Patsy Ramsey

[Tawny]

Others seem to feel it's at least worth discussing.

 

[chlban]

this case is unique in many ways, among which are toileting issues and lack of toileting hygiene in children well past the toddler stage. add to that the presence of fresh fecal material in recently changed clothing lying on the bedroom floor (the pj bottoms and the little black pants). add to that the fecal stains in every laundered pair of underwear in JB's drawer (there were, IIRC, 18 pairs?). add to that the candy smeared with feces. add to that the fecal smearing on the wall upstairs mentioned by the maternal grandmother, and the line of questioning which appears to refer to fecal smears in the basement

it is well-documented that toileting issues which occur past the toddler stage are a source of ongoing frustration and underlying rage for the adults, and an expression of emotions in the children which need to be identified and treated. this issue is not nonsense, nor is it a smoke screen. it is a relevant factor which must be considered and examined when a child who has those issues (and is also a daytime wetter) is brutally murdered under mysterious circumstances in her own home

the mother stated that (while knowing her child will likely wet her bed) she did not help her child to the toilet before putting her to bed on the last night of her life. the dried sheets on her bed were described as smelling of urine the morning of the event, and those sheets were not the fresh ones placed on the bed by the HK on monday. yet the mother stated in her depo that the bedwetting occurred "maybe once a week." the father stated that he was unaware of a problem with bedwetting yet he asked the HK to be sure to change JB's sheets because "she wet her bed again." minimizing and lying indicate that a subject is significant. I don't see how that can be denied or defended (but it will be)

the vehemently defensive responses to this line of discussion never cease to amaze me, and I find them intriguing. we express our opinions here; these are mine, and I realize that YMMV (your mileage may vary)

Interesting that one of the first theories of the case I read was that of Steve Thomas and that his theory was based on the event of bedwetting.

Not to say that I absolutely believe that theory to be correct, just that it is interesting that there is such a need to minimize toileting issues, and those issues tie to the lead detective's theory on the case.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You could be right, I suppose. It's just that, where I come from, CSIs don't waste time photographing spots on walls or tearing toilets out of floors unless they think they might be related to the crime; and they don't stay fixated on irrelevant detail for a couple of years; and they don't blow hard won interview time on useless questions.

I strongly disagree that the bathroom is not part of the case. It is located in the same basement where JBR was found and very likely killed. Investigators try to put together a picture of what was going on at the time of a crime, and just before. In this case, they found feces in the victim's bedroom and bathroom. They found what were most probably feces smeared on the wall adjacent to the location of the body. Naturally, they would wonder whether there was a connection, and what such a connection might tell them. It's possible, even probable, that labs were done on the wall smears. As I'm sure you know, not all of the evidence has been made public.

Actually they photograph a lot. Because they are looking to be thorough and not miss anything.


There is no proof there was feces in the bedroom. I have not seen anything that proves it was there.

Show me the proof of Fecal matter. I have not seen any. Not one single point of proof.

And again, Since there was nothing like that on the body, Or on the clothing or on the murder weapon EVEN if it was on a wall in the bathroom it means nothing to the murder.

What we have is a murdered child with lots of evidence on her. That is the evidence that matters.

 

[Tawny]

So the ransom note doesn't matter, then? It wasn't ON her, after all.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sigh.

Bathroom habits of the children are not in play here. BR was never a suspect at all. He is not part of this case. JBR had potty issues big deal. Lots of kids do.

Since we know that more than BR and JBR could have used the bathroom it could belong to anyone. And we don't even have proof that it exists. Smears on a wall in a picture are nothing that can be called evidence unless it was blood and one would hope they would have tested for that, but who knows.

 

[pukasonqo2]

i know the head injury has been attributed to JB being pushed and hitting her head against a hard surface like the upstairs bathtub but, has anyone discussed the idea that she might have been killed in the downstairs toilet? was that toilet ever considered as a CS and tested for blood?

i am not even start on who the perpetrator was, but for the sake of argument let's say JB and killer were, for whatever reason, in the basement. JB is pushed, stumbles and hits her head loudly against the toilet bowl or the sink...this is the only way i can see that toilet becoming relevant to the investigation

my take on the questioning of PR by the detectives re: that basement toilet is that they wanted to know if it was used, if it was known to be used and it was accessible


lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

i know the head injury has been attributed to JB being pushed and hitting her head against a hard surface like the upstairs bathtub but, has anyone discussed the idea that she might have been killed in the downstairs toilet? was that toilet ever considered as a CS and tested for blood?

i am not even start on who the perpetrator was, but for the sake of argument let's say JB and killer were, for whatever reason, in the basement. JB is pushed, stumbles and hits her head loudly against the toilet bowl or the sink...this is the only way i can see that toilet becoming relevant to the investigation

my take on the questioning of PR by the detectives re: that basement toilet is that they wanted to know if it was used, if it was known to be used and it was accessible


lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

That would be interesting and then I could see the toilet being relevant but I don't think this was the case. I think if the police thought that was a possibility we would know it. I think her head looks like a smaller object and harder object than that.

