IDI: Whats your problem?

IDI: Whats your problem?

  • DNA match will take forever.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • FBI isn't involved.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    82
Just while we are on the size 12s. Where is it written there were oversized panties on JBR? I've always accepted it as truth, although I've never seen a source. I suppose it's STs book again?

No its from the police and Patsy's own mouth. I've emphasised the relevant points.

Patsy's 2000 Atlanta interview with Kane and Boulder Police
8 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Ms. Ramsey, we

9 are going to move on to another area. And

10 what I want to discuss with you is the

11 underpants that JonBenet was wearing at the

12 time that she was discovered on the 26th.

13 We are going to try to get some background

14 information on those from you. Hopefully you

15 can help us out a little bit. Okay?

16 I don't, I'll be perfectly honest

17 with you, I don't follow all of the media

18 developments in this case, so I am not quite

19 sure what is out in the public sector. But

20 what I would like to get a feel for is just

21 what your belief is with regard to the

22 significance of the underpants that your

23 daughter was wearing at the time that she

24 was found murdered.

[snip]

18 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Well, let's start

19 with what - I will make it very simple for

20 you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you

21 in possession of or what do you know about

22 the underwear that your daughter was wearing

23 at the time she was found murdered?

24 A. I have heard that she had on a

25 pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.

0078

1 Q. The underwear that she was

2 wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you

3 know where they come from as far as what

4 store?

5 A. Bloomingdales in New York.

6 Q. Who purchased those?

7 A. I did.

8 Q. Do you recall when you purchased

9 them?

10 A. It was, I think, November of '96.

11 Q. In the fall of 1996, how many

12 trips did you make to New York?

13 A. Two, I believe.

14 Q. Do you recall, and again, the

15 same, same qualification I gave you when we

16 started, which is, I understand that you are

17 not going to give me exact dates, but the

18 two trips you made, did you make those with

19 different groups of people?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. The first trip, who was that trip

22 with?

23 A. The first trip was a

24 mother-daughter trip with my mother Nedra

25 Paugh, my sister Pam Paugh, friends Susan

0079

1 Flanders from Charlevoix, Michigan, and her

2 daughter and a friend of Susan's, Ms.

3 Kirkpatrick I believe was her name, and her

4 daughter, and JonBenet and myself.

5 Q. And the second trip you made was?

6 A. The second trip we made was with

7 Glen and Susan Stein.

8 Q. Is that the trip -- which trip

9 was the November trip?

10 A. With the children.

11 Q. Was that -- that is the first

12 trip?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And the second trip that you and

15 your husband and the Steins took, was that

16 also November, but later in the month, or

17 was that a December trip?

18 A. I think it was December.

19 Q. And maybe this will help jog your

20 memory as to time. I believe that was the

21 time of the Christmas parade in Boulder.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Were you out of town?

0080

1 A. I remember that.

2 Q. Which of those two trips did you

3 purchase the Bloomi's?

4 A. The first trip.

5 Q. Was it something that was selected

6 by JonBenet?

7 A. I believe so.

8 Q. Was it your intention, when you

9 purchased those, for those to be for her,

10 not for some third party as a gift?

11 A. I bought some things that were

12 gifts and some things for her. So I

13 don't --

14 Q. Just so I am clear, though, it is

15 your best recollection that the purchase of

16 the underpants, the Bloomi's days of the

17 week, was something that you bought for her,

18 whether it was just I am buying underwear

19 for my kids or these are special, here's a

20 present, that doesn't matter, but it was your

21 intention that she would wear those?

22 A. Well, I think that I bought a

23 package of the -- they came in a package of

24 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.

25 I think I bought a package to give to my

0081

1 niece.

2 Q. Which niece was that?

3 A. Jenny Davis.

4 Q. They came in, if you recall, do

5 you remember that they come in kind of a

6 plastic see-through plastic container.

7 A. Right.

8 Q. They are rolled up?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. So if I understand you correctly,

11 you bought one package for Jenny Davis, your

12 niece, and one for JonBenet?

13 A. I am not sure if I bought one or

14 two.

15 Q. Do you remember what size they

16 were?

17 A. Not exactly. [Patsy develops a case of severe amnesia in this interview[/b]

18 Q. JonBenet was found wearing the

19 Wednesday Bloomi's underpants, and your

20 understanding is correct, that is a fact, you

21 can accept that as a fact, when she was

22 found murdered. Those underpants do not fit

23 her. Were you aware of that?

24 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that

25 as a matter of fact --

0082

1 MR. LEVIN: I'm stating that as a

2 matter --

3 MR. WOOD: - for a six-year-old

4 child?

5 MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as

6 a matter of fact.

7 MR. WOOD: Don't fit her

8 according to whose standard?

9 MR. LEVIN: By --

10 MR. WOOD: I mean, I have got an

11 11-year-old boy, and he wears underwear that

12 potentially hangs down to his knees, Bruce.

13 I mean, I don't know how you can come up

14 with that as a fact. That sounds to me

15 like more of an opinion. Who states that as

16 fact?

17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Ms. Ramsey, your

18 daughter weighed, I believe, 45 pounds;

19 correct?

20 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

21 Q. She was six years old?

22 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

23 Q. What size underpants would you

24 normally buy for her?

25 A. 8 to 10.

0083

1 Q. Ms. Ramsey, would you say that it

2 would, it is safe to assume that, if she is

3 wearing underpants designed for someone who

4 weighs 85 pounds, who is 10 to 12 years old,

5 that those would not fit her?

6 A. Those -- I mean, I am sure she

7 could wear them, yes, but they wouldn't fit

8 as well as a smaller pair.

9 Q. And as a mother, you would know

10 that someone who is 85 pounds is

11 significantly larger than your little

12 six-year-old?

