Patsy Ramsey

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Somehow, I didn't think it would. :banghead::banghead::banghead:



Then why didn't she SAY that? Ugh.

Because she could have worn that coat any time how ever long before this crime and the fibers would still be there and she would never know it. You don't know you are transferring fibers Dave. It just happens in the normal course of life.

 

[BBB167893]

That is not an answer. That is an opinion.

Just trying to help you out.

 

[BBB167893]

Because she could have worn that coat any time how ever long before this crime and the fibers would still be there and she would never know it. You don't know you are transferring fibers Dave. It just happens in the normal course of life.

You have a point. I don't give much thought to the fibers I'm possibly leaving behind in the course of a day. The problem is, when she DID try to explain the fibers, she only dug herself deeper, because he story conflicted with both the account John gave in DOI and the police report. Make of that what you will.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You have a point. I don't give much thought to the fibers I'm possibly leaving behind in the course of a day. The problem is, when she DID try to explain the fibers, she only dug herself deeper, because he story conflicted with both the account John gave in DOI and the police report. Make of that what you will.

No, She was trying to come up with an explanation. They both were just trying to make sense of it all.

I would love to see how other people would function under this kind of scrutiny and stress knowing the whole time your baby is dead and they are trying to blame you.

 

[BBB167893]

What does this have to do with her daughter being murdered?

Possibly a lot, Scarlett. Michael Kane himself said that this killing was done by someone with a flair for dramatics. And JB's death did make her famous.

Because maybe we should put all beauty queens on a watch list. They all are egomaniacs to want to be the best of the best. right?

I think it's a lot more complex than that.

 

[BBB167893]

No, She was trying to come up with an explanation. They both were just trying to make sense of it all.

Uh-huh.:facepalm:

I would love to see how other people would function under this kind of scrutiny and stress knowing the whole time your baby is dead and they are trying to blame you.

That's the standard refrain from the RST side.

 

[DeDee]

Once again- there was NO male hair found on the white blanket. There was a hair, misreported as a pubic hair, that was tested and found to have come from the forearm of Patsy Ramsey.

You do not have to "Once again" for me. My response was to Mama2JML who claimed there to be a male pubic hair on the white blanket. I simply supplied a possible reason for it.

I disregard the fibers on the blanket bc it was laying on the nasty, moldy, salty floor in the WC along with old paint cans and window screens that previous workers placed in there.

 

[DeeDee249]

You do not have to "Once again" for me. My response was to Mama2JML who claimed there to be a male pubic hair on the white blanket. I simply supplied a possible reason for it.

I disregard the fibers on the blanket bc it was laying on the nasty, moldy, salty floor in the WC along with old paint cans and window screens that previous workers placed in there.

The "once again" was a GENERAL comment- it wasn't meant for you or anyone in particular.

 

[Anti-K]

Actually, there is an answer to that, possibly more than one. For their story to have legs, it had to look like nothing was out of place before "finding" the note. This is either due to wanting the "killer" to appear to be a criminal supergenius out of Batman's rogue's gallery, or to appear to be someone within the family circle, such as LHP.

For their story to have legs they would have had to dispose of the body before reporting a kidnapping, and if they wished anyone to believe that an intruder came into their home they would have had to at least tell investigators that a door was unlocked.

Why would it have to look like nothing was out of place before finding the note? If RDI, they didn’t even find the note – they created it and they lied about finding it. So, they could have lied and said that a door was unlocked. And, if RDI wouldn’t it be better to day that something was out of place? Of course it would.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The only trace evidence we should be concerned with is that which was found in incriminating locations.

Some like to dismiss the dna as being from innocent transfer, but if an unknown person’s dna could transfer to incriminating locations, than so could Ramsey fibers, only Ramsey fibers more easily and more expectantly.

Even if RDI, I can’t quite see Mrs Ramsey still wearing her jacket at one or two o-clock in the morning while she garroted her child to death. So, even if RDI, I think there is likely an explanation for the transfer of these fibers that does not involve the jacket being present during the crime.

For instance, the fibers could have already been on Jonbenet and she and/or her killer transferred them further. The fibers could have been on the blanket, or on Jonbenet’s bed or something, anything that the killer and/or Jonbenet had contact with. Transfer, transfer, transfer. That’s how it works. Those who don’t think that this is possible or that it is too unlikely should stop arguing that something similar happened with the unsourced fibers and the dna! Just stop; it’s hypocritical and absurd.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The only trace evidence we should be concerned with is that which was found in incriminating locations.

