Patsy Ramsey

[DeDee]

0200
3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
6 from her jacket were found in the paint
7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
11 the question is, can she explain to us how
12 those fibers appeared in those places that
13 are associated with her daughter's death.
14 And I understand you are not going to answer
15 those.


The male hair on the blanket prob got there innocently when the blanket was placed on the floor in the moldy windowless room.

What was the trace evidence removed from her left hand? The beaver fur? JP stated Patsy had beaver boots that Judith liked because they were great looking.

Maybe the child reached out to her mom in her hour of great need and caught a piece of beaver fur in her grasp. I also want to know what fibers were under her gold ring.



''With a great joy I recognized what it was I had left behind me, my body lying strangled on the floor.''
~ Muriel Sparks; Shuffling the Cards

 

[Chewy]

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:

This is a valid point if the only fibers that were found on the body were from the home. But the key is when there are fibers that don't match the people in the home on the body.

That's KEY right there. Jonbenet had long hair. Hugging her would easily transfer fibers from the family members into her hair. If that hair was then pulled into the garotte it would make sense. We know this is what happened.

Absence of other fibers and DNA would definitely be a smoking gun to me. It would seem impossible that the level of violence perpetuated against Jonbenet, especially the garotte, would not "pick up" fibers off the person doing it to her.

So if they examined Jonbenet and she was free from any foreign fibers or DNA, I'd be right in the corner of the RDI.

However there were foreign fibers and DNA on the body. So how do you all explain that? Where did it come from? Not only did they test the Ramsesys, they tested the Whites, the neighbors, the children, other friends, the Santa, etc etc. They tested everyone she had come in contact with and it didn't match anyone. So where did it come from? She was a six year old child, not someone who could leave the home on her own.


I'm open to suggestions and evidence and explanations. But when I ask I get comments that are about Patsy's pageant history from 20 years ago and "talk of the town" type answers.


Many years ago I took a Criminal Justice course and the professor told us that he felt that in most criminal cases the cops knew who did it but were just unable to prove it. I have always felt this to be the case. I've believed that the cops "hinky meter" based on years of experience would lead them in the right direction.

However in this case there's just too many screw ups. Like the cop that looked in the wine cellar but just walked away because there wasn't a light switch and he couldn't see. Really? That's how you search the premisis?


But again, how do you explain foreign fibers and DNA that couldn't be sourced to anyone in Jonbenet's family or friends or neighbors etc being found on the body.

How do you just dismiss that as "irrelevant?"

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

 

[lawstudent]

This is a valid point if the only fibers that were found on the body were from the home. But the key is when there are fibers that don't match the people in the home on the body.

That's KEY right there. Jonbenet had long hair. Hugging her would easily transfer fibers from the family members into her hair. If that hair was then pulled into the garotte it would make sense. We know this is what happened.

Absence of other fibers and DNA would definitely be a smoking gun to me. It would seem impossible that the level of violence perpetuated against Jonbenet, especially the garotte, would not "pick up" fibers off the person doing it to her.

So if they examined Jonbenet and she was free from any foreign fibers or DNA, I'd be right in the corner of the RDI.

However there were foreign fibers and DNA on the body. So how do you all explain that? Where did it come from? Not only did they test the Ramsesys, they tested the Whites, the neighbors, the children, other friends, the Santa, etc etc. They tested everyone she had come in contact with and it didn't match anyone. So where did it come from? She was a six year old child, not someone who could leave the home on her own.


I'm open to suggestions and evidence and explanations. But when I ask I get comments that are about Patsy's pageant history from 20 years ago and "talk of the town" type answers.


Many years ago I took a Criminal Justice course and the professor told us that he felt that in most criminal cases the cops knew who did it but were just unable to prove it. I have always felt this to be the case. I've believed that the cops "hinky meter" based on years of experience would lead them in the right direction.

However in this case there's just too many screw ups. Like the cop that looked in the wine cellar but just walked away because there wasn't a light switch and he couldn't see. Really? That's how you search the premisis?


But again, how do you explain foreign fibers and DNA that couldn't be sourced to anyone in Jonbenet's family or friends or neighbors etc being found on the body.

How do you just dismiss that as "irrelevant?"

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

I don't think it's that relevant because fibers are so easily transferred - I tutor at people's homes and come back with pet fur and all sorts of things stuck to me. They seem to transfer and be more apparent than DNA evidence because they are larger and more solid. In a basement, I'd expect to find all sorts of fibers from people walking around, old furniture and things, all of that. Or if I was pulling rope and tape out of someplace, I could easily see how there'd be fibers stuck in it.