13 MR. WOOD: Can't we assume that

14 as a matter of 85 is more than 45 without

15 her having to document a mathematical fact,

16 Bruce?

17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) 40 pounds is the

18 wrong size pair of underpants, would you

19 agree?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Okay. What we are trying to

22 understand is whether -- we are trying to

23 understand why she is wearing such a large

24 pair of underpants. We are hoping you can

25 help us if you have a recollection of it.

0084

1 A. I am sure that I put the package

2 of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened

3 them and put them on.

4 Q. Do you know if -- you bought

5 these sometime in mid to early December, is

6 that correct, as far as -- no, I am sorry,

7 you bought them in November?

8 A. Right.

9 Q. Do you recall, was she wearing

10 these? And I don't mean this specific day

11 of the week, but was she wearing, were you

12 aware of the fact that she, you know, was in

13 this package of underpants and had been

14 wearing them since the trip to New York in

15 November?

16 A. I don't remember.

17 Q. Ms. Hoffman Pugh generally did the

18 laundry for the family, that is part of her

19 duties; is that correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Exclusively, or did you wash

22 clothes on occasion?

23 A. I washed a lot of clothes.

24 Q. Do you have any recollection of

25 ever washing any of the Bloomi panties?

0085

1 A. Not specifically.

2 Q. Was it something that, the fact

3 that she is wearing these underpants designed

4 for an 85-pound person, did you ever -- and

5 I will give you a minute to think about it

6 because I know it is tough to try to pin

7 down a couple of months of casual

8 conversation -- do you recall ever having any

9 conversations with her concerning the fact

10 that she is wearing underwear that is just

11 too large for her?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Knowing yourself as you do, if it

14 was, if it had caught your attention or came

15 to your attention, do you think you might

16 have said, JonBenet, you should, those don't

17 fit, put something on that fits, that is

18 inappropriate? Do you think, if it came,

19 had come to your attention --

20 A. Well, obviously we, you know, the

21 package had been opened, we made the

22 decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and

23 use them because, you know, we weren't going

24 to give them to Jenny after all, I guess,

25 so.

0086

1 I mean, if you have ever seen

2 these little panties, there is not too much

3 difference in the size. So, you know, I'm

4 sure even if they were a little bit big,

5 they were special because we got them up

6 there, she wanted to wear them, and they

7 didn't fall down around her ankles, that was

8 fine with me.

9 MR. MORRISSEY: Did you ever see

10 if they fell down around her ankles or not?

11 THE WITNESS: No.

12 MS. HARMER: But you specifically

13 remember her putting on the bigger pair?

14 And I am not saying --

15 THE WITNESS: They were just in

16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I

17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all

18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can

19 help herself to whatever is in there.

20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not

21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to

22 Jenny.

23 THE WITNESS: Right.

24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in

25 JonBenet's bathroom?

0087

1 A. Right.

2 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm

3 sorry. Do you recall making a decision then

4 not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet

5 express an interest in them; therefore, you

6 didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --

7 A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I

8 think I bought them with the intention of

9 sending them in a package of Christmas things

10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that

11 together, so I just put them in her, her

12 panty drawer. So they were free game.

13 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) At the time,

14 how old was Jenny?

15 A. I don't know. Probably -- I

16 don't know. She is older than JonBenet, but

17 I don't know exactly how old she was.

18 Q. Would these panties, size wise, be

19 more appropriate for -- is she an older

20 girl?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And I assume a larger girl?

23 A. Well, at that time, no, not -- I

24 mean, she is not -- I mean, today she is a

25 young woman, but then she was a little girl.

0088

1 Q. How old is she now?

2 A. She is now 15, I believe.

3 Q. So she would have been about 12

4 or somewhere --

5 A. 11.

6 Q. -- 11, 12?

7 A. Yeah.

8 Q. And based on the, I guess,

9 dimensions that Mr. Levin has talked about,

10 these would have been a size appropriate for

11 her?

12 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

13 MR. WOOD: Do you know that?

14 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Based on your

15 knowledge of her? I mean, I never have seen

16 this girl, so --

17 MR. WOOD: Guys, I think -- if

18 you all have kids, I mean, I just think you

19 are making assumptions based on poundage,

20 apparently, that isn't necessarily, you know,

21 in touch with the realities with kids and

22 their clothes. But you know, if you know

23 that, Patsy, please tell them.

24 Why don't you go ahead and

25 restate your question.

0089

1 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) You purchased

2 these specifically for a person?

3 A. Okay.

4 MR. WOOD: Is that your

5 recollection?

6 THE WITNESS: Yes.

7 MR. WOOD: Okay.

8 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And I assume

9 you wanted them to fit her and she be able

10 to wear them or there would be no sense in

11 purchasing them; right?

12 A. Right.

13 Q. Okay. Would the size that has

14 been described here be appropriate for the

15 size of the girl you purchased them for?

16 A. I was guessing at her size, so I

17 had hoped that they would be.

18 Q. Now, we have talked -- you know,

19 the fact that a boy may wear boxer shorts

20 that go down to his ankles --

21 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

22 Q. --has nothing to do with girls,

23 when you purchase girl's panties; right?

24 MR. WOOD: Come on, Mitch.

25 Mitch --

0090

1 THE WITNESS: I mean, if --

2 MR. WOOD: Don't answer that.

3 That's not a --

4 MR. MORRISSEY: It is different.

5 MR. WOOD: I made the statement

6 because of my kids, but let me just tell

7 you, my nine-year-old daughter likes to wear

8 my XL T-shirts. I mean, you are asking now

9 about the realm of kids, and I don't think

10 that is a factual question that she is

11 really here to give you information about.

12 MR. MORRISSEY: Mrs. Ramsey, I

13 never purchased a pair of girl's panties.

14 Okay.

15 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) What do you

16 do, I mean, when you do that, what do you

17 think about as far as the person you're

18 purchasing them for?