Some like to dismiss the dna as being from innocent transfer, but if an unknown person’s dna could transfer to incriminating locations, than so could Ramsey fibers, only Ramsey fibers more easily and more expectantly.

Even if RDI, I can’t quite see Mrs Ramsey still wearing her jacket at one or two o-clock in the morning while she garroted her child to death. So, even if RDI, I think there is likely an explanation for the transfer of these fibers that does not involve the jacket being present during the crime.

For instance, the fibers could have already been on Jonbenet and she and/or her killer transferred them further. The fibers could have been on the blanket, or on Jonbenet’s bed or something, anything that the killer and/or Jonbenet had contact with. Transfer, transfer, transfer. That’s how it works. Those who don’t think that this is possible or that it is too unlikely should stop arguing that something similar happened with the unsourced fibers and the dna! Just stop; it’s hypocritical and absurd.
...

AK

 

[TaylurRose02]

The only trace evidence we should be concerned with is that which was found in incriminating locations.

Some like to dismiss the dna as being from innocent transfer, but if an unknown person’s dna could transfer to incriminating locations, than so could Ramsey fibers, only Ramsey fibers more easily and more expectantly.

Even if RDI, I can’t quite see Mrs Ramsey still wearing her jacket at one or two o-clock in the morning while she garroted her child to death. So, even if RDI, I think there is likely an explanation for the transfer of these fibers that does not involve the jacket being present during the crime.

For instance, the fibers could have already been on Jonbenet and she and/or her killer transferred them further. The fibers could have been on the blanket, or on Jonbenet’s bed or something, anything that the killer and/or Jonbenet had contact with. Transfer, transfer, transfer. That’s how it works. Those who don’t think that this is possible or that it is too unlikely should stop arguing that something similar happened with the unsourced fibers and the dna! Just stop; it’s hypocritical and absurd.
...

AK

So you don't believe that finding fibers that matched the clothing PR wore on the night of murder on the paint tray, the blanket, the ligature, and the duct tape incriminating? IMO, that's too much to be a coincidence. If you want to argue that JB could have had her mothers fibers on her from earlier, then how would you explain her fibers on the paint tray? If you want to say PR's fibers transferred from JB to the killer, the same could be said for the DNA. A friend could have touched the bike she got for Christmas, and the DNA could have been transferred when she rode it that day. Or PR could have touched someone before changing JB into pajamas that night.

You're right, both could be of innocent origin. I don't discredit the DNA, but I do question how it ended up where it did and it's importance in relation to the case. Read the article by Charlie Brennan. "In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties."

The murder happened in December in Colorado. Why wouldn't she wear a jacket? She answered the door the next morning in the same clothes she wore the night before. If she wore the same clothes the next morning, why wouldn't she that night?

I don't consider either pieces of evidence (DNA or fiber) as a critical point in the investigation because we don't know the origin of either.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Was that jacket a plaid pattern? TIA.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So you don't believe that finding fibers that matched the clothing PR wore on the night of murder on the paint tray, the blanket, the ligature, and the duct tape incriminating? IMO, that's too much to be a coincidence. If you want to argue that JB could have had her mothers fibers on her from earlier, then how would you explain her fibers on the paint tray? If you want to say PR's fibers transferred from JB to the killer, the same could be said for the DNA. A friend could have touched the bike she got for Christmas, and the DNA could have been transferred when she rode it that day. Or PR could have touched someone before changing JB into pajamas that night.

You're right, both could be of innocent origin. I don't discredit the DNA, but I do question how it ended up where it did and it's importance in relation to the case. Read the article by Charlie Brennan. "In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties."

The murder happened in December in Colorado. Why wouldn't she wear a jacket? She answered the door the next morning in the same clothes she wore the night before. If she wore the same clothes the next morning, why wouldn't she that night?

I don't consider either pieces of evidence (DNA or fiber) as a critical point in the investigation because we don't know the origin of either.

No. Not unless she received it just that night and never wore it before. She would other red things. How do we know the fibers are not from there. I have never seen anything conclusive and factual on the fiber information.

The DNA is not from someone in East Asia.. It is ridiculous and just a left thought to confuse people. There is actual DNA matter IN her underwhere that matches the dna on the PANTS she was wearing. There is no way to spin this into something else.
No matter how it is tried. That DNA points to your killer. And it ain't Patsy, Burke or John Ramsey.

