Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[Mama2JML]

Let's compare the crimes committed by BTK with this case.

 

[Mama2JML]

IIRC when LE was doing their leg work. Didn't PR buy similar rope at a local hardware store before JB death. The kind that she was tied up with?

No. The rope & the cord are yet unsourced. ...as well as the beaver hairs.

Oh, & you're welcome.

 

[Landonsmom02]

Yes, in 1997, DNA was isolated from 3 locations: beneath her left hand fingernails, beneath her right hand fingernails, & from a bloodstain in her panties. These three DNA profiles revealed a general consistency; only common markers and no differences. This indicates the possibility that the same male individual's DNA could be sourced to all three 1997 DNA profiles.

The later tests (post 1997) were conducted using a different method, STR analysis, which analyzes a different group of loci. So, the 1997 results cannot be compared to the newer testing results.

"The DNA under her fingernails matches the DNA in her panties
Not-FACT. The DNA under her fingernails had even fewer markers than the DNA in her panties and little has been spoken of it. Also, early reports suggested that the same nail clippers had been used for all of her fingernails and that cross contamination could have occured. There exists only one statement which says that the fingernail and panty DNA "match" - from Lou Smit when he made a documentary some years ago. However, Mr Smit made several statements at that time which we know to be erroneous and he has never repeated it - nor has any other official source."

"Also - if the fingernail and panty DNA matched, it would make a nonsense of Tom Bennett's statement about the DNA possibly coming from a cough or sneeze. If there was any possibility of that, how would such a miniscule amount of DNA find its way under her nails?"


Food for thought. I found this while looking at other threads her in JBR forum. This is in seperating fact from fiction thread.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

"The DNA under her fingernails matches the DNA in her panties
Not-FACT. The DNA under her fingernails had even fewer markers than the DNA in her panties and little has been spoken of it. Also, early reports suggested that the same nail clippers had been used for all of her fingernails and that cross contamination could have occured. There exists only one statement which says that the fingernail and panty DNA "match" - from Lou Smit when he made a documentary some years ago. However, Mr Smit made several statements at that time which we know to be erroneous and he has never repeated it - nor has any other official source."

"Also - if the fingernail and panty DNA matched, it would make a nonsense of Tom Bennett's statement about the DNA possibly coming from a cough or sneeze. If there was any possibility of that, how would such a miniscule amount of DNA find its way under her nails?"


Food for thought. I found this while looking at other threads her in JBR forum. This is in seperating fact from fiction thread.

This does nothing to the DNA that was found in her Underwear and on her jammies that matched.

I still wonder if more than one person was involved.

 

[tezi]

The rope was a soft nylon rope. It could have been purchased at either McGuckin's Hardware Store or at the Army/Navy Surplus Store both of which were in close proximity to the Ramsey home.

In fact, there was a charge for 2.29 on a receipt of the Ramseys, from McGuckin's Hardware Store from the same department the rope was sold in.

Steve Thomas also bought the same kind of rope as a sample from the Army/Navy Surplus Store.

The above examples were taken out of ST's book, and since no one on this thread considers it a valid source, I am not going to waste my time looking up the pages.

JMO

 

[tezi]

Let's compare the crimes committed by BTK with this case.

Why? What would be the point?

JMO

 

[tezi]

IIRC when LE was doing their leg work. Didn't PR buy similar rope at a local hardware store before JB death. The kind that she was tied up with?

See my above post regarding the 2.29 purchase at McGuchin's Hardware.

 

[Mama2JML]

"The DNA under her fingernails matches the DNA in her panties
Not-FACT. The DNA under her fingernails had even fewer markers than the DNA in her panties and little has been spoken of it. Also, early reports suggested that the same nail clippers had been used for all of her fingernails and that cross contamination could have occured. There exists only one statement which says that the fingernail and panty DNA "match" - from Lou Smit when he made a documentary some years ago. However, Mr Smit made several statements at that time which we know to be erroneous and he has never repeated it - nor has any other official source."

"Also - if the fingernail and panty DNA matched, it would make a nonsense of Tom Bennett's statement about the DNA possibly coming from a cough or sneeze. If there was any possibility of that, how would such a miniscule amount of DNA find its way under her nails?"


Food for thought. I found this while looking at other threads her in JBR forum. This is in seperating fact from fiction thread.

Clearly, this is fiction. Do some digging, and report back with your findings, please.

 

[Mama2JML]

The rope was a soft nylon rope. It could have been purchased at either McGuckin's Hardware Store or at the Army/Navy Surplus Store both of which were in close proximity to the Ramsey home.

In fact, there was a charge for 2.29 on a receipt of the Ramseys, from McGuckin's Hardware Store from the same department the rope was sold in.

Steve Thomas also bought the same kind of rope as a sample from the Army/Navy Surplus Store.

The above examples were taken out of ST's book, and since no one on this thread considers it a valid source, I am not going to waste my time looking up the pages.