19 A. Well, you just look, small,

20 medium, large, you know, and you pick the

21 one you think would most likely fit.

22 Q. And do they have age groups or

23 are they suggested for like a 10-year-old

24 through a 12-year-old or a 13-year-old

25 through a 15-year-old? Do they do it that

0091

1 way too?

2 A. I never paid any attention if

3 they do.

4 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay.

5 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Let me ask it

6 this way. Did you say you bought more than

7 one set of Bloomi's?

8 A. I can't remember.

9 Q. You bought some for JonBenet?

10 A. I can't remember.

11 Q. Why is it that you remember

12 buying Bloomingdale's panties in November of

13 1996?

14 A. Because --

15 MR. WOOD: Because she remembers

16 it. I mean --

17 MR. KANE: Wait a second, Lin.

18 Would you please let her answer the question?

19 It is a simple question.

20 MR. WOOD: Why is it that you

21 remember something?

22 MR. KANE: Yes, why do you

23 remember --

24 MR. WOOD: Because she remembered.

25 Q. (By Mr. Kane) - that, that

0092

1 detail?

2 A. Well, for starters, it has been

3 made such a big detail.

4 Q. Okay, well, that is my question.

5 A. I remember that I -- and I, you

6 know, we were kind of shopping around, and

7 it was close to Christmas season, so we

8 might pick up a little souvenir. I

9 bought -- I think I picked up a little

10 something for a baby-sitter, you know.

11 Q. Where was it that you became

12 aware that this was -- where was it that it

13 was made a big deal? What was the source

14 of your information that Bloomingdale's

15 panties somehow were significant that made

16 you then say, wait a second, did I ever buy

17 those?

18 MR. WOOD: Do you have a precise

19 recollection of that event occurring where

20 all of a sudden something happened and you

21 decided it was some big deal?

22 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I

23 mean, my first thought is something in the

24 tabloids, but, you know, they get everything

25 wrong, so --

0093

1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you

2 aware that these were the size of panties

3 that she was wearing, and this has been

4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they

5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of

6 that?

7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.

8 Q. And how did you become aware of

9 that?

10 A. Something I read, I am sure.

11 Q. And I will just state a fact

12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties

13 taken out of, by the police, out of

14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is

15 that where she kept -

16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

17 Q. -- where you were describing that

18 they were just put in that drawer?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was

21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?

22 Would that have been about the size pair of

23 panties that she wore when she was six years

24 old?

25 A. I would say more like six to

0094

1 eight. There were probably some in there

2 that were too small.

3 Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?

4 A. Not typically, no.

5 MR. KANE: Okay.

6 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And you

7 understand the reason we are asking this, we

8 want to make sure that this intruder did not

9 bring these panties with him, this was

10 something --

11 A. Right.

12 Q. - that was in the house.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And we are clear that, as far as

15 you know, that is something that was in this

16 house?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. -- that belonged to your daughter,

19 these panties?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Mrs. Ramsey,

22 have you ever seen a crime scene photo of

23 the underwear that your daughter was found

24 in?

25 A. No.

0095

1 Q. Did Lou Schmidt ever show you a

2 photo?

3 A. No.

4 Q. (By Mr. Kane) I want to follow

5 up with something you said earlier. You

6 said she would have just gone in and gotten

7 a pair herself?

8 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

9 Q. Okay. Was she -- did she usually

10 dress herself?

11 A. She was pretty much able to dress

12 herself.

13 Q. And I can't recall if you've

14 ever, and forgive me if you have answered

15 this before, but did she have a bath that

16 day, Christmas Day?

17 MR. WOOD: You have asked that

18 before, several times.

19 Q. (By Mr. Kane) What was the

20 answer? Can you refresh my memory?

21 MR. WOOD: You know that I'm sure

22 better than I do.

23 MR. KANE: Oh, come on, Lin, I

24 was just asking a question so that I can

25 follow up on the thing. If you are going

0096

1 to start getting into you asked that one

2 time, I just don't have a recollection of

3 it.

4 MR. WOOD: Sure I am. Calm

5 down.

6 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Did she have a

7 bath that day?

8 MR. WOOD: Excuse me one second,

9 Patsy. Calm down, Michael. I am not trying

10 to create a problem for you.

11 MR. KANE: You certainly are.

12 MR. WOOD: No, I am not.

13 MR. KANE: You certainly are.

[snip--very long argument between Kane and Wood here and Patsy does not answer the question.]

12 MR. KANE: If that is your

13 definition of what is fair, then that is

14 fine. All right. You've made your record.

15 I withdraw that question.

16 MR. WOOD: I think it is very

17 fair. I made my statement. It is not

18 meant to be a record, necessarily.

19 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Here's a question

20 that was not asked, Mrs. Ramsey. Did you

21 dress JonBenet Christmas Day?

22 A. I can't remember.

23 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mrs. Ramsey, do

24 you know whether or not she changed her

25 underwear Christmas Day?

0103

1 A. I don't know.

2 Q. We are going to assume the fact

3 that she did not take a bath because you

4 previously stated that. Would she change her

5 underwear if she didn't take a bath on

6 Christmas Day?

7 MR. WOOD: Excuse me. You

8 remember that she has been asked that now.

[snip--another petty argument from Wood, disrupting the interview]

12 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Do you know if

13 she changed her underwear?

14 A. I do not know.

15 Q. Would it be her routine habit or

16 practice, if she is going out for dinner at

17 friends, for her to change from head to toe,

18 including her underwear, getting dressed to

19 go out for the evening, even if she didn't

20 take a bath?

21 A. I don't know that there is any

22 particular routine. She may have. I don't

23 know.

24 Q. If she listened to mom, would she

25 have done that? I mean, we are going out,

0105

1 you change from head to toe, wash up?

2 MR. WOOD: You are saying if she

3 had said that?

