John Ramsey on Oprah

[Roy23]

You apparently did not read post #91...scroll up and read it. The Touch DNA evidence means diddly squat.

I did read it.

The touch DNA by itself means nothing. But the fact that they isolated two areas for touch DNA and found that it matched "the foreign male" DNA from blood in JBR panties is very significant. It pretty much squashes 99% of the theories in this whole thread.

 

[BBB167893]

You are living in a fantasy world that you created concerning this case.

I'm not the one selling fantasy.

In time, when the killer is caught you will cry conspirisy when you look like a major fool.

I wouldn't bet the house on that.

I respect the time you have studied on this case

Do you indeed?

but somewhere you lost your sense of reasoning just like other numerous people who prostituted themselves to try and make a buck on fiction.

Not only do I take that as a personal insult, the idea that I of all people could lose my sense of reasoning is ludicrous.

The Ramsey's might be guilty of a lot of things, but they did not physically kill JBR.

Be careful, sir. That could be interpreted as saying that they may not have killed her, but they know who did.

The DNA is solid no matter what fairy tale things that are brought up here.

The DNA is hardly solid. That's the opinion of the DA only. And that's not charging conspiracy, sir. The DA in this case has been in the tank for them since Day One. You can read that in several of the books on this case. Maybe you've never heard of the Tom Haney incident?

And one day soon you will find that out.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[BBB167893]

I did read it.

The touch DNA by itself means nothing. But the fact that they isolated two areas for touch DNA and found that it matched "the foreign male" DNA from blood in JBR panties is very significant.

I'm afraid not, since they can't determine what it is, who it came from or when it was deposited.

Not only that, but what about all the evidence against the Ramseys? Actually, I should rephrase that: what about the evidence that they knew who did it?

 

[Roy23]

"Be careful, sir. That could be interpreted as saying that they may not have killed her, but they know who did."


I don't pretend to say that I can know what they do or do not know. I can only say that someone else killed that little girl. If someone in their family orchestrated someone else to kill their child, then that is a possibility as illogical as it sounds.

 

[Roy23]

"Actually, I should rephrase that: what about the evidence that they knew who did it?"


I would like to see you prove that. I am listening.

 

[BBB167893]

"Be careful, sir. That could be interpreted as saying that they may not have killed her, but they know who did."


I don't pretend to say that I can know what they do or do not know. I can only say that someone else killed that little girl. If someone in their family orchestrated someone else to kill their child, then that is a possibility as illogical as it sounds.

I'm not saying that. I'm just trying to establish a baseline for where you're coming from.

 

[Roy23]

"I'm afraid not, since they can't determine what it is, who it came from or when it was deposited"

You are wrong here. The fact that it is a foreign DNA from her blood in her panties and they go on to further corroborate this with touch DNA proves to you that an unknown killer exists.

 

[angelwngs]

"I'm afraid not, since they can't determine what it is, who it came from or when it was deposited"

You are wrong here. The fact that it is a foreign DNA from her blood in her panties and they go on to further corroborate this with touch DNA proves to you that an unknown killer exists.

It absolutely does not prove that an unknown killer exists.

 

[BBB167893]

"Actually, I should rephrase that: what about the evidence that they knew who did it?"


I would like to see you prove that. I am listening.

I'm glad to hear that. I don't know how much I can "prove" it, since we're not in court. But I'll make my case, nonetheless.

Well, to start with, there's the pineapple. JB had it in her intestines when she died. Pineapple takes, ballpark, one to three hours to make it that far once it's swallowed. Now, JonBenet did not eat any pineapple at the White's party, and none of her fingerprints were found on the bowl on the kitchen table with the pineapple in it. The Ramseys claimed she was too small to reach the top of the table and it no one mentioned anything out of place that would look like she climbed on something. That means she would have to have eaten it after they got home and someone would have to get it for her. Now, are we to believe that some freak broke in, fed it to her, then waited the two hours for it to digest? Illogical doesn't begin to describe that idea. The Ramseys maintain JonBenet never woke up at home. Since the pineapple was there, we may infer that they are lying.
John Ramsey changed his story on that, in fact:

During the 1998 interviews, the first day John Ramsey was interviewed, he said that no one fed JonBenet pineapple under any circumstances, since she wouldn't have eaten it from an intruder anyway. Det. Thomas writes in his book, quote:
"The very next day he retracted that firm statement, saying his lawyer chastised him for making it. Nether he nor Patsy fed her pineapple, he said, but then he asked, 'What if she knew the intruder?' After thinking about it, he said, 'It hit me like a ton of bricks.' JonBenet 'adored' Santa Bill McReynolds, and if he had come into her room, she would have gotten out of bed and gone downstairs with him without a problem. 'She may have had a secretly prearranged meeting.' he said. 'Maybe he fed her pineapple.' The detectives stopped the tape and watched that section repeatedly. Only the day before, Ramsey had said such a thing was impossible. Now he laid it on Santa Bill."

Next, we have the famous 911 call. Just before the hang-up, a voice that turned out to be Burke Ramsey could be heard asking, "what is it? What did you find?" This is important because, just as they claimed that JonBenet was asleep when they got home, the Ramseys first stated that Burke was asleep during the 911 call and remained so until he was awakened and sent to the Whites' house. His voice on the tape suggests two things: it suggests that they were lying when they said he was asleep, and that since he was awake, Patsy's screaming woke him up and their story about not being able to hear screaming is also a lie.
Over time, the story about Burke being asleep has changed in fits and starts. In the interviews of June 1998, John Ramsey said he checked on Burke and found him asleep. Later, he said Burke was pretending to be asleep because he was scared. The changing story culminated in an interview between the Ramseys and the "National Enquirer" tabloid where John described Burke as awake, asking questions and so frightened he was crying. Sounds like they tried to cover all of their bases.

Third, Fibers from the sweater Patsy Ramsey was known to have worn that night were found on the sticky side of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth. Several people have tried to claim that this proves nothing because the tape had been removed from JonBenet's mouth by her father and handled by others, thus they could have transferred innocently. But those same fibers were found inside the blanket that JonBenet was wrapped up in, and were found inside the little box that Patsy Ramsey kept her art supplies in. Remember, one of her brushes had formed the handle of the ligature that JonBenet was strangled with. But most notably, those fibers were found tied into the knots of the cord itself. No such fibers were found directly on JonBenet's body, and Patsy made no attempt to answer the questions about them and give a possible innocent explanation. Two years later, she told a CBS reporter that her fibers had transferred to JonBenet that morning because Patsy, who had been wearing the same clothing she had worn at the party, laid on top of her. But this cannot explain it. In their own book, Death of Innocence, John Ramsey writes that by the time Patsy came near the body, JonBenet was already fully covered. This is borne out by the police reports. Oops. Her own story does not hold up.

Fourth, Patsy claimed that she saw the ransom letter on the spiral staircase and stepped over it before turning to see what it was. The police later conducted an experiment where they tried to recreate her story. None of the police officers could do it without falling. Again, her story makes no sense.

John Ramsey talks about how he regrets that the FBI wasn't called in immediately (which is a lie, since Ron Walker was there that morning), but when the offer was made to the Ramseys to have the FBI take over the case, he said no. He said that the FBI was tainted because they had worked with the Boulder Police and were somehow part of this giant conspiracy to "get" him and Patsy. Sure, like the FBI doesn't have anything better to do.

Burke Ramsey mentioned that whoever killed JonBenet took out a knife. At the time, that was not a publicly released fact. But a knife was involved. Burke Ramsey had a Swiss army knife, but he had a habit of whittling with it inside the house and leaving wood shavings all over, so Linda Hoffman-Pugh, the family housekeeper, took it away from him and put in a cabinet in the basement where he couldn't get to it. Only Burke, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, and Patsy knew where it was. The knife was not used as a weapon on JonBenet, but it was found near her body.