Where it would be relevant is in cases where they find several fibers from a unique clothing item belonging to the victim in a car trunk, which I've seen multiple times. Unless you had a reason to be moving things their belongings in your car, there's no plausible explanation otherwise.

Both the DNA and fiber evidence obviously become way more significant if traced to someone specific who is unrelated to the family and wouldn't be around them but who could have committed the crime based on their location at the time and any other suspicious factors.

The DNA evidence can't mean much otherwise, but I still don't think the DNA evidence is irrelevant. It doesn't seem like random transferred DNA sticks around that long in testable amounts. I know it's possible - but like I said, I don't hear about cops saying they find all this random DNA on people from transfers. Often they find nothing in cases in which you think there would be a ton. And this crime scene does not seem like one that would guarantee a lot of evidence, because there wasn't a violent struggle. I also see a lot of cases where absolutely no fingerprints are found - I don't know why it seems to vary so much. A few skin cells probably dissipate pretty quickly.

The foreign fibers don't seem important to me, though, unless they were especially unique or numerous or traced to something suspicious. Like if the wire had lots of foreign dog hair stuck in it - that would be odd.

 

[Venom]

The ancillary hair was sourced to be from PR, an arm hair. I believe it was DeDee that already stated that up thread. As per the dna, wasn't it 5-6 sources found via the nail clippers (that were contaminated by being used on others) so does that mean that we have 5-6 intruders?
Why do we not complain about how inept the ME must have been to have used those clippers on different people?

 

[Venom]

This is a valid point if the only fibers that were found on the body were from the home. But the key is when there are fibers that don't match the people in the home on the body.

That's KEY right there. Jonbenet had long hair. Hugging her would easily transfer fibers from the family members into her hair. If that hair was then pulled into the garotte it would make sense. We know this is what happened.

Absence of other fibers and DNA would definitely be a smoking gun to me. It would seem impossible that the level of violence perpetuated against Jonbenet, especially the garotte, would not "pick up" fibers off the person doing it to her.

So if they examined Jonbenet and she was free from any foreign fibers or DNA, I'd be right in the corner of the RDI.

However there were foreign fibers and DNA on the body. So how do you all explain that? Where did it come from? Not only did they test the Ramsesys, they tested the Whites, the neighbors, the children, other friends, the Santa, etc etc. They tested everyone she had come in contact with and it didn't match anyone. So where did it come from? She was a six year old child, not someone who could leave the home on her own.


I'm open to suggestions and evidence and explanations. But when I ask I get comments that are about Patsy's pageant history from 20 years ago and "talk of the town" type answers.


Many years ago I took a Criminal Justice course and the professor told us that he felt that in most criminal cases the cops knew who did it but were just unable to prove it. I have always felt this to be the case. I've believed that the cops "hinky meter" based on years of experience would lead them in the right direction.

However in this case there's just too many screw ups. Like the cop that looked in the wine cellar but just walked away because there wasn't a light switch and he couldn't see. Really? That's how you search the premisis?


But again, how do you explain foreign fibers and DNA that couldn't be sourced to anyone in Jonbenet's family or friends or neighbors etc being found on the body.

How do you just dismiss that as "irrelevant?"

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

BBM- Seriously, we cannot say that is how those fibers got there. :maddening: That's a far stretch to say we know that happened.

Were ALL the people who were at the White's party tested against those fibers? All the R's would have been in contact with all those guests. Maybe that's how they got there. Because you know fiber transfer is so easy to happen.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

0200
3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
6 from her jacket were found in the paint
7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
11 the question is, can she explain to us how
12 those fibers appeared in those places that
13 are associated with her daughter's death.
14 And I understand you are not going to answer
15 those.


The male hair on the blanket prob got there innocently when the blanket was placed on the floor in the moldy windowless room.

What was the trace evidence removed from her left hand? The beaver fur? JP stated Patsy had beaver boots that Judith liked because they were great looking.

Maybe the child reached out to her mom in her hour of great need and caught a piece of beaver fur in her grasp. I also want to know what fibers were under her gold ring.



''With a great joy I recognized what it was I had left behind me, my body lying strangled on the floor.''
~ Muriel Sparks; Shuffling the Cards

BBM, you missed the big part there.. "we believe"
Not there is evidence. Proof.. WE believe..

Not evidence.