4 MR. LEVIN: No. I am saying,

5 this child was raised by Mrs. Ramsey, and I

6 am assuming that, in the course of your

7 raising your child, that it was JonBenet, we

8 are going out, even if she hadn't taken a

9 bath, you wash up, you change your clothes,

10 and that would include if she hasn't bathed,

11 change your underwear because she is running

12 around and playing all day.

13 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that

14 is what you do with your children?

15 MR. LEVIN: No. I am asking

16 her.

17 THE WITNESS: I don't, I don't

18 remember the course of events --

19 MR. LEVIN: Okay.

20 THE WITNESS: - really.

21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) So you just don't

22 know whether or not she changed her

23 underpants?

24 A. I don't know.

25 Q. During the course of one of the

0106

1 prior interviews, I think it was '98, but I

2 am not certain, you were asked and stated

3 that, on occasion, she would leave her

4 underclothes at a friend's house if they had

5 gone swimming or gotten wet. Do you

6 remember that?

7 MR. WOOD: Hold on. Do you have

8 a copy of that?

9 MR. LEVIN: I don't have it right

10 here.

11 MR. WOOD: I mean, I asked you

12 all to be able to produce those prior

13 statements so we can look at it in context.

[snip--another long, argumentative interruption by Wood]

25 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Do you remember

0110

1 saying that during one of your interviews?

2 A. Tell me what --

3 Q. That on occasion JonBenet may go

4 over to a friend's house, I think you talked

5 about the White's daughter Daphne, and they

6 could go swimming or do something and she

7 might leave her underwear there, get a clean

8 pair from a friend and then be laundered,

9 returned, you would do the same for her

10 girlfriends who may have been -- got wet

11 from swimming or doing, got dirty playing

12 outside. Do you recall saying that?

13 A. Not specifically.

14 Q. Do you recall that occurring then?

15 A. Probably did. I can't say for

16 sure, but --

17 Q. Okay. What I am interested in is

18 whether or not you have a recollection as to

19 whether or not any of the Bloomi panties,

20 and I certainly wouldn't want to pin you

21 down to the day or the week, all right, but

22 do you ever recall any of the Bloomi panties

23 from November to the time of JonBenet's

24 murder being left at a friend's house and

25 then returned to you?

0111

1 A. No.

2 Q. Do you recall any occasions where

3 JonBenet had an accident at school and -- I

4 know that they kept at her school like I

5 think they do at most grammar schools, they

6 have a box of like clean underpants if a kid

7 has an accident at school, do you ever

8 remember her getting to that situation and

9 borrowing panties from the school and having

10 to return them?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Okay. I am slightly confused,

13 and I would like this clarified. When I

14 first started to ask you about the purchase

15 of the panties in November, I got the

16 impression that you were somewhat unclear as

17 to whether you bought two sets or one.

18 In follow-up questions, I got the

19 impression that you felt confident that you

20 only bought one. Do you know?

21 A. I really can't remember.

22 Q. Do you recall that you did -- you

23 never mailed this pair out to --

24 A. Jenny, yes.

25 Q. Okay. So if there was an

0112

1 unopened package, it would have been left in

2 the house?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Mrs. Ramsey,

5 prior to going to the Whites, did you see

6 JonBenet in panties? In other words, were

7 you at any point, prior to going to the

8 Whites, in the process of her getting

9 dressed, did you ever see if she was wearing

10 panties?

11 A. I mean, I just probably didn't

12 notice. I would, she must have had them on

13 or I would have certainly noticed if she

14 didn't have any on.

15 Q. When you came home and you got

16 her ready for bed, did you notice if she was

17 wearing panties? When you changed her out

18 of the black velvet --

19 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

20 Q. - type pants --

21 A. Right.

22 Q. -- and into the long underwear

23 pants --

24 A. Uh-huh, right.

25 Q. -- the White ones, did you notice

0113

1 if she had a pair of panties on?

2 A. Yes, she did. I believe she did.

3 Q. Why do you remember that? I

4 mean, what do you remember? I just want to

5 know what you remember about that.

6 A. Well, I took the jeans off and

7 put the long leggies on.

8 Q. And you noticed that she had

9 panties on in that process?

10 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

11 Q. You have to answer yes or no.

12 A. Well, I noticed -- I mean,

13 nothing was unusual. I mean, if she hadn't

14 had panties on, it would have been unusual.

15 So --

16 Q. So there was nothing unusual

17 there?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. When you actually removed those --

20 you have -- they are black velvet pants?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And did the panties come down

23 with them when you removed those pants, if

24 you remember?

25 A. I don't remember.

0114

1 Q. If they had, would you remember,

2 or is that too long ago?

3 A. It has been a long time.

4 Q. But did you change -- did you put

5 a fresh pair of panties on her at that point

6 when you were getting her ready for bed?

7 A. No.

8 Q. (By Mr. Wickman) Mrs. Ramsey, I

9 have a daughter myself, and kids do strange

10 things, but was it her habit, when she

11 changed clothes, did she have a routine to

12 put them in a basket if they were dirty?

13 How did that work?

14 A. She usually probably dropped them

15 wherever they came off.

16 MR. WICKMAN: Okay. Thank you.

17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Was that pretty

18 much her practice with most of her clothes?

19 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

20 Q. I mean, not just her underwear,

21 just they are off, new pair?

22 A. (Witness nodded head

23 affirmatively).

24 MR. WOOD: Wait until he

25 finishes and then answer.

0115

1 Q. (By Mr. Levin) For the record,

2 you were nodding your head, and I take that

3 as a yes.

4 A. Yes.

5 MR. LEVIN: Anything else on that

6 topic?

7 MR. KANE: No. Go ahead.

.
 
How can anyone read these interviews (they were NOT interrogations) and not see that the Ramseys were covering for someone? Why would any mother have to leave doubt that she knew if her daughter had panties on when she went to bed? There are lots of mothers on here, how many of you do not know if your child has underwear on at bedtime? Be honest. PR was willing to let her mothering skills be called into question in order to protect someone.
 
