Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[SyraKelly]

Didn't that palmprint turn out to be Melinda Ramsey's???

Yes it was Melinda's

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Didn't that palmprint turn out to be Melinda Ramsey's???

I have heard that before but never seen it sourced. Can you source it to fact please?

 

[Tawny]

I have heard that before but never seen it sourced. Can you source it to fact please?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...benet-ramsey-john-and-patsy-ramsey-palm-print

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...benet-ramsey-john-and-patsy-ramsey-palm-print

Thank you!

 

[Mama2JML]

Excerpts from Ruling in Wolf v. Ramsey (03.31.03):

"The Court draws the undisputed facts from Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (SMF) and Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts (PSMF), in which plaintiff does not dispute the overwhelming majority of defendants' factual allegations. When plaintiff has disputed a specific fact and pointed to evidence in the record that supports its version of events, the Court has viewed all evidence and factual inferences in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as required on a defendant's motion for summary judgment.
...
In addition, the Court has reviewed plaintiffs separate statements of disputed material facts (PSDMF).
...
When the Court could discern a material factual dispute from this pleading, the Court has drawn all inferences in a light most favorable to plaintiff. Accordingly, the following facts are either not disputed or are viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff."

"In addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a palmprint that does not match either of defendants' palmprints. (SMF ¶ 56; PSMF ¶ 156.) The individual to whom it belongs has never been identified. (SMF ¶ 156; PSMF ¶ 156.)"

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Excerpts from Ruling in Wolf v. Ramsey (03.31.03):

"The Court draws the undisputed facts from Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (SMF) and Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts (PSMF), in which plaintiff does not dispute the overwhelming majority of defendants' factual allegations. When plaintiff has disputed a specific fact and pointed to evidence in the record that supports its version of events, the Court has viewed all evidence and factual inferences in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as required on a defendant's motion for summary judgment.
...
In addition, the Court has reviewed plaintiffs separate statements of disputed material facts (PSDMF).
...
When the Court could discern a material factual dispute from this pleading, the Court has drawn all inferences in a light most favorable to plaintiff. Accordingly, the following facts are either not disputed or are viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff."

"In addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a palmprint that does not match either of defendants' palmprints. (SMF ¶ 56; PSMF ¶ 156.) The individual to whom it belongs has never been identified. (SMF ¶ 156; PSMF ¶ 156.)"

This being a year after the Article posted above...

Thanks!

 

[Mama2JML]

FALSE DUE TO INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

Prior to Wolf v. Ramsey, the Chicago Tribune reported:

"Investigators reportedly have concluded that a palm print and footprint found in the home of JonBenet Ramsey were made by family members, not an intruder as some have suggested.
...
Investigators also said a palm print on the door leading to the wine cellar is from Melinda Ramsey, JonBenet's adult half-sister, who was in Georgia at the time of the girl's death." (08.24.2002)

 

[Mama2JML]

An unlocked, OPEN door. Somebody was in a hurry. Interesting, this door is located near the spiral staircase. Guess he dropped the RN & fled. Just conjecture...

From the Ruling in Wolf v. Ramsey:

"The butler's door to the kitchen was found ajar that morning. (SMF ¶ 137; PSMF ¶ 37.)"

 

[CherCher]

Not for murder they didn't. Not for manslaughter either.

The indictment simple states the R's let something happen to jonbenet that caused her death. Not who was responsible, Not what happened.

And that's okay with you?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

And that's okay with you?

IS what okay with me, The indictment? No. I think it is ridiculous. I don't believe the R's did a thing to her.

 

[Mama2JML]

This is an indication JonBenet struggled with her attacker, and he wasn't a Ramsey. So sad...

Article Excerpt; Daily Camera (02.07.98):

"Investigators also are taking mouth swabs in hopes of matching DNA to genetic material extracted from skin tissue recovered under the slain 6-year-old's fingernails, sources said." (K. Dizon)

 

[redheadedgal]

"The Colorado Bureau of Investigation concluded it didn't belong to John or Patsy Ramsey." (Thomas, 2000)

it was later identifed as PR's

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

 

[redheadedgal]

Denver Post article from October 14, 1999:

"'The grand jurors have done their work extraordinarily well, bringing to bear all their legal powers, life experiences and shrewdness,' Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter announced at an impromptu news conference about 5 p.m. Wednesday. 'Yet I must report to you that I and my prosecution task force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at the present time.'

Hunter did not say whether the grand jurors had voted on an indictment - only nine of the 12 jurors need to agree on an indictment - or whether they had written a report on their findings. Hunter did not take questions and said only that the grand jury had completed its work and would not meet again."

Source: http://extras.denverpost.com/news/ram1014a.htm

yes, AH chose his words very carefully, didn't he? some would call that a lie by omission...

ML outright lied about the indictment (in court documents no less!) in 2003:

6
Violations of the grand jury oath are punishable by contempt proceedings. Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh testified under the Rule 6.3 oath before the grand jury that investigated the murder of JonBenet Ramsey from 1998 until October 1999, when its term ended by law. No indictment or grand jury report concerning that murder has been issued. Because there is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder under Colorado law, however, a new grand jury could consider evidence and continue the investigation. Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh wants to write a book describing her grand jury testimony about this unsolved murder, discuss it with the media, and answer questions about it from members of the public. She has not done so for fear of facing contempt proceedings for violation of the grand jury secrecy requirements.

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=194090&postcount=1"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Lacy lied in documents to Supreme Court & we can now request Ramsey Grand Jury files![/ame]

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

yes, AH chose his words very carefully, didn't he? some would call that a lie by omission...

ML outright lied about the indictment (in court documents no less!) in 2003:



Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Lacy lied in documents to Supreme Court & we can now request Ramsey Grand Jury files!

He did not lie. It is that simple..

No indictment concerning murder has been issued so that is not a lie either.

 

[Mama2JML]

it was later identifed as PR's

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

The hair was sourced to PR according to ACR or Carol McKinley or?...

This common claim, @ present, is false. Not true. ...no matter how many times it's repeated.

FALSE DUE TO INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

Wolf v. Ramsey (2003):
"An unidentified Caucasian 'pubic or auxiliary' hair, not matching any Ramsey was found on the blanket covering JonBenet' body. (SMF ¶ 179-180; PSMF ¶ 179-180.)"

 

[Tawny]

Did that hair match any of the other of the plethora of people coming and going in that house the day she was found? I wonder if they tested everyone, right down to the pastor.

 

[Mama2JML]

Did that hair match any of the other of the plethora of people coming and going in that house the day she was found? I wonder if they tested everyone, right down to the pastor.

No match, but BPD tried to find an innocent source...

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Did that hair match any of the other of the plethora of people coming and going in that house the day she was found? I wonder if they tested everyone, right down to the pastor.

Well that lays squarely at the feet of the BPD. They should have. I don't know the answer but they should have samples of DNA and hair from anyone who was in that house that morning.

 

[Tawny]

Question, because I'm not positive on the procedure. Do you need a warrant for every individual when you want to compare DNA and hair samples? If people don't volunteer them, I mean.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Question, because I'm not positive on the procedure. Do you need a warrant for every individual when you want to compare DNA and hair samples? If people don't volunteer them, I mean.

Even if they did, It should have been done.