Since the paint brush was used as part of the garrote, The fibers could have simply been picked up when the paintbrush was there and carried when used to make the garrote. There is a simple and reasonable explaination. Nothing nefarious.

 

[TaylurRose02]

BBM, you missed the big part there.. "we believe"
Not there is evidence. Proof.. WE believe..

Not evidence.

Since the paint brush was used as part of the garrote, The fibers could have simply been picked up when the paintbrush was there and carried when used to make the garrote. There is a simple and reasonable explaination. Nothing nefarious.

3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
6 from her jacket were found in the paint
7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
11 the question is, can she explain to us how
12 those fibers appeared in those places that
13 are associated with her daughter's death.
14 And I understand you are not going to answer
15 those.

Really? Lol. Please go read that interview and tell me again why the fibers mean nothing to the case.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
6 from her jacket were found in the paint
7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
11 the question is, can she explain to us how
12 those fibers appeared in those places that
13 are associated with her daughter's death.
14 And I understand you are not going to answer
15 those.

Really? Lol. Please go read that interview and tell me again why the fibers mean nothing to the case.

BECAUSE there is too much that points to normal transference. THe fibers are on her coat and left by her in the paint stuff. The killer picks up and uses the paint brush to wrap around the rope to kill JBR and the fibers then transfer to the rope.. And onto JBR.

It is not hard to figure it out. The fibers belong to Patsy. They are in her house. There is nothing that points it to murder.

It is not like the WM3 where the hair that connects SH is tied into a knot on another kids shoe. That means something. But if it was in the knot of his step sons shoe, not so much because it could be picked up anywhere in the house.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

There was no garrote. The ligatures were posing devices. IMO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There was no garrote. The ligatures were posing devices. IMO.

The Garrote was used to strangle her.

 

[Frigga]

BECAUSE there is too much that points to normal transference. THe fibers are on her coat and left by her in the paint stuff. The killer picks up and uses the paint brush to wrap around the rope to kill JBR and the fibers then transfer to the rope.. And onto JBR.

It is not hard to figure it out. The fibers belong to Patsy. They are in her house. There is nothing that points it to murder.

It is not like the WM3 where the hair that connects SH is tied into a knot on another kids shoe. That means something. But if it was in the knot of his step sons shoe, not so much because it could be picked up anywhere in the house.

Please explain then the fibers on the sticky side of the tape roll that would be pristine when being torn off- THE UNDER SIDE OF THE TAPE!

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

The ligatures were used to pose her. IMO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The ligatures were used to pose her. IMO.

It was used to strangle the life out of her.

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf

Page 1.

LIGATURE STRANGULATION..
black and white.

 

[Venom]

So if parents are ALWAYS the suspects from the get go, why SMH @ BPD investigators. And from the "the get go" officers were told to treat the family as victims...even after the body was found. And that's exactly the treatment they were given initially. Not cooperating surely wasn't going to make them look innocent to LE, and your personal assertions aside, it's not too hard to see why Investigators would soon raise a collective eyebrow at the Rs behavior.


Mistakes were certainly made, but they weren't all her fault. The fact that her repeated calls for backup were ignored most definitely wasn't her fault.



It's been discussed that LA could very well suffer from hyperthyroidism, or Graves disease.

Hyperthyroidism (particularly Graves disease) is the most common cause of bulging eyes. With this condition, the eyes do not blink often and seem to have a staring quality.​

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003033.htm





You keep making accusations about people here working off of rumor, or perpetuating gossip.



Yet you post that she was fired, when she wasn't. I don't blame her for trying to salvage her reputation. She did make mistakes, but she doesn't/didn't deserve having it laid all at her feet.

And accusing people related to the case of profiting from it by writing books is amazing to me when you consider how the Rs announced to the world that they would donate the proceeds of their book(s), lawsuit settlements, and the sale of their house to the foundation set up in their daughters name.

You can't see the info at the Foundation's site as it's been defunct for quite awhile. You can however, check out the tax filings (A Candy Rose), and you'll see what a lie that turned out to be. Nor is there evidence that the Rs ever attempted to live up to their vow of an annual donation of $15,000 into the Foundation, but that's another matter.

Just re-reading through and thought I'd give kudos to bettybaby for this great post.
:tyou:

 

[Venom]

The fibers weren't sourced to the Ramseys, nor to their residence, SOOO...Can't say for sure....& gloves, a stun gun, rope, etc.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. According to Joe Barnhill, the Stantons, Scott Gibbons? No, not quite...
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.