I don't understand and I don't believe PR would have been arrested if that was her DNA.
She is her mother.She helped her wipe.She dressed her.She undressed her.
There's 100 of reasons why PR's DNA would be in that underwear,under JB's nails,anywhere....
I don't understand why a criminal would "probably" leave this trace.

Holdontoyourhat,


Excellent , as you say hypothesis supported.


Poor reasoning e.g. fallacious. The original hypothesis is not supported because you cannot demonstrate that the dna discovered was deposited by said criminal it may be innocent touch dna.

By your own reasoning you must explain why there is not touch dna on any other artifact discovered at the crime scene matching that of the longjohns and size-12's.

.

Holdontoyourhat,

The operative word here is probably since you do not know if the touch dna on the longjohns and size-12's belongs to the same person who killed JonBenet, it might, it might not. Furthermore it is very likely there will be a lot of touch dna from Patsy on JonBenet including her longjohns and size-12's, so finding Patsy's dna on JonBenet would not lead to arrest and charging.

The touch dna is meaningless until someone is matched to it !

.

I just noticed none of these devout RDI supporters want to use the word 'context' while discussing the context within which unknown male DNA was discovered. PR's DNA wasn't discovered in the criminal context, but an unknown male's DNA was. Had PR's DNA been discovered mixed with blood on the inside crotch area of JBR's underwear, she would've been arrested and charged. This is certain.

To me though, RDI avoiding the word 'context' indicates denial and therefore the bias against the exhoneration reasoning is irrational.

The idea that a criminal can sexually assault their victim without leaving any touch DNA is now RDI's implied argument which I would think is the exception and not the norm. Again RDI finds itself in the weaker argument.

I don't think RDI realizes yet that a criminal had to handle JBR's underwear and leggings in order to sexually assault her. In looking for this criminal, they took swabs and scrapings from areas within the criminal context. RDI now makes a wild claim that any DNA whether its PRs, JRs or unknown male's found in the criminal context is defensible and just as defensible as if it was found on her feet or elbows. This simply ignores the context as if context were meaningless.

The owner or owners of whatever DNA showed up on those swabs and scrapings are going to be indicted for sure. Since BPD was hot to hang the R's when they first found underwear DNA, you can bet there was no PR DNA in the blood swab at all. Can you imagine? That would've been huge!

Again, its the context that exhonerated the R's because it worked in three places all of which are within the context.

I can use the word probably, in DNA, meaning it has an astronomical advantage but there's a minute chance its wrong. RDI now lives for the minute chance.

RDI's argument has obviously and publicly gone from pure fiction and speculation to astronomically remote. How embarrassing. It'll take something besides rhetoric, hype, and ignoring the properties of the evidence to sway the media back in RDI's favor.
 
I just noticed none of these devout RDI supporters needed to use the word 'context' while discussing the context within which unknown male DNA was discovered. PR's DNA wasn't discovered in the criminal context, but an unknown male's DNA was.
The context that you need to consider is that that there are a variety of innocent transfer mechanisms that could account for all of the DNA findings in this case.
Had PR's DNA been discovered mixed with blood on the inside crotch area of JBR's underwear, she would've been arrested and charged. This is certain.
Given the other factors of the case, including a DA’s office paralyzed with fear, I wouldn’t say that would be a certainty.
There was enough evidence for PR to have been charged without any corroborating DNA evidence, and she would have been charged, IMO, had the case happened most anywhere else.
It would have taken something completely outrageous, such as JR’s semen being found on JBR’s body or clothing, to force an arrest in that environment.
To me though, RDI avoiding the word 'context' indicates denial and therefore the bias against the exhoneration reasoning is irrational. RDI doesn't want to say 'context' while we're arguing about just that. Further, the idea that a criminal can sexually assault their victim without leaving any touch DNA is probably the exception and not the norm. RDI should stop and take the time to realize that a criminal did touch JBR's underwear and leggings in order to sexually assault her.
PR and JR would have also contacted those areas during dressing, redressing and staging.
What you are avoiding is the fiber evidence, consistent with the Ramsey’s clothing worn that night, in very incriminating locations, including the garrote which, according to IDI theory, was not native to the house.
What is DNA finding on the garrote?
RDI should stop and take the time to realize that a criminal did touch JBR's underwear and leggings in order to sexually assault her.
IDI should stop and take the time to realize that someone left fiber evidence consistent with PR on a murder weapon.
Again, its the context that exonerated the R's. And the word probably, in DNA, means it has an astronomical advantage but there's a minute chance its wrong. RDI now lives for the minute chance. RDI doesn't have a strong argument anymore.
It’s not context that exonerated the R’s, it was a heavily biased DA that exonerated the R’s.
 
Just while we are on the size 12s. Where is it written there were oversized panties on JBR? I've always accepted it as truth, although I've never seen a source. I suppose it's STs book again?

Patsy is questioned extensively on this matter in her interviews. The panties exist- they are still in evidence. And they are size 12. (the size Patsy bought for her niece, who was a few years older than JB). JB's own panties, all taken from her drawers into evidence, are size 6-8.
 
....I just don't understand how this DNA is supposed to "clear" the Ramsey's one way or the other.If this DNA belonged to one of the Ramsey's it certainly would not convict them or make them more guilty....there are many innocent reasons why there would be Ramsey DNA on JB,so if it can't convict them how can it clear them?

EXACTLY the question.
 
This probably deserves a thread of it's own.

BUT just say it was possible.

We would have to then wait till the child grew up and see who it looked like. That would be fine if the person was known to someone and was still alive. If that person had died or could not be found, would we then be left with a genetic homicidal maniac in our midst? Or would a different upbringing cancel out the genetic tendency to torture and kill someone.