 

[otg]

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” (William Shakespeare, 1602)

From Urban Dictionary, the above quote means: “Overly insistent about something, to the point where the opposite is most likely true.”

From Wikipedia: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a quotation from the 1602 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. It has been used as a figure of speech, in various phrasings, to indicate that a person's overly frequent or vehement attempts to convince others of something have ironically helped to convince others that the opposite is true, by making the person look insincere and defensive.

Sycophantasize: When one fantasizes about something to the point that it appears the person is trying to “suck-up” to another for reasons unknown to those around them. (otg, 30 minutes ago)
​

Talk about stirring up a hornet’s nest! Scarlett, despite your countless protestations that this subject is not relevant, obviously, many here feel it is. If you don’t feel the conversation is worth the time, just sit this dance out (as most do on the IDI thread). Your declaration that “The bathroom has nothing to do with the murder,” does not end the conversation. Some feel it does have something to do with it. From documented questions of Patsy Ramsey, the investigators felt it did. Why else would they have spent so much time asking such detailed questions about it if it had no relevance? I don’t know why they did -- no one does. But it certainly is suspicious enough for us to wonder about it and try to discuss it like adults. Your constant denial is not helpful to your point of view. Here are just a few FACTS I could come up with that you are trying to ignore:

• Fact: Patsy Ramsey was questioned about the condition of the toilet and the surrounding area.
• Fact: Investigators often check contents of a toilet or a sink drain to check for evidence.
• Fact: Crime scene photos show, and numerous sources have stated, that the Ramsey basement toilet was disassembled for evidence (we don’t know about the basement shower, but it was stated in interviews to have Christmas decorations stored in it).
• Fact: JonBenet’s thighs had her own blood found on them which had been wiped down.
• Fact: There were no injuries found on the outside of her body which could have been the source of the blood on her thighs.
• Fact: The only injury that would have bled externally was found in her genitalia.
• Fact: No bloody materials were taken into evidence which might have been used to wipe down her body (to our knowledge).

(It’s a pretty safe conclusion to make here from the above facts that the material used to wipe away her blood was either washed out somewhere, removed from the premises, or maybe even flushed down a toilet.)

• Fact: Numerous sources (all of which you have tried to discredit or minimize) have relayed information on the conditions inside the house, the toilets, the children’s toilet issues, and the evidence that was found relating to this subject.
• Fact: Behavior of individuals is relative to any crime, and therefore it is an avenue of investigation into the dynamics of what was going on in the life of a victim.

I don’t know that what the CSIs felt was important enough to photograph (and what investigators felt was important enough to question at length about) was actually smeared feces. But it’s a good guess considering all the circumstances and what we do know. Can you think of a better explanation? I don’t personally think smeared brown hair dye in the basement is a very good one (but that's JMO).

The basement toilet is relevant to the crime. We just don’t know exactly what its relevance is, which is why we are discussing it. If anyone doesn’t care to join in on the discussion, just do as suggested by the mods: “Scroll and roll.” Personally, this is not my favorite subject (but it's just a little better than the subject of tTNA to me). But the question was asked about Patsy's interview and the possible smeared feces on the basement toilet wall. I supplied the script and my reasoning on it. If anyone disagrees with it -- fine. Move on. But please allow those who wish discuss it the opportunity.

One more quote: "Can we all just get along?" (Rodney King, 1992)

:dance:

 

[TaylurRose02]

Prove it was fecal matter. Prove it. Not guess about it..

This case has real evidence. And plenty of it that points to an intruder but here were are again trying to make points with supposition and guessing.

Posters have linked you to the interviews where the fecal matter was discussed. They aren't guessing, they are listening to the contents of the interview. No, police wouldn't have wasted their time taking apart a toilet and photographing the bathroom for no reason. They wouldn't have wasted interview time and questions on something meaningless to the crime.

The case has circumstantial evidence. And because we have circumstantial evidence, that means all we have to go on is speculation on how and why said evidence ended up where it did. All evidence is "real evidence." I asked Ranch, but I'll take another swing for an answer. What, in your opinion, is the plentiful evidence that leads you to believe the crime was committed by an intruder?

Edited in by me: I posted this before I saw that otg posted. Sorry!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Posters have linked you to the interviews where the fecal matter was discussed. They aren't guessing, they are listening to the contents of the interview. No, police wouldn't have wasted their time taking apart a toilet and photographing the bathroom for no reason. They wouldn't have wasted interview time and questions on something meaningless to the crime.