JonBenet had tape on her mouth when she was found. I guess this was supposed to give the impression that she had been gagged, but again, whoever did it did a lousy job. For one thing, it was not tied around her head. It wasn't even a long strip. It was a small square of tape. Thomas, in his book, describes what the forensic technicians found on the tape. They discovered that it contained a perfect print of JonBenet's lips. She had not made any attempt to fight against it. It also had bloody mucous from JonBenet's nose under it. The logical conclusion, and the one that the police drew, was that it had been put on after JonBenet was dead. Why would a kidnapper put tape on someone's mouth? Easy: to keep them quiet. But this one didn't bother until after she was dead. Why?

when Patsy Ramsey greeted police on the morning after Christmas, she had on the same red sweater and black pants that she had worn to the party the night before. Her explanation has always been that since she wore them for only a short time, they were perfectly good to wear again. This does not jibe with what others have claimed. The family housekeeper, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, has claimed that the idea of wearing the same clothes twice in a row was repellent to Patsy. Denver Post columnist Chuck Green wrote in December of 2006 that the investigators, having inspected her bedroom, felt "that her side of the Ramsey bed hadn't been slept in."

The cord around JonBenet's neck had a fair amount of slack in it between where it was tied to the cord and where it met her neck. To use it effectively, the person would have to pull the cord up over their head almost; or wrap it around their arm. Not a very practical job, on the whole. The autopsy photos present a grim and grisly image of JonBenet's neck squeezed into an hourglass from the strangulation. To the eye, it looks horrific. Indeed, this has led many people to believe that no parent could do this to their child. But the autopsy reveals that there were no marks on JonBenet's tongue or on the inside of her mouth that would indicate her to have fought her killer. The report also reveals that the larynx, the strap muscles of the neck and the hyoid bone were all undamaged. In 1999, former Denver DA Norm Early was reported to have stated that when you stage strangulation, "you don't want the coroner to come back and say, 'oh, this couldn't have really killed somebody.' So you pull it deeper and deeper." Also, the little girl's hair was tied into both the neck knot and the handle knot. That means not only was it made on her body, but the killer had her face-down because they couldn't look her in the face. Most notably, the knot at the back of her neck and the knot on the stick had JonBenet's hair tied into it. This means that the garrote was made on her body, not prepared ahead of time.

Then there are the behavioral findings, which would take another post.

I hope I'm not coming off as belligerent, because i don't know enough about you to make judgments, sir. If I have, I assure you it's nothing personal. You just kind of drifted into my life on a no-fly-zone day, you know?

Also, I hope this isn't boring you. Maybe you didn't expect me to go so long, but that's just me.

 

[BBB167893]

It absolutely does not prove that an unknown killer exists.

Angelwngs is right.

 

[Roy23]

I'm glad to hear that. I don't know how much I can "prove" it, since we're not in court. But I'll make my case, nonetheless.

Well, to start with, there's the pineapple. JB had it in her intestines when she died. Pineapple takes, ballpark, one to three hours to make it that far once it's swallowed. Now, JonBenet did not eat any pineapple at the White's party, and none of her fingerprints were found on the bowl on the kitchen table with the pineapple in it. The Ramseys claimed she was too small to reach the top of the table and it no one mentioned anything out of place that would look like she climbed on something. That means she would have to have eaten it after they got home and someone would have to get it for her. Now, are we to believe that some freak broke in, fed it to her, then waited the two hours for it to digest? Illogical doesn't begin to describe that idea. The Ramseys maintain JonBenet never woke up at home. Since the pineapple was there, we may infer that they are lying.
John Ramsey changed his story on that, in fact:

During the 1998 interviews, the first day John Ramsey was interviewed, he said that no one fed JonBenet pineapple under any circumstances, since she wouldn't have eaten it from an intruder anyway. Det. Thomas writes in his book, quote:
"The very next day he retracted that firm statement, saying his lawyer chastised him for making it. Nether he nor Patsy fed her pineapple, he said, but then he asked, 'What if she knew the intruder?' After thinking about it, he said, 'It hit me like a ton of bricks.' JonBenet 'adored' Santa Bill McReynolds, and if he had come into her room, she would have gotten out of bed and gone downstairs with him without a problem. 'She may have had a secretly prearranged meeting.' he said. 'Maybe he fed her pineapple.' The detectives stopped the tape and watched that section repeatedly. Only the day before, Ramsey had said such a thing was impossible. Now he laid it on Santa Bill."