Please provide me real factual evidence of a stun gun being used. All I've read about is it is thought to be used by some, not stone cold fact that one was used.
The Stanton's? Didn't she hear a child's scream and her husband hear a metal grating sound? How is that positive proof of an intruder? Did I miss something? They later recanted what they supposedly heard, didn't they?
Joe Barnhill, didn't he claim to see JAR on the afternoon of the 25th? So he was mistaken and that was the real intruder walking around in the daylight? The R's didn't notice him, hear him come in in broad daylight?
Scott Gibbons saw strange lights in the R house, did he ever say WHO was causing the strange lights? Maybe it was just JBR and BR going down to sneak into the fridge, just stuff that kids do. :shrug:

 

[Chewy]

BBM- Seriously, we cannot say that is how those fibers got there. :maddening: That's a far stretch to say we know that happened.

Were ALL the people who were at the White's party tested against those fibers? All the R's would have been in contact with all those guests. Maybe that's how they got there. Because you know fiber transfer is so easy to happen.

The fact that you are asking this question means you don't know.

Try not to posit theories about things you don't know. That's how gossip get's started.

 

[Mama2JML]

Investigators, including attorneys acting as members of an investigatory team, are permitted to use deceit during interviews with POIs. Bruce Levin acted well within his legal capacity during the interrogations of Mr. & Mrs. Ramsey, although, his statements regarding the fiber evidence were dishonest (or erroneous).

Mr. Ramsey's sweater fibers were never matched to any fibers found in JonBenét's panties/panty area. As well, the only fiber evidence collected from the victim (her clothing, implements used, etc.) found to be consistent with any of Mrs. Ramsey's clothing, were 4 red fibers (of 100s that remain unsourced) on the duct tape, per Steve Thomas, under oath, in Wolf v. Ramseys:

"Q. Mr. Thomas, would you mind, please, turning to page 302 of your book.

A. Okay.

Q. Do you have it in front of you?

A. Yes, I'm sorry, yes.

Q. Fine. Would you look at thethird paragraph from the top, which begins "Two days before we were to go onstage." And would you read that whole paragraph, please.

A. Certainly. "Two days before we were to go onstage, we got some surprising big news when the Colorado Bureau of Investigation lab told us that the acrylic fibers found on the duct tape that covered JonBenet's mouth were a quote, likely match, for Patsy's blazer. We were ready."

Q. You've been asked earlier with respect to the forensic, you know, not importance, but the forensic views that the ransom note was being made for. Did this become an important piece of forensic evidence in the case?

MR. WOOD: You're talking about the ransom note now or the likely match of four fibers?

MR. HOFFMAN: I'm sorry, thank you, Lin.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Did the fibers that were found on the duct tape that were covering JonBenet's mouth that were, quote, a likely match for Patsy's blazer, did that become an important piece of forensic evidence in the investigation?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know when or at what point in the case the CBI made that report?

A. I think it was sometime before we were told -- I think that information may have been held by Wickman and Trujillo and Beckner possibly.

Q. Do you know whether or not that information was actually part of anyone's presentation before the district attorney that was made prior to the convening of a grand jury when you turned the case over to the district attorney?

A. Mr. Hoffman, are you asking me -- I'm sorry, that's not clear to me.

Q. All right. That CBI report, did you receive it before you made your formal presentation to the district attorney's office? That's a presentation that was made prior to the convening of the grand jury. I believe it was in May or June of 1998 when you formally turned over the case to the district attorney. I may have that date wrong.

MR. WOOD: Hey, Darnay, I'm just a little unclear if you don't mind.

MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah.

MR. WOOD: There were two presentations, one was made by Trip DeMuth I believe in May and then there was what we call a VIP presentation that was made of a lot of people other than the DA's office in June. Those are the two presentations. I'm not sure which one you are referring to.

MR. HOFFMAN: Well, thank you. It is confusing, there is no question about it.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) The presentation that most people, and myself included, think of is that large presentation where you stood up and you gave evidence yourself. That's the one where you refer to Alex Hunter is talking on a cell phone and it sort of -- it seems at the end of that you decided that you had had enough of the case and you were going to move on. That's the presentation I'm talking about.

MR. HOFFMAN: I'm assuming -- is that the VIP presentation, Lin?