 

[Venom]

It's all in the totality of everything.


jmo

 

[questfortrue]

So you don't believe that finding fibers that matched the clothing PR wore on the night of murder on the paint tray, the blanket, the ligature, and the duct tape incriminating? IMO, that's too much to be a coincidence. If you want to argue that JB could have had her mothers fibers on her from earlier, then how would you explain her fibers on the paint tray? If you want to say PR's fibers transferred from JB to the killer, the same could be said for the DNA. A friend could have touched the bike she got for Christmas, and the DNA could have been transferred when she rode it that day. Or PR could have touched someone before changing JB into pajamas that night.

You're right, both could be of innocent origin. I don't discredit the DNA, but I do question how it ended up where it did and it's importance in relation to the case. Read the article by Charlie Brennan. "In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties."

The murder happened in December in Colorado. Why wouldn't she wear a jacket? She answered the door the next morning in the same clothes she wore the night before. If she wore the same clothes the next morning, why wouldn't she that night?

I don't consider either pieces of evidence (DNA or fiber) as a critical point in the investigation because we don't know the origin of either.

BBM

Six Degrees of coincidence, or at least Five Degrees*:

Transfer is transfer. I agree. And I’d choose innocent fiber transfer over an absurd thought that the intruder grabbed the jacket off the back of a chair and wore it to the crime scene or even (coincidentally) owned the same Essentials jacket as PR. But it’s the number of other coincidences which cause me and some others pause, or, at least for ST, Kolar and RDI, strain credulity. Coincidences such as:

1) The intruder knew or just got lucky regarding where PR’s painting supplies were kept. He also knew where PR kept tablet and pen, grabbing said tablet and incriminating PR, that is, it was her tablet, not JR’s tablet.
2) Intruder also knew that JR could easily obtain the $118,000 because of his bonus, an amount even JR’s son JAR called an absurd amount of money for return of JB.
3) Intruder knew how to write enough like PR or mimic her linguistics, that it did in fact fool some of the experts.
4) The intruder knew the location of that very hidden room in the basement.
5) Intruder knew that the note would be seen first thing in the morning, when PR went to make coffee, if the RN were left on the back spiral stairs. (He was prescient?)

(* Imo, there are probably more "Coincidences," but I don’t have access to all the evidence, which Kolar, ST and the GJ saw.)

MHO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It's all in the totality of everything.


jmo

No. Not really. Because there have been people convicted on the totality of evidence only to be freed decades later by DNA. DNA is the one thing that can not be disputed. That is where the key is in this case..

 

[Anti-K]

So you don't believe that finding fibers that matched the clothing PR wore on the night of murder on the paint tray, the blanket, the ligature, and the duct tape incriminating? IMO, that's too much to be a coincidence. If you want to argue that JB could have had her mothers fibers on her from earlier, then how would you explain her fibers on the paint tray? If you want to say PR's fibers transferred from JB to the killer, the same could be said for the DNA. A friend could have touched the bike she got for Christmas, and the DNA could have been transferred when she rode it that day. Or PR could have touched someone before changing JB into pajamas that night.

You're right, both could be of innocent origin. I don't discredit the DNA, but I do question how it ended up where it did and it's importance in relation to the case. Read the article by Charlie Brennan. "In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties."

The murder happened in December in Colorado. Why wouldn't she wear a jacket? She answered the door the next morning in the same clothes she wore the night before. If she wore the same clothes the next morning, why wouldn't she that night?

I don't consider either pieces of evidence (DNA or fiber) as a critical point in the investigation because we don't know the origin of either.

I think that fibers found in incriminating locations have varying degrees of incriminating value. If the fibers are not sourced than assigning that value becomes problematic; and, if the fibers come from someone or something that the victim was known to have had “innocent” contact with than the incriminating value is going to be greatly diminished (in some cases, it vanishes).

Anyway, let’s suppose that the fibers started out on Jonbenet and/or her bed/blanket.

How do they end up in the paint tray? Fibers can float around in the air I suppose but usually only as the result of some action; fibers are more often transferred through contact. So, as speculation, the fibers transfer to the killer’s brown cotton gloves. The gloves transfer the fibers to the paint tote – he removes the paint brush, breaks it, and returns the brush end to the paint tote - and the gloves transfer fibers to the cord.
.

I live in northern British Columbia, Canada and we have winters. Brrrrrrrr, brrrrrrrr, I wish I had fur! But, we don’t usually wear our jackets in the house.
.

The reason that the fibers and dna are so important is because they have not been identified despite concerted effort and expenditure