Next, we have the famous 911 call. Just before the hang-up, a voice that turned out to be Burke Ramsey could be heard asking, "what is it? What did you find?" This is important because, just as they claimed that JonBenet was asleep when they got home, the Ramseys first stated that Burke was asleep during the 911 call and remained so until he was awakened and sent to the Whites' house. His voice on the tape suggests two things: it suggests that they were lying when they said he was asleep, and that since he was awake, Patsy's screaming woke him up and their story about not being able to hear screaming is also a lie.
Over time, the story about Burke being asleep has changed in fits and starts. In the interviews of June 1998, John Ramsey said he checked on Burke and found him asleep. Later, he said Burke was pretending to be asleep because he was scared. The changing story culminated in an interview between the Ramseys and the "National Enquirer" tabloid where John described Burke as awake, asking questions and so frightened he was crying. Sounds like they tried to cover all of their bases.

Third, Fibers from the sweater Patsy Ramsey was known to have worn that night were found on the sticky side of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth. Several people have tried to claim that this proves nothing because the tape had been removed from JonBenet's mouth by her father and handled by others, thus they could have transferred innocently. But those same fibers were found inside the blanket that JonBenet was wrapped up in, and were found inside the little box that Patsy Ramsey kept her art supplies in. Remember, one of her brushes had formed the handle of the ligature that JonBenet was strangled with. But most notably, those fibers were found tied into the knots of the cord itself. No such fibers were found directly on JonBenet's body, and Patsy made no attempt to answer the questions about them and give a possible innocent explanation. Two years later, she told a CBS reporter that her fibers had transferred to JonBenet that morning because Patsy, who had been wearing the same clothing she had worn at the party, laid on top of her. But this cannot explain it. In their own book, Death of Innocence, John Ramsey writes that by the time Patsy came near the body, JonBenet was already fully covered. This is borne out by the police reports. Oops. Her own story does not hold up.

Fourth, Patsy claimed that she saw the ransom letter on the spiral staircase and stepped over it before turning to see what it was. The police later conducted an experiment where they tried to recreate her story. None of the police officers could do it without falling. Again, her story makes no sense.

John Ramsey talks about how he regrets that the FBI wasn't called in immediately (which is a lie, since Ron Walker was there that morning), but when the offer was made to the Ramseys to have the FBI take over the case, he said no. He said that the FBI was tainted because they had worked with the Boulder Police and were somehow part of this giant conspiracy to "get" him and Patsy. Sure, like the FBI doesn't have anything better to do.

Burke Ramsey mentioned that whoever killed JonBenet took out a knife. At the time, that was not a publicly released fact. But a knife was involved. Burke Ramsey had a Swiss army knife, but he had a habit of whittling with it inside the house and leaving wood shavings all over, so Linda Hoffman-Pugh, the family housekeeper, took it away from him and put in a cabinet in the basement where he couldn't get to it. Only Burke, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, and Patsy knew where it was. The knife was not used as a weapon on JonBenet, but it was found near her body.

JonBenet had tape on her mouth when she was found. I guess this was supposed to give the impression that she had been gagged, but again, whoever did it did a lousy job. For one thing, it was not tied around her head. It wasn't even a long strip. It was a small square of tape. Thomas, in his book, describes what the forensic technicians found on the tape. They discovered that it contained a perfect print of JonBenet's lips. She had not made any attempt to fight against it. It also had bloody mucous from JonBenet's nose under it. The logical conclusion, and the one that the police drew, was that it had been put on after JonBenet was dead. Why would a kidnapper put tape on someone's mouth? Easy: to keep them quiet. But this one didn't bother until after she was dead. Why?

when Patsy Ramsey greeted police on the morning after Christmas, she had on the same red sweater and black pants that she had worn to the party the night before. Her explanation has always been that since she wore them for only a short time, they were perfectly good to wear again. This does not jibe with what others have claimed. The family housekeeper, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, has claimed that the idea of wearing the same clothes twice in a row was repellent to Patsy. Denver Post columnist Chuck Green wrote in December of 2006 that the investigators, having inspected her bedroom, felt "that her side of the Ramsey bed hadn't been slept in."