The case has circumstantial evidence. And because we have circumstantial evidence, that means all we have to go on is speculation on how and why said evidence ended up where it did. All evidence is "real evidence." I asked Ranch, but I'll take another swing for an answer. What, in your opinion, is the plentiful evidence that leads you to believe the crime was committed by an intruder?

I don't see any proof there was fecal matter. I only see discussion about what may have been on the walls in pictures.

There is more evidence that aligns with an unknown assailant than a known assailant. Starting with the DNA. That is the first issue and biggest chunk of the evidence.

 

[TaylurRose02]

I don't see any proof there was fecal matter. I only see discussion about what may have been on the walls in pictures.

There is more evidence that aligns with an unknown assailant than a known assailant. Starting with the DNA. That is the first issue and biggest chunk of the evidence.

I'm asking you to educate me on the all evidence you believe points to an intruder. I'm just curious! I've always seen you post in favor of IDI, but I've never seen your reasoning behind it.

 

[Mama2JML]

Thank you, Venom & OTG, for providing the source for what seems to be a hypothesis, but not nearly a fact.

 

[Mama2JML]

I'm asking you to educate me on the all evidence you believe points to an intruder. I'm just curious! I've always seen you post in favor of IDI, but I've never seen your reasoning behind it.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229301"]Intruder theories only - RDI theories not allowed! *READ FIRST POST* #2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[DeDee]

Others seem to feel it's at least worth discussing.

:loveyou:

Is WS having a contest to see who can post the most replies this year?

Soooo simply out of curiosity, it was discovered there are an average of eleven posts each day. We can attest to the fact that the majority of the 11 posts per day are posted right here on the JonBenét Ramsey forum.

It creates interference and static like a really bad connection. If that is the intention then what is the purpose?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I don't see any proof there was fecal matter. I only see discussion about what may have been on the walls in pictures.

There is more evidence that aligns with an unknown assailant than a known assailant. Starting with the DNA. That is the first issue and biggest chunk of the evidence.

BBM

If I posted that I believe the stain on the wall was left by the intruder from mud on his gloves the RDI's wouldn't give it any credence. That's because there's nothing to back up my belief.

I see the claim about it being fecal matter the same way.

MOO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM

If I posted that I believe the stain on the wall was left by the intruder from mud on his gloves the RDI's wouldn't give it any credence. That's because there's nothing to back up my belief.

I see the claim about it being fecal matter the same way.

MOO.

Thank you! That is exactly my point.. We have no idea what the pictures really are of unless there is a lab report that goes with it.

I think that the reason the police may have taken the toilet apart was looking for a weapon of some sort.. I can not think of any other reason, Although do we know for a fact they took it apart? They would have been looking for something that was not going to disintegrate in there.

I don't know any unknown assailant that would flush a toilet with the people home.. That seems crazy.. If you ask me.

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't think my question is ridiculous. I didn't know that JBR wet and soiled her pants every day. Sorry I asked.

No need to be sorry. This is very basic information in the case and something that has been known publicly and discussed on the forums for years. I never imagined it was something a poster would not be aware aware of.
I forget sometimes that many posters are not very well informed on the basics of the case. The potty training (and lack of) is at the center of many theories about that night, with even one of the detectives feeling that "toilet rage" may have played a part in why she was killed. This isn't my theory, but many people do agree with that.
Also, some people do not make the distinction between simple nighttime bedwetting which occurs while the child is asleep (which runs in families and is fairly common and has nothing to do with abuse) and the conscious, deliberate releasing of urine or feces while the child is awake (and old enough to be able to control those urges). In this case, BR seemed to suffer the former (simple bedwetting) and JB the latter (a conscious release). It is the latter that is often an indication of abuse.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

LS= ignored crime scene report: JRBs sheets reeked of urine that morning.

Anything that didn't "fit" was ignored. Just like ML did. She hired Kolar to investigate & when she didn't like his findings she ignored him too, even after he debunked all aspects of an intruder as espoused & taken as fact by LS.

Says who? that the bed smelled like pee???

And Maybe ML discounted his theory because it did not fit the evidence they already had.

When you have DNA that points to someone you can't say.. well we have DNA and Tdna that points to someone but we are going to charge the parents because well they live there.


I am trying to figure out the peed her pants every day proof.

And if that was true I am sure it would have been reported at school.. Was it?

 

[2 percent]

Guys...you don't have to hit ignore to actually ignore.
Continue

 

[gramcracker]

IA. but the record frequently gets distorted to the point that restoring clarity is required