JMO

I own & I've read ST's book, but I haven't stopped there.

 

[tezi]

No. They could go to local stores and get information about who bought a rope recently. They could have done leg work. They would have needed search warrants for credit card info, but that would be on them to ask for.

They did do the leg work. The DA's office refused to grand warrants for anything that was needed, say like phone records, credit card records, and the like, so that the Ramseys could have their "Island of Privacy."

Steve Thomas did collect numerous samples of nylon rope and cord.

JMO

 

[tezi]

I own & I've read ST's book., but I haven't stopped there.

BBM: And neither have I, I was just citing the examples of where the nylon rope/cord could have been purchased at by the Ramseys.

JMO

 

[wonderllama]

You would have to ask him. But it shows that he did plan to use if and for whatever reason did not. He must have decided to go another way, Maybe he left it there and then decided it was too risky to go back for it, I have no idea, But the point is that it did not belong to the R's. It was not theirs and whoever handled that bag left fibers on JBR and in her room.

Yeah sorry, you have simply just made that up.
"But is shows..."

Firstly, you have assumed that an intruder brought in the rope.
Secondly, you have assumed that said intruder planned to use it.
Thirdly, you have assumed that having brought it in, the intruder decided not to use something that you assumed he was going to use.
Fourthly, you have assumed it was left behind because of some risk involved in returning to get it?

Sure, you say "I have no idea", and that is the only correct statement in the entire post.

I suggest that for a thread that only wants to stick to facts, and I'm all for that, this is not sticking to facts.

Carry on.

 

[Little Jedi]

You would have to ask him. But it shows that he did plan to use if and for whatever reason did not. He must have decided to go another way, Maybe he left it there and then decided it was too risky to go back for it, I have no idea,
*But the point is that it did not belong to the R's. It was not theirs*
and whoever handled that bag left fibers on JBR and in her room.

*Do you have a source ?

(Sorry but don't know how to BBM on phone)

That's not what Patsy said;

Patsy Ramsey: "Yeah, I mean, Burke had some ropes that he would play with through something out on the playground, you know, in that, in that picture yesterday the rope around the, the fort, you know, or something."

Trip DeMuth: "Right"

Patsy Ramsey: "Always trying to make a boat or something like that."

Trip DeMuth: "This was found inside the house"

Patsy Ramsey: "Inside the house?"

Trip DeMuth: "In John Andrew's room?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Oh. Maybe it was a, some rope he used for camping or something, I don't know."


- Taped Interrogation interview of Patsy Ramsey by Tom Haney and Trip DeMuth in Colorado
( 1998 June 25, 26, 27 )

 

[redheadedgal]

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.)"

lol-- that source also says that the R's didn't own any hi-tec boots... we know that BR did.

Patsy was asked if she ever asked Burke if he had Hi-Tec shoes and her answer was no. Patsy was asked if it occured to her that it could be Burke's boots and she said she thought it was an adult footprint. (PR 08-28-2000 Pg0122) Patsy is asked if she recalls prior to 1996 when her son Burke purchases a pair of hiking boots that had compasses on the shoelaces and Patsy says she can't remember. Prosecutors state, "They were shoes that were purchased while he was shopping with you in Atlanta." Lin Wood asks if that is a FACT and Bruce Levin says, "I am stating that as a FACT." Patsy says she still can't remember. (PR 08-28-2000 Pg0124) Bruce Levin says, "I will state this as a fact. There are two people who have provided us with information, including your son, that he owned Hi-Tec shoes prior to the murder of your daughter." Lin Wood asked, "You are stating that Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec shoes?" Bruce Levin answers, "Yes." (PR 08-28-2000 Pg0126) Bruce Levin says, "Fleet Junior also says that he had Hi-Tec shoes." (PR 08-28-2000 Pg0131) Prosecutor asks, "Okay. Is this the first time that you've heard that Burke says that he had Hi-Tec?" Patsy answers "Yes." (PR 08-28-2000 Pg0134) Patsy asked, "Well, what is the, what size print is the Hi-Tec? Is it a child's or is it an adult's?" Bruce Levin answers, "I don't think there is any difference between the two. And I think that has been pretty well publicized too."

http://www.acandyrose.com/yellow-brick-road.htm


*if sources are cited in the future, please link in post. thanks.

 

[Mama2JML]

Refresher needed, already?...

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.)"

 

[wonderllama]

*Do you have a source ?

(Sorry but don't know how to BBM on phone)

That's not what Patsy said;

Patsy Ramsey: "Yeah, I mean, Burke had some ropes that he would play with through something out on the playground, you know, in that, in that picture yesterday the rope around the, the fort, you know, or something."

Trip DeMuth: "Right"

Patsy Ramsey: "Always trying to make a boat or something like that."

Trip DeMuth: "This was found inside the house"

Patsy Ramsey: "Inside the house?"

Trip DeMuth: "In John Andrew's room?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Oh. Maybe it was a, some rope he used for camping or something, I don't know."