Hang on...... you guys would still argue that this person MAY NOT BE THE KILLER!! That he was a panty factory worker or that the DNA came from a doorknob transferred from PR to the clothing.

Nah, it wouldn't solve anything, just make it more complicated. I bet he'd grow up RDI too LOL.

I agree: it's a bad idea.
 
I suggest considering the context because its the context that cleared the R's.

I couldn't agree with you more, HOTYH! I've been saying that for a while now. I hope you have better luck.

I don't think RDI realizes yet that a criminal had to handle JBR's underwear and leggings in order to sexually assault her.

We realize it just fine, HOTYH. That's exactly it: the evidence is that JB was not sexually assaulted in the true sense. Rather, it suggests that it was, to use your word, fake. THAT's the context.

Since BPD was hot to hang the R's when they first found underwear DNA,

I don't buy the idea that BPD was "hot to hang" anybody, especially the Rs. I'm just guessing here, HOTYH, but you probably didn't listen to the interview I posted, did you?

you can bet there was no PR DNA in the blood swab at all. Can you imagine? That would've been huge!

And it would have been WRONG! Unless the DNA was blood or semen, any R DNA would have been secondary, AT BEST.

I can use the word probably, in DNA, meaning it has an astronomical advantage but there's a minute chance its wrong. RDI now lives for the minute chance.

That's kind of ironic, considering that IDI lives for the minute chance of an intruder fitting every single thing that would be needed for an intruder to have done this.

It'll take something besides rhetoric, hype, and ignoring the properties of the evidence to sway the media back in RDI's favor.

Why? Rhetoric, hype and ignoring the properties of evidence worked like a charm for you guys!

All humor aside, you're quite correct. And I knew that when I began. Not that I give a tinker's damn about the media.
 
Patsy is questioned extensively on this matter in her interviews. The panties exist- they are still in evidence. And they are size 12. (the size Patsy bought for her niece, who was a few years older than JB). JB's own panties, all taken from her drawers into evidence, are size 6-8.

I also hope it's noticed that she didn't hand the packet over to LE until AFTER that interview!
 
There was enough evidence for PR to have been charged without any corroborating DNA evidence, and she would have been charged, IMO, had the case happened most anywhere else.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

It would have taken something completely outrageous, such as JR’s semen being found on JBR’s body or clothing, to force an arrest in that environment.

And that's just an arrest, let alone a trial.

What you are avoiding is the fiber evidence, consistent with the Ramsey’s clothing worn that night, in very incriminating locations, including the garrote which, according to IDI theory, was not native to the house.
What is DNA finding on the garrote?
IDI should stop and take the time to realize that someone left fiber evidence consistent with PR on a murder weapon.

:clap: SHOULD. Probably won't.

It’s not context that exonerated the R’s, it was a heavily biased DA that exonerated the R’s.

That IS the context, cynic!
 
I just noticed none of these devout RDI supporters want to use the word 'context' while discussing the context within which unknown male DNA was discovered. PR's DNA wasn't discovered in the criminal context, but an unknown male's DNA was. Had PR's DNA been discovered mixed with blood on the inside crotch area of JBR's underwear, she would've been arrested and charged. This is certain.

To me though, RDI avoiding the word 'context' indicates denial and therefore the bias against the exhoneration reasoning is irrational.

The idea that a criminal can sexually assault their victim without leaving any touch DNA is now RDI's implied argument which I would think is the exception and not the norm. Again RDI finds itself in the weaker argument.

I don't think RDI realizes yet that a criminal had to handle JBR's underwear and leggings in order to sexually assault her. In looking for this criminal, they took swabs and scrapings from areas within the criminal context. RDI now makes a wild claim that any DNA whether its PRs, JRs or unknown male's found in the criminal context is defensible and just as defensible as if it was found on her feet or elbows. This simply ignores the context as if context were meaningless.

The owner or owners of whatever DNA showed up on those swabs and scrapings are going to be indicted for sure. Since BPD was hot to hang the R's when they first found underwear DNA, you can bet there was no PR DNA in the blood swab at all. Can you imagine? That would've been huge!

Again, its the context that exhonerated the R's because it worked in three places all of which are within the context.

I can use the word probably, in DNA, meaning it has an astronomical advantage but there's a minute chance its wrong. RDI now lives for the minute chance.

RDI's argument has obviously and publicly gone from pure fiction and speculation to astronomically remote. How embarrassing. It'll take something besides rhetoric, hype, and ignoring the properties of the evidence to sway the media back in RDI's favor.

Bravo :clap::clap::clap:
 
We realize it just fine, HOTYH. That's exactly it: the evidence is that JB was not sexually assaulted in the true sense. Rather, it suggests that it was, to use your word, fake. THAT's the context.

Q: Strangulation?
A: Not real.
Q: Sexual assault?
A: Fake.
Q: Bludgeoned?
A: Accident.
Q: Ransom note?
A: Bogus.
Q: Unknown male skin cells in two places on JBR's longjohns waistband?
A: Unrelated.
Q: DNA from the same male mixed with blood on inside crotch area of JBR's underwear?
A: Unrelated.
Q: Crime scene fiber?
A: Owned exclusively by the R's.
Q: Crime scene fiber transfer?
A: During crime.
Q: DNA owned by an unknown male transferred to JBR's crotch?
A: Not during crime.
Q: Reliable source of fiber news?
A: Reliable enough.
Q: Missing fiber expert testimony?
A: So what?
Q: No PR or JR DNA reported?
A: Its there.
Q: Cord ownership was never confirmed?
A: Confirmed enough.
Q: Tape ownership was never confirmed?
A: Confirmed enough.
Q: Blunt object ownership was never confirmed?
A: So what? Look at all the other confirmed stuff.
Q: Handwriting ownership was never confirmed?
A: Confirmed enough.
Q: Linguistics ownership was never confirmed?
A: Confirmed enough.
Q: Motive was never confirmed?
A: Confirmed enough.
Q: Motive ownership never confirmed?
A: Confirmed enough.
Q: Consistently different spelling abilities between PR and RN author because they are two different people?
A: No. Differences were fake--to mislead police.
Q: The length, content, and amount of handwriting suggests a distant outsider?
A: No. Why would it?
Q: GJ didn't indict because not enough evidence?
A: No. They didn't indict because they weren't allowed.
Q: DA didn't prosecute because not enough evidence?
A: No. LW intimidated them.
Q: BPD didn't arrest because not enough probable cause?
A: No. They didn't arrest because they weren't allowed.



Boy if this isn't living in the house of mirrors. It also seems callous and unfazed by anything that comes up. If I am to ride along with your story, then prima facie, GJ, the overt evidence, and the media shall kindly take the back seat.

But seriously, SD, this reads just like a blanket denial.
 
Q: Strangulation?
A: Not real.
Q: Sexual assault?
A: Fake.
Q: Bludgeoned?
A: Accident.
Q: Ransom note?
A: Bogus.
Q: Unknown male skin cells in two places on JBR's longjohns waistband?
A: Unrelated.
Q: DNA from the same male mixed with blood on inside crotch area of JBR's underwear?
A: Unrelated.
Q: Crime scene fiber?
A: Owned exclusively by the R's.
Q: Crime scene fiber transfer?
A: During crime.
Q: DNA owned by an unknown male transferred to JBR's crotch?
A: Not during crime.
Q: Reliable source of fiber news?
A: Reliable enough.
Q: Missing fiber expert testimony?
A: So what?
Q: No PR or JR DNA reported?
A: Its there.
Q: Cord ownership was never confirmed?
A: Confirmed enough.
Q: Tape ownership was never confirmed?
A: Confirmed enough.
Q: Blunt object ownership was never confirmed?
A: So what? Look at all the other confirmed stuff.
Q: Handwriting ownership was never confirmed?
A: Confirmed enough.
Q: Linguistics ownership was never confirmed?
A: Confirmed enough.
Q: Motive was never confirmed?
A: Confirmed enough.
Q: Motive ownership never confirmed?
A: Confirmed enough.
Q: Consistently different spelling abilities between PR and RN author because they are two different people?
A: No. Differences were fake--to mislead police.
Q: The length, content, and amount of handwriting suggests a distant outsider?
A: No. Why would it?
Q: GJ didn't indict because not enough evidence?
A: No. They didn't indict because they weren't allowed.
Q: DA didn't prosecute because not enough evidence?
A: No. LW intimidated them.
Q: BPD didn't arrest because not enough probable cause?
A: No. They didn't arrest because they weren't allowed.

I'm game to go down that whole list with you, HOTYH. It's actually quite astute.

Boy if this isn't living in the house of mirrors.

I'll ignore that.

It also seems callous and unfazed by anything that comes up.

A bit ironic, wouldn't you say?

If I am to ride along with your story, then prima facie, GJ, the overt evidence, and the media shall kindly take the back seat.

Even if I agreed with that, it would suit me just fine.

But seriously, SD, this reads just like a blanket denial.

I don't give a tinker's cuss what it READS like, friend. There are good reasons to believe them. Besides, IDIs are the Grand Masters of things not existing.
 
Q: Strangulation?
A: yes
Q: Sexual assault?
A: yes
Q: Bludgeoned?
A: yes
Q: Ransom note?
A: yes
Q: Unknown male skin cells in two places on JBR's longjohns waistband?
A:yes
Q: DNA from the same male mixed with blood on inside crotch area of JBR's underwear?
A: yes
Q: Crime scene fiber?
A: yes
Q: Crime scene fiber transfer?
A: yes
Q: DNA owned by an unknown male transferred to JBR's crotch?
A: yes
Q: Reliable source of fiber news?
A: no
Q: Missing fiber expert testimony?
A: yes
Q: No PR or JR DNA reported?
A: yes
Q: Cord ownership was never confirmed?
A: no
Q: Tape ownership was never confirmed?
A: no
Q: Blunt object ownership was never confirmed?
A: no
Q: Handwriting ownership was never confirmed?
A: no
Q: Linguistics ownership was never confirmed?
A: no
Q: Motive was never confirmed?
A: no
Q: Motive ownership never confirmed?
A: no
Q: Consistently different spelling abilities between PR and RN author because they are two different people?
A: opinion
Q: The length, content, and amount of handwriting suggests a distant outsider?
A: opinion
Q: GJ didn't indict because not enough evidence?
A: opinion
Q: DA didn't prosecute because not enough evidence?
A: opinion
Q: BPD didn't arrest because not enough probable cause?
A: opinion

Is that how IDI would answer the questions?...sounds like RDI at least is speculating on what may have happened ,a horrible crime was commited,at least RDI is using all known factors when speculating,some IDI seem to be stuck on that UNKNOWN DNA instead of actually profiling some of the known players in the case.If you're only considering unknown DNA you have nothing to go on...so why be on a "sleuthing" site?
 
Q: Strangulation?
A: yes
Q: Sexual assault?
A: yes
Q: Bludgeoned?
A: yes
Q: Ransom note?
A: yes
Q: Unknown male skin cells in two places on JBR's longjohns waistband?
A:yes
Q: DNA from the same male mixed with blood on inside crotch area of JBR's underwear?
A: yes
Q: Crime scene fiber?
A: yes
Q: Crime scene fiber transfer?
A: yes
Q: DNA owned by an unknown male transferred to JBR's crotch?
A: yes
Q: Reliable source of fiber news?
A: no
Q: Missing fiber expert testimony?
A: yes
Q: No PR or JR DNA reported?
A: yes
Q: Cord ownership was never confirmed?
A: no
Q: Tape ownership was never confirmed?
A: no
Q: Blunt object ownership was never confirmed?
A: no
Q: Handwriting ownership was never confirmed?
A: no
Q: Linguistics ownership was never confirmed?
A: no
Q: Motive was never confirmed?
A: no
Q: Motive ownership never confirmed?
A: no
Q: Consistently different spelling abilities between PR and RN author because they are two different people?
A: opinion
Q: The length, content, and amount of handwriting suggests a distant outsider?
A: opinion
Q: GJ didn't indict because not enough evidence?
A: opinion
Q: DA didn't prosecute because not enough evidence?
A: opinion
Q: BPD didn't arrest because not enough probable cause?
A: opinion

Is that how IDI would answer the questions?...sounds like RDI at least is speculating on what may have happened ,a horrible crime was commited,at least RDI is using all known factors when speculating,some IDI seem to be stuck on that UNKNOWN DNA instead of actually profiling some of the known players in the case.If you're only considering unknown DNA you have nothing to go on...so why be on a "sleuthing" site?

Bravo. :clap: :clap: :clap:
 
Is that how IDI would answer the questions?...sounds like RDI at least is speculating on what may have happened ,a horrible crime was commited,at least RDI is using all known factors when speculating,some IDI seem to be stuck on that UNKNOWN DNA instead of actually profiling some of the known players in the case.If you're only considering unknown DNA you have nothing to go on...so why be on a "sleuthing" site?

No, that is not how I would answer those questions.

Speculating is fine (?). Ethics come into play when someone goes too far, either by profiting or by falsely prosecuting.

Its pretty clear that that things known indicate an intruder, and things unknown indicate an intruder also. The DNA points to an intruder. Also pointing to an intruder is the fact that there are a half dozen key aspects of the crime not confirmed as owned by JR or PR even though they lived there, and police had complete access to the entire house from the time of the murder forward.

Its not my style to name names on a child murder on a public website. Especially when I know I don't know all the answers. Maybe its yours? Besides the known players have all been tested for handwriting and DNA. Failing to match either of those raises serious questions as to the viability of the suspect. Also, I've said for many years that the killer is far far away from there and as time goes on this seems to be more and more the case.

If you're only considering unknown DNA you have nothing to go on...so why be on a "sleuthing" site?

Who says I have nothing to go on? You? I have my theory but there's still a lot to learn.
 
how would you answer those questions?
yes,I do consider ethics a lot,I feel bad a lot of times when I post in these threads ,not only this thread....it makes me feel uncomfortable to speculate about PR,JMCR,BR,JR...everyone that is innocent until proven guilty....but that goes for the unknown intruder as well,just because we don't know his name it's not fair to assume he is guilty....but that's what we do on a crime sleuthing forum,I can perfectly understand if you are not comfortable with that but then you should not read or post.I see a lot of compassion on the RDI side,I think what we all have in common is that we care about children,we care about a beautiful little girl who's life was taken 14 years ago,a beautiful little girl that should have celebrated her 20th birthday a couple of days ago.It breaks my heart to think of what happened to her,it breaks my heart to think that she may have been abused even prior to the murder and may not have been the happy little girl she should have been....I feel like all RDI's express again and again that they HOPE they are wrong because if her own mother did this to her it makes it even worse.
...and ethics aside again you are saying it is pretty clear that the evidence points to an intruder which is obvious OPINION and opinions differ...
I said you have nothing to go on if you only consider unknown DNA....
..so what is your theory?why do you think the killer is far away?what are the "key aspects" you are talking about that are not "owned" by the Ramsey's?
things unknown indicate an intruder????...what does that mean?
 
how would you answer those questions?
yes,I do consider ethics a lot,I feel bad a lot of times when I post in these threads ,not only this thread....it makes me feel uncomfortable to speculate about PR,JMCR,BR,JR...everyone that is innocent until proven guilty....but that goes for the unknown intruder as well,just because we don't know his name it's not fair to assume he is guilty....but that's what we do on a crime sleuthing forum,I can perfectly understand if you are not comfortable with that but then you should not read or post.I see a lot of compassion on the RDI side,I think what we all have in common is that we care about children,we care about a beautiful little girl who's life was taken 14 years ago,a beautiful little girl that should have celebrated her 20th birthday a couple of days ago.It breaks my heart to think of what happened to her,it breaks my heart to think that she may have been abused even prior to the murder and may not have been the happy little girl she should have been....I feel like all RDI's express again and again that they HOPE they are wrong because if her own mother did this to her it makes it even worse.
...and ethics aside again you are saying it is pretty clear that the evidence points to an intruder which is obvious OPINION and opinions differ...
I said you have nothing to go on if you only consider unknown DNA....
..so what is your theory?why do you think the killer is far away?what are the "key aspects" you are talking about that are not "owned" by the Ramsey's?
things unknown indicate an intruder????...what does that mean?

Is it really? You assume he's guilty because thats what we do on a forum? I suggest reading the rules of the forum because they say to use a pseudonym. I have no problem using a pseudonym. What about you?

What is my theory? An angry socialist revolutionary military guy from abroad did it. He's far away because he's a socialist, not worried about leaving long handwritten notes, and BPD ran out of suspects. Cuba, Venezuela, and so on. RDI doesn't know if the R's own any of the key elements: cord, tape, handwriting, linguistics, motives, blunt instrument, etc. If you knew where these items came from, that they ever belonged to them, it would further point to the R's but you don't. Instead RDI makes up lots of stories about evidence removal to account for this unknown information. The intruder removed the unknown stuff, what is so complicated about that?
 
no,I thought you assume he's guilty...we can't give him a pseudonym because he is unknown.I think he may or may not be guilty.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
211
Guests online
1,520
Total visitors
1,731

Forum statistics

Threads
625,861
Messages
18,512,064
Members
240,861
Latest member
malorealeyes
Back
Top