awake long after arriving home from the White's party, the more important point Burke could confirm is was she wearing what she wore to the White's and was her hair the same?

Shortly after this pineapple snack someone killed JonBenet, so it had nothing to do with wetting or soiling the bed, it also had nothing to do with douching since Patsy is on record as not attending to JonBenet's hygiene either because of her cancer, or neglect, never mind that a 6-year old girl is not mature enough for such a procedure.

An accident is the next candidate for consideration, and the question why JonBenet was denied medical assistance needs an answer since she was deliberately killed, her injuries tell you this?

Did JonBenet scream in pain, was she going to talk, was her death a consequence of an attempt to silence her by constricting her neck?


.

 

[Solace]

DeeDee249,
From memory Burke and Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl. But as you suggest this does not date them it simply locates them. No information, to my knowledge, has ever been released about fingerprints being on the spoon, with the pineapple residue in JonBenet's stomach, the fingerprints would only confirm what we already know, e.g. that she was awake when the parents said she was asleep.

Its possible to recognise why JR in his statement said Burke was with him for a period after arriving home, e.g. he was not sipping tea with JonBenet. As a working assumption Burke can be assumed to accompany JonBenet during her pineapple snack, simply because he is linked by forensic evidence, and he has the opportunity, e.g. if JonBenet was awake, and Burke is awake, and there is snacking to do, then late at night they will do it together. If Patsy's fingerprints were on the glass another interpretation would be possible, and if Burke had consumed the tea at an earlier point in the day then possibly it may have already been cleaned away, otherwise, why is only his glass left on the table, did JonBenet have any breakfast, fruit juice etc?

So the forensic evidence tells you that JonBenet was awake long after arriving home from the White's party, the more important point Burke could confirm is was she wearing what she wore to the White's and was her hair the same?

Shortly after this pineapple snack someone killed JonBenet, so it had nothing to do with wetting or soiling the bed, it also had nothing to do with douching since Patsy is on record as not attending to JonBenet's hygiene either because of her cancer, or neglect, never mind that a 6-year old girl is not mature enough for such a procedure. You were giving a fairly good argument up until here. A six year old girl is not mature enough for pageants, but she was in them and Patsy subjected her to it. Her maturity has nothing to do with whether or not Patsy was douching her.

An accident is the next candidate for consideration, and the question why JonBenet was denied medical assistance needs an answer since she was deliberately killed, her injuries tell you this? Been answered.

Did JonBenet scream in pain, was she going to talk, was her death a consequence of an attempt to silence her by constricting her neck? She probably screamed when someone was twisting the shirt hard enough around her neck to leave their thumb print.


.

Here we go again.

 

[Ames]

Here we go again.

LOL...:laugh:

 

[Albert18]

... A call, from the Ramsey house, was placed to the governor of Colorado the morning that JonBenet died, and its guaranteed it was no social call!

I've always thought John Ramsey moved mountains that morning, which I think supports the accident theory.

If there had been an intruder, then the Ramsey's wouldn't have needed protection.

I doubt the power brokers in Colorado would have risked their reputations to protect parents who had killed their daughter. But how did they know what actually happened? Somehow the power brokers had to have been convinced this was an unfortunate accident.

Maybe the system is so controlled in Colorado that their wasn't much risk. If the investigation hinted at an accident then things could continue as planned. If the investigation pointed towards an outright murder, not an accident, then the plan could be changed. Either way, nobody would know what had been going on behind the scenes.

 

[UKGuy]

I've always thought John Ramsey moved mountains that morning, which I think supports the accident theory.

If there had been an intruder, then the Ramsey's wouldn't have needed protection.

I doubt the power brokers in Colorado would have risked their reputations to protect parents who had killed their daughter. But how did they know what actually happened? Somehow the power brokers had to have been convinced this was an unfortunate accident.

Maybe the system is so controlled in Colorado that their wasn't much risk. If the investigation hinted at an accident then things could continue as planned. If the investigation pointed towards an outright murder, not an accident, then the plan could be changed. Either way, nobody would know what had been going on behind the scenes.

Albert18,

I've always thought John Ramsey moved mountains that morning, which I think supports the accident theory.

If it was an accident why all the homicide staging, why not just tell it like it is?

I doubt the power brokers in Colorado would have risked their reputations to protect parents who had killed their daughter.

Well someone resident in the Ramsey house did kill JonBenet, and since she was denied medical assistance, this means it was intended that she should die. Thats before her injuries are itemised, patently her strangulation abrasions were not accidental. So if they told someone in power that it was an accident, how come all the violence and homicide staging?