- Taped Interrogation interview of Patsy Ramsey by Tom Haney and Trip DeMuth in Colorado
( 1998 June 25, 26, 27 )

Look, I'm RDI but I'm happy to read through the IDI and be prompted to think outside the little happy zone I've created for myself.

What makes me different to a lot of the regular RDI, is that I also just don't want stuff speculated on or explained by "that's not what I would do" thinking.

I am enjoying this thread because as I've said, RDI need to be tested. It's easy for us to rest in our happy place and dismiss anything IDI because we think we already know it. But you know what? It goes both ways.

Speculation and supposition have no place in either camp in this investigation. We want facts & evidence, we want witnesses and we want experts to assess the facts & evidence AND the witnesses.

Part of what does bug me about this thread however is the seemingly blind acceptance of what the Ramseys say as being fact.

Sure, state what they say, but unless it is verifiable, it is not a fact.

We just had the rope being attributed to an intruder because apparently Patsy Ramsey said it didn't belong to anyone in the house.

The crime scene and the evidence doesn't begin with Patsy waking up or her finding the note on the stairs. It begins with what is said on the 911 call and then what the police officer sees when he arrives. Anything prior to that is unprovable. Anything said by the people who we in the house, unless ABLE to be proven is simply their side of the story and not an actual fact.

Now, I'll take a breath and step back, but I just want people in this thread to know, the expectations you place on RDI posters should be applied to yourselves.

We all want this case solved, but please, no more beliefs or speculation - on ANY aspect of the case.

love and sloppy kisses.
llama

 

[Mama2JML]

lol-- that source also says that the R's didn't own any hi-tec boots... we know that BR did.

Patsy was asked if she ever asked Burke if he had Hi-Tec shoes and her answer was no. Patsy was asked if it occured to her that it could be Burke's boots and she said she thought it was an adult footprint. (PR 08-28-2000 Pg0122) Patsy is asked if she recalls prior to 1996 when her son Burke purchases a pair of hiking boots that had compasses on the shoelaces and Patsy says she can't remember. Prosecutors state, "They were shoes that were purchased while he was shopping with you in Atlanta." Lin Wood asks if that is a FACT and Bruce Levin says, "I am stating that as a FACT." Patsy says she still can't remember. (PR 08-28-2000 Pg0124) Bruce Levin says, "I will state this as a fact. There are two people who have provided us with information, including your son, that he owned Hi-Tec shoes prior to the murder of your daughter." Lin Wood asked, "You are stating that Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec shoes?" Bruce Levin answers, "Yes." (PR 08-28-2000 Pg0126) Bruce Levin says, "Fleet Junior also says that he had Hi-Tec shoes." (PR 08-28-2000 Pg0131) Prosecutor asks, "Okay. Is this the first time that you've heard that Burke says that he had Hi-Tec?" Patsy answers "Yes." (PR 08-28-2000 Pg0134) Patsy asked, "Well, what is the, what size print is the Hi-Tec? Is it a child's or is it an adult's?" Bruce Levin answers, "I don't think there is any difference between the two. And I think that has been pretty well publicized too."

http://www.acandyrose.com/yellow-brick-road.htm


*if sources are cited in the future, please link in post. thanks.

An interview with police; an interrogation with hearsay "facts" isn't sufficient, it's grossly inadequate.

 

[Mama2JML]

Llama~

I agree with you, we all should test our theories, or lack thereof. I don't recall saying the rope did not belong to the Rs, but it doesn't matter because it hasn't been sourced as of March 2003. RDIs asked for evidence of an intruder. Well, any evidence that is not sourced to the Rs, creates some doubt that RDI; thus, evidence supporting IDI. Can we prove the rope, cord, tape, etc. did not belong to the Rs? Nope, but it doesn't matter. Unsourced. Not sourced to anyone, including the Rs. The burden of proof works that way. Until there's an intruder suspect...

 

[Tawny]

So if it can't be sourced to the R's and it can't be proven it was NOT their rope, it should be dismissed. Correct?

 

[Mama2JML]

Excerpt from Wolf v. Ramsey RE: Shoeprints:

"Plaintiff, of course, argues that any evidence suggesting an intruder was staged by defendants. Even assuming that all the above evidence could have been staged, however, defendants point to other evidence for which a theory of contrivance by them seems either impossible or highly implausible. First, defendants note the existence of several recently-made unidentified shoeprints containing a "HI-TEC" brand mark were found in the basement imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor. (SMF ¶¶ 151-152; PSMF ¶¶ 151-152.) Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes and none of their shoes match the shoeprint marks. (SMF ¶ 153; PSMF ¶ 153.) Likewise, another similar partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF ¶ 155; PSMF ¶ 155.) The owner of the "HI-TEC" shoe that made the footprints at the murder scene has never been identified. (SMF ¶ 154, 155; PSMF ¶ 154, 155.) 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.)"

Source: http://www.leagle.com/decision/20031576253FSupp2d1323_11466