The cord around JonBenet's neck had a fair amount of slack in it between where it was tied to the cord and where it met her neck. To use it effectively, the person would have to pull the cord up over their head almost; or wrap it around their arm. Not a very practical job, on the whole. The autopsy photos present a grim and grisly image of JonBenet's neck squeezed into an hourglass from the strangulation. To the eye, it looks horrific. Indeed, this has led many people to believe that no parent could do this to their child. But the autopsy reveals that there were no marks on JonBenet's tongue or on the inside of her mouth that would indicate her to have fought her killer. The report also reveals that the larynx, the strap muscles of the neck and the hyoid bone were all undamaged. In 1999, former Denver DA Norm Early was reported to have stated that when you stage strangulation, "you don't want the coroner to come back and say, 'oh, this couldn't have really killed somebody.' So you pull it deeper and deeper." Also, the little girl's hair was tied into both the neck knot and the handle knot. That means not only was it made on her body, but the killer had her face-down because they couldn't look her in the face. Most notably, the knot at the back of her neck and the knot on the stick had JonBenet's hair tied into it. This means that the garrote was made on her body, not prepared ahead of time.

Then there are the behavioral findings, which would take another post.

I hope I'm not coming off as belligerent, because i don't know enough about you to make judgments, sir. If I have, I assure you it's nothing personal. You just kind of drifted into my life on a no-fly-zone day, you know?

Also, I hope this isn't boring you. Maybe you didn't expect me to go so long, but that's just me.

Dave,

It wouldn't matter to me if you were condescending or not. I appreciate that you took the time to do that. You have spent a whole lot of time researching things---some of which are probably partially not true and some that is true. None of them prove murder sorry to say. Whereas the DNA evidence does. From the very beginning of this case, the Ramsey's were on the defensive because of the actions of the police and the media. Because of that, all of this speculation created a mess. It is not uncommon for some facts to get distorted in an event such as the murder of a child. Especially when you are made to be a villain by the community and the media. There was a need for them to have a lawyer and of course that is when the Ramsey's clammed up. It happens all the time.

You have a lot of information from a number of sources. And I respect that even though I do not know you. But I can't respect your opinion unless you can admit that someone unknown to the police killed JBR. Because that is a fact.

 

[Roy23]

Angelwngs is right.

Oh, it does. You really have to be real creative to not admit it. It would be one thing to cry planted evidence but that is where the touch DNA ended the investigation of the Ramsey's. And don't fool yourselves, any other DA besides Mike Nifong would do the same.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,

It wouldn't matter to me if you were condescending or not. I appreciate that you took the time to do that. You have spent a whole lot of time researching things---some of which are probably partially not true and some that is true.

Well, it matters to me. Do unto others, right? I'm sure glad to read this stuff. I always appreciate someone who values my efforts. As to what is true and what is not, that's for a court. I'm just giving what I have collected in 11+ years. And that's not even the WHOLE thing.

None of them prove murder sorry to say.

By themselves, they don't. Taken altogether, they add up.

Also, they may not prove murder, per se. But as you seemed to imply, they scream "cover up." To me, anyway.

Whereas the DNA evidence does.

Only if it matches someone who can't account for it. There are too many ways DNA can be transferred. That's not just my opinion.

From the very beginning of this case, the Ramsey's were on the defensive because of the actions of the police and the media. Because of that, all of this speculation created a mess.

I would agree to that, but only in a limited way. There are a LOT of factors which contributed to it.

It is not uncommon for some facts to get distorted in an event such as the murder of a child.

Don't I know it!

Especially when you are made to be a villain by the community and the media.

Well, as I've said, I've never figured Patsy to be a "villain." In my view, she was a victim herself. Sadly, my feelings toward John are less forgiving. But that's my problem. I don't burden anyone else with that.

There was a need for them to have a lawyer and of course that is when the Ramsey's clammed up. It happens all the time.

Maybe so. But I know a lot of parents who are innocent who don't buy their story. Marc Klaas is one of them.

You have a lot of information from a number of sources. And I respect that even though I do not know you.

I'm much obliged to you, sir.

But I can't respect your opinion unless you can admit that someone unknown to the police killed JBR.

How can I admit to something I cannot in good conscience believe?

Because that is a fact.

I'm afraid I cannot agree. A possibility, yes. Not a fact. Not by a sight.

 

[Roy23]

OK, how can you explain transfer of DNA in the blood in JBR's panties. And what about the touch DNA that matched this DNA that happens to be foreign of the Ramsey's?

 

[BBB167893]

Oh, it does. You really have to be real creative to not admit it.

