Patsy Ramsey

[Chewy]

Patsy's failure to wait for help from law enforcement to arrive, which it did in a matter of minutes, before recklessly filling her house with friends brings into doubt her belief in the authenticity of the ransom note.


http://www.tommillerlaw.com/Chapter-...c-Miller.shtml

really?

Your neighbor down the street arrived faster than the police. That's absolutely shocking isn't it. Wow. It defies the laws of physics it seems. :floorlaugh:

 

[Chewy]

How they heck does anyone one know what they were thinking? The more stuff that people put forward that has to do with other people being psychic or just getting a feeling just underminds the whole theory.

EVeryone who has a child that has been kidnapped is going to call the police and the fbi. everyone. That is just a fact.

Behavior only matters when there is evidence to match it up. People don't get arrested on behavior after a crime.

Show me evidence. Real evidence.

This is an interesting point, because it's true. Unless a person was afraid of involving the police, (for example the kidnapper threatened to blackmail them in a way that would make them afraid to involve police) they would call everyone.

People say the note reads like a fake kidnap note but then expect the Ramseys to cuddle up in fear like a movies scenario. The other perspective is, "my kid is missing" get help....get support...call anyone I can think of calling.


Another question I've never gotten an answer to is why the Ramseys would go to so much trouble to stage the scene as if an intruder did it and then fail to simply OPEN A DOOR in the back to show a point of exit. Push a window open, even if they didn't make it look like a break in. They repeatedly said they didn't see anything out of place with regard to entry.

You would think the most basic staging effort would include showing how the intruder escaped or got into the house. Even as simple as "my god I forgot to lock the back door last night..." would make sense.

Why stage all this and then leave that out? I don't think I've everr heard of a staged crime scene that DIDN'T include a staged entry.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

This is an interesting point, because it's true. Unless a person was afraid of involving the police, (for example the kidnapper threatened to blackmail them in a way that would make them afraid to involve police) they would call everyone.

People say the note reads like a fake kidnap note but then expect the Ramseys to cuddle up in fear like a movies scenario. The other perspective is, "my kid is missing" get help....get support...call anyone I can think of calling.


Another question I've never gotten an answer to is why the Ramseys would go to so much trouble to stage the scene as if an intruder did it and then fail to simply OPEN A DOOR in the back to show a point of exit. Push a window open, even if they didn't make it look like a break in. They repeatedly said they didn't see anything out of place with regard to entry.

You would think the most basic staging effort would include showing how the intruder escaped or got into the house. Even as simple as "my god I forgot to lock the back door last night..." would make sense.

Why stage all this and then leave that out? I don't think I've everr heard of a staged crime scene that DIDN'T include a staged entry.

And the point is most doors can be made to look like they had been locked all night by just turning the lock and then closing the door. Locked door on search. It does not mean it was locked all night.


All the tommylaw blog stuff, means nothing to me either. Blogs are just opinion and they are often not measured in unbiased reporting.

 

[Frigga]

And the point is most doors can be made to look like they had been locked all night by just turning the lock and then closing the door. Locked door on search. It does not mean it was locked all night.


All the tommylaw blog stuff, means nothing to me either. Blogs are just opinion and they are often not measured in unbiased reporting.

The irony...

 

[DeDee]

What does this have to do with anything? Don't you realize that constant posts about Patsy as a pageant participant are completely irrelevent and read like bitter jealousy and not forensic investigation? :floorlaugh:

There you are again insulting members of this forum.

A killer's background information is always relevant to the crime if one hopes to understand why the crime was committed.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The irony...

Lol. It may seem that way but it isn't. I started out when I heard about this case way back in 96 believing the R's were guilty. All the news reports and magazines made me believe that.

Then I stopped reading articles and started looking for evidence. Real evidence.
The DNA stopped me in my tracks. By the time I came back to this case they already had the corroborating touch dna. That really is where it ends for me. I see evidence that points to an intruder. I have DNA that is in her underwear and on the sides of her pants where someone would touch her to assault her.
Until there is an answer to that I am not willing to accuse innocent parents until there is proof.