MR. WOOD: I don't know. I mean, Steve Thomas would have to figure out whether that's an accurate statement about whether he heard, saw, or thought or felt. I'm not sure.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Well, you know what, I'm just confusing the issue. I'm going to drop that line of questioning and just ask you, did you have occasion to actually see the CBI report that indicated that there was a likely match for Patsy's blazer with the acrylic fiber found on the duct tape?

A. Not that I recall. Detective Trujillo, who was in charge of all the evidence and forensic testing in this case, he and Wickman verbally offered that to the rest of the detective team.

Q. All right. So you never personally saw a report with that result or that conclusion?

A. I'm relying on a fellow officer.

Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not there was ever any evidence that you saw or you heard about in the course of the investigation while you were still with the Boulder police force showing whether or not any fibers from either Patsy's clothing or from her boots or from any part of her was found in JonBenet's panties?

MR. WOOD: That's about three or four questions, Darnay.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Do you know whether or not there was ever any evidence, forensic evidence, showing that any article of clothing could be matched to a substance found in JonBenet's diaper or panties?

MR. WOOD: I have to just comment that I don't believe there was any evidence that JonBenet was wearing a diaper.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) All right. To her panties?

A. If I understand the question correctly, and now just rephrase it so I'm answering the right question or --

Q. Yeah, when JonBenet Ramsey was found she was wearing I don't know what other word there is for it but panties and there was a question as to whether or not there were substances found in that panty area. What I'm asking you is do you know if there was ever any forensic evidence indicating that any article of clothing that Patsy wore was found as a particle in that panty area of JonBenet?

A. No, I am unaware of any forensic or fiber evidence from Patsy Ramsey's clothing to the victim's under clothing or underwear.

Q. Do you know if there was any forensic evidence of Patsy Ramsey's clothing at all besides the duct tape area on JonBenet?

A. As we sit here now, no, I don't recollect any other fiber evidence, other than what we have discussed linking the mother to JonBenet.​

 

[Mama2JML]

The ancillary hair was sourced to be from PR, an arm hair.

I don't put much stock in tabloid reports coming from anonymous sources...

Regardless, the "pubic hair" to which I'm referring, upon analysis, was found to belong to an unidentified, male, non-Ramsey.

I believe it was DeDee that already stated that up thread. As per the dna, wasn't it 5-6 sources found via the nail clippers

No.

(that were contaminated by being used on others)

Doubtful. (Have you read Kolar's book? He answers questions such as this.)

so does that mean that we have 5-6 intruders?

No, but there was at least one, and only one, IMHO.

Why do we not complain about how inept the ME must have been to have used those clippers on different people?

I've seen a lot of these unfounded complaints, and I wonder why so many posters don't dig a little deeper (research) before voicing complaints based in ignorance.

 

[Venom]

Really????? You're trying to say that the nail clippers used by the ME were only used on JBR?

My saying about complaints about the ME was directed towards all the posters who voice their opinions about LA, ST, JK, the whole BPD among others of being inept. It's shouted out about all their flaws, yet certain others aren't even brought up.

Here's a little info on those nai lclippers used at the autopsy:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2001/05/25/jonbenet-search-for-truthpart/
"There's still testing going on and they still have a reasonable explanation for the foreign DNA," said Lee.

The foreign DNA under JonBenet's fingernails may be explained by contamination from the nail clippers used in the autopsy. But Lee still sees one key question remaining.

The profiles found from the fingernail clippings of JonBenet were presumably not from the non-sterile nail clippers that the coroner was in the habit of using.
(However, to the best of my knowledge, clippers are not used in medical autopsies, only in autopsies performed for legal reasons. I don’t know the reasons for those eight prior autopsies. Therefore, as an example, if the last time the clippers were actually used was 10 autopsies ago it would have missed by this screening process.)
Investigators were able to obtain the DNA samples from eight (8) of the autopsy examinations that preceded that of JonBenét. These samples were analyzed, but none of these matched the unknown male and female samples collected from JonBenét’s fingernails. Perhaps more disappointing, was the fact that the unknown samples lacked sufficient identifying markers that permitted their entry into the state and national DNA databases.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 137 - 138

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Really????? You're trying to say that the nail clippers used by the ME were only used on JBR?

My saying about complaints about the ME was directed towards all the posters who voice their opinions about LA, ST, JK, the whole BPD among others of being inept. It's shouted out about all their flaws, yet certain others aren't even brought up.

Because the weight is on them to be honest and do their job well. Not anyone else. The responsibility of work is theirs. If they don't get it right it is all worthless.