Not at all. Back during the Karr fiasco, Bill O'Reilly interviewed a criminologist. She said that the increasing sensitivity of DNA science was something of a double-edged sword, because it was more and more likely to find DNA that was irrelevant to a case. You don't have to reinvent the wheel.

It would be one thing to cry planted evidence but that is where the touch DNA ended the investigation of the Ramsey's.

The DA was just looking for an excuse before she leaves office. No one's saying it was planted. But you can't ignore all the other evidence.

And don't fool yourselves, any other DA besides Mike Nifong would do the same.

If you believe that, you're clearly not familiar with this DA's conduct in this case. I can help you in that area, as well.

 

[Roy23]

"Not at all. Back during the Karr fiasco, Bill O'Reilly interviewed a criminologist. She said that the increasing sensitivity of DNA science was something of a double-edged sword, because it was more and more likely to find DNA that was irrelevant to a case. You don't have to reinvent the wheel."


Touch DNA by itself creates a number of problems. But that is not the case here.

 

[BBB167893]

OK, how can you explain transfer of DNA in the blood in JBR's panties.

I'm glad you asked. Actually, I don't explain it. Henry Lee did. The DNA did come from her blood. That is an assumption. He said it's much more likely that the DNA was there and JonBenet bled onto it.

And what about the touch DNA that matched this DNA that happens to be foreign of the Ramseys?

Considering that it took this new supersensitive method just to find it in the first place, it couldn't have been that much. Also, they only tested those areas. I'll be you'd find tons of DNA on JB's clothing in any number of places. More to the point, since the two items of clothing were in contact with each other, at least at some point, it's not unthinkable that one was the source of the other. That's not just my opinion.

 

[BBB167893]

Touch DNA by itself creates a number of problems. But that is not the case here.

So you say.

 

[Roy23]

OK, how can you explain transfer of DNA in the blood in JBR's panties.

I'm glad you asked. Actually, I don't explain it. Henry Lee did. The DNA did come from her blood. That is an assumption. He said it's much more likely that the DNA was there and JonBenet bled onto it.



Considering that it took this new supersensitive method just to find it in the first place, it couldn't have been that much. Also, they only tested those areas. I'll be you'd find tons of DNA on JB's clothing in any number of places. More to the point, since the two items of clothing were in contact with each other, at least at some point, it's not unthinkable that one was the source of the other. That's not just my opinion.

Dave,

This is very unlikely to impossible. Dr. Lee would now tell you the same. The DNA in her panties is either most likely blood or saliva and not skin cells. Dr. Lee would now tell you that since they found the skin cells in the two areas tested, he would say extremely likely that someone other than the Ramsey's kill JBR.

The fact that it is foreign says a whole lot here. I think your book should concentrate on a conspiricy of some sort if you believe the Ramsey's are in the know. I think they have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Ramsey's did not perform an act of killing JBR.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,

This is very unlikely to impossible. Dr. Lee would now tell you the same.

I haven't heard him say that.

The DNA in her panties is either most likely blood or saliva and not skin cells.

Well, this probably won't take, but there is a poster who contacted an DNA expert on this and was told it could very well be skin cells.

Dr. Lee would now tell you that since they found the skin cells in the two areas tested, he would say extremely likely that someone other than the Ramsey's kill JBR.

I doubt it. It can't be dated. That's the big thing here: no one can say for sure it was even left that night. To my knowledge, there's no test that can show how or when it got there.

The fact that it is foreign says a whole lot here.

Not really. As I've tried explaining for the last hour or so, there's foreign DNA on all of us. I'm sure we'd all be surprised/horrified to find out how much.

I think your book should concentrate on a conspiricy of some sort if you believe the Ramsey's are in the know.

Sir, I will not have my efforts mocked. Not that I'm saying you are, but I'm laying the ground rules. I don't believe there is a conspiracy, just incompetence.

I think they have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Ramsey's did not perform an act of killing JBR.

Per the DA's own words, sir: only when a conviction is made in court can that happen. They have proven nothing.

Let me be clear, sir. If it were any other case, I'd be right on your side. But with all the nonsense the current DA has pulled, I'd have to be a fool to trust her judgement. And as you can clearly see, I am not a fool.