I don't care about beauty pageants and books, Lawyers and psychic cops. I care about the evidence.
There is a lot stretched and made to look like evidence when it is not. It is not even close.

There are cases solved as far back as 50 years with DNA. I have hope the DNA will finally bring a close to this case someday. Or that someone will again go through the evidence with clear eyes and start fresh and something will shake the tree.

I get that people don't like Patsy and John. But I think the majority of that comes from false reporting, Lies and innuendo. There is just not anything awful about these people. They have had more than their share of tragedy though. That is for sure.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There you are again insulting members of this forum.

A killer's background information is always relevant to the crime if one hopes to understand why the crime was committed.

There are no killers here. No matter what you can say suspect or alleged but you can not call people killers at whim.

 

[Chewy]

There you are again insulting members of this forum.

A killer's background information is always relevant to the crime if one hopes to understand why the crime was committed.

:floorlaugh:

How is that an insult, what about Patsy's pageant history is more relevant than EVIDENCE?

 

[DeDee]

This is an interesting point, because it's true. Unless a person was afraid of involving the police, (for example the kidnapper threatened to blackmail them in a way that would make them afraid to involve police) they would call everyone.

People say the note reads like a fake kidnap note but then expect the Ramseys to cuddle up in fear like a movies scenario. The other perspective is, "my kid is missing" get help....get support...call anyone I can think of calling.


Another question I've never gotten an answer to is why the Ramseys would go to so much trouble to stage the scene as if an intruder did it and then fail to simply OPEN A DOOR in the back to show a point of exit. Push a window open, even if they didn't make it look like a break in. They repeatedly said they didn't see anything out of place with regard to entry.

You would think the most basic staging effort would include showing how the intruder escaped or got into the house. Even as simple as "my god I forgot to lock the back door last night..." would make sense.

Why stage all this and then leave that out? I don't think I've everr heard of a staged crime scene that DIDN'T include a staged entry.

There was no kidnapping so the RN was a fraudulent document. It is also very important evidence for those who take the time to study it.

Staging... Everything found was exactly as the killer wanted it to be.

The killer did two things to point to IDI.

1. The body was placed in a windowless room on a white blanket to set up the kidnapping in the mind of the killer.
2. The killer wrote a ransom note and left it on the stairs.

It is those damning red fibers that scream out loudly from Patsy's clothing.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There was no kidnapping so the RN was a fraudulent document. It is also very important evidence for those who take the time to study it.

Staging... Everything found was exactly as the killer wanted it to be.

The killer did two things to point to IDI.

1. The body was placed in a windowless room on a white blanket to set up the kidnapping in the mind of the killer.
2. The killer wrote a ransom note and left it on the stairs.

It is those damning red fibers that scream out loudly from Patsy's clothing.

Those fibers that are mentioned no where but in a deposition. Fibers that belong to a person who lived in that house.

And leaving his dna.. That points to an intruder too. Oh and taking the murder weapon and the rope and tape..

 

[Linda7NJ]

Those fibers that are mentioned no where but in a deposition. Fibers that belong to a person who lived in that house.



And leaving his dna.. That points to an intruder too. Oh and taking the murder weapon and the rope and tape..

Are you implying the fibers do not exist?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Are you implying the fibers do not exist?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im implying that the fibers don't matter. They belong to Patsy. She lived in the home. IT is just that simple Fiber transfer between members and surfaces is common.

Her fibers being anywhere have no place in the case. I just have not seen any other documentation of these so called fibers. Just in the depo and they did not want to supply the evidence to the defense to be examined.

 

[Tawny]

Touch DNA transfer between members and surfaces is common too.

 

[Mama2JML]

Highlighted in red by me...

There was no kidnapping so the RN was a fraudulent document. It is also very important evidence for those who take the time to study it.

Staging... Everything found was exactly as the killer wanted it to be.

The killer did two things to point to IDI.

1. The body was placed in a windowless room on a white blanket to set up the kidnapping in the mind of the killer.
2. The killer wrote a ransom note and left it on the stairs.

It is those damning red fibers that scream out loudly from Patsy's clothing.

On the tape, 4 fibers (ONLY 4 out of 100s of non-matched fibers) were consistent with red fibers from Mrs. Ramsey's red, black, grey jacket/sweater. We also have immeasurable quantities (100s, maybe 1000s) of unsourced fibers (blue, brown, etc.), animal hairs, human hair, DNA, etc. The totality of the evidence screams, "It wasn't a Ramsey."

 

[Tawny]

I think the location of said fibers is what is so important.

 

[Venom]

So some of the immeasurable fibers and hairs that were found in the house must have come from the intruder. The intruder also didn't leave any fingerprints. He used the pen and paper from the house and brought his own cord and duct tape. He only left a spot of touch dna, that still may be from one of the R's (remember, we can't forget about the IF qualifier on that tdna) He does this on Christmas night without being seen or heard by anyone.
To add: He got lucky with those fibers getting into the knot. Maybe he planted them.

 

[bettybaby00]

So some of the immeasurable fibers and hairs that were found in the house must have come from the intruder. The intruder also didn't leave any fingerprints. He used the pen and paper from the house and brought his own cord and duct tape. He only left a spot of touch dna, that still may be from one of the R's (remember, we can't forget about the IF qualifier on that tdna) He does this on Christmas night without being seen or heard by anyone.
To add: He got lucky with those fibers getting into the knot. Maybe he planted them.

More importantly, someone can't be considered a suspect in his own home following such logic. If someone commits a murder in his own home, none of the fiber, fingerprint, or DNA evidence can be considered linked to the crime, cause you know, they live there, and all that stuff is supposed to be in the house!!!

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

 

[DeeDee249]

More importantly, someone can't be considered a suspect in his own home following such logic. If someone commits a murder in his own home, none of the fiber, fingerprint, or DNA evidence can be considered linked to the crime, cause you know, they live there, and all that stuff is supposed to be in the house!!!

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

Gotta be careful- there are people here who might believe you are serious!:floorlaugh:

 

[Mama2JML]

So some of the immeasurable fibers and hairs that were found in the house must have come from the intruder.

The fibers weren't sourced to the Ramseys, nor to their residence, SOOO...

The intruder also didn't leave any fingerprints.

Can't say for sure.

He used the pen and paper from the house and brought his own cord and duct tape.

...& gloves, a stun gun, rope, etc.

He only left a spot of touch dna, that still may be from one of the R's (remember, we can't forget about the IF qualifier on that tdna)

The "if qualifier" pertains only to the evidentiary DNA collected in 1997, from JonBenét's panties, right hand fingernail clippings, and left hand fingernail clippings. The forensic DNA profiles submitted to CODIS (via the FBI) in 2003, from a second bloodstain in JonBenét's panties, and in 2008, from both sides of her long johns, is exculpatory to the Ramseys.

He does this on Christmas night without being seen or heard by anyone.

According to Joe Barnhill, the Stantons, Scott Gibbons? No, not quite...

To add: He got lucky with those fibers getting into the knot. Maybe he planted them.

There were no fibers, sourced to the Ramseys, obtained from the knot(s), the cord, the garrote, etc.

Let's not forget the two shoe prints and the male, pubic/ancillary hair that remain unsourced.

 

[lawstudent]

I both agree and disagree with everyone in this thread - it is so frustrating. There's so much that makes this look like an inside job, but I do think RDI dismisses the DNA evidence way too easily. If it's so easily transferred, you'd think they'd have found tons of strange DNA all over the place - and certainly tons of Ramsey fibers.

I know it can be that easily transferred in small amounts and it's possible the DNA is totally unrelated, but I watch a lot of crime shows and I rarely hear about cops waiting to find the source of a small amount of foreign DNA, only to find that it was someone not involved in the crime or the home. Even the people in the home's DNA isn't usually mixed with the blood of victims in these cases, although that's certainly possible. While police may exaggerate its importance and it cannot always be trusted, DNA testing seems to be pretty accurate in terms of not IDing the wrong person.