Neither the intruder nor the accident theory stand up to scrutiny, both are riddled with inconsistencies, and both lack any credible forensic evidence.


.

 

[Solace]

Albert18,


If it was an accident why all the homicide staging, why not just tell it like it is?


Well someone resident in the Ramsey house did kill JonBenet, and since she was denied medical assistance, this means it was intended that she should die. Thats before her injuries are itemised, patently her strangulation abrasions were not accidental. So if they told someone in power that it was an accident, how come all the violence and homicide staging?

Neither the intruder nor the accident theory stand up to scrutiny, both are riddled with inconsistencies, and both lack any credible forensic evidence.

POSTED BY MISTAKE. SORRRY.

 

[Solace]

Albert18,


If it was an accident why all the homicide staging, why not just tell it like it is? Because it was a "rage" and at the very lease the person would be charged with "manslaughter with depraved indifference".


Well someone resident in the Ramsey house did kill JonBenet, and since she was denied medical assistance, this means it was intended that she should die. Thats before her injuries are itemised, patently her strangulation abrasions were not accidental. So if they told someone in power that it was an accident, how come all the violence and homicide staging? She was denied medical assistance because that loud crack Patsy heard was JB's skull cracking in half and I have no doubt she bent down and checked it out and by the way, it would not surprise me if she at some point in that time slot put JB's hair in two pony tails to deflect the injury, she may still at that point may have been thinking about reporting it and thought well this could possibly hide it and thought she could say that is why I did not realize she was hurt, the hair covered it. Just a thought.

Neither the intruder nor the accident theory stand up to scrutiny, both are riddled with inconsistencies, and both lack any credible forensic evidence. I agree - there are inconsistencies with the accident theory - because it is not an accident, she willfully disregarded her child's welfare and killed her. So you might want to stop calling it an accident implying that it was similar to the gold club incident - it is not.


.

One more time.

 

[Albert18]

"If it was an accident why all the homicide staging, why not just tell it like it is?"

Because the person who did the staging and the person who made the phone calls aren't the same person.

The accident/homicide staging theory doesn't make sense for a lot of people because they have Patsy running to get John immediately after the head wound. They add John right away because they think Patsy is incompetent and/or because of the fibers from John's shirt found on JonBenet. Patsy knew what she had done and therefore she wears the same clothes the next day. Why didn't John wear the same clothes the next day?

If you stop including Patsy and John working as a team that night things really do make sense.

 

[Toltec]

So, do you think that JR molested JB dressed as Santa??? Would JB not recognize her own dad...even if he was wearing a santa suit?? Maybe his voice?? I have a funny story to tell....my dad used to call my oldest daughter and pretend that he was Santa...he was good at it too. One year he called, and I didn't know at the time, but she had somehow managed to climb on the counter, and somehow read the Caller ID. After Santa and my daughter hung up, she said..."I know that was PAPA...pretending to be santa, because I saw his name on the caller ID". I had know idea that she could read his name.

I can picture John putting the old moldy Santa suit found in the crawlspace....going into JonBenets room....HO HO HO!

umm...don't think so.

 

[Ames]

I also believe BR knows more than we think. And I believe he was up late with his sister having a snack. He could have eaten pineapple too, for all we know. BUT there is one thing about all fingerprints. They can't be "dated". It can't be proved that because the glass with the teabag (and BR's prints) is sitting on the table next to the bowl of pineapple (with PR's prints) that they were consumed at the same time. The tea COULD have been from breakfast, with the teabag plopped in the glass after being used to make a cup of hot tea. I don't recall ever seeing whose prints were on the spoon, or if the spoon was even tested. DNA could have been taken from saliva on that spoon, or even from the remaining pineapple in the bowl because if there was milk in the bowl too, and the spoon had dipped back into it, saliva (and DNA) would be there. Then there would be no way the R's could deny JBR had eaten the pineapple.
Now if BR's prints are also on the bowl/spoon, then that WOULD show he was at that table at the same time as his sister.
Of course, I don't believe his lawyers ever let him be asked that, did they?

I don't know...Patsy said in her interview that those things..the bowl, the glass, and the kleenex box...was not there when they went to bed that night. She said that the table was cleared after breakfast....that could just be another Patsy lie, though....who knows.

 

[Ames]

I can picture John putting the old moldy Santa suit found in the crawlspace....going into JonBenets room....HO HO HO!

umm...don't think so.

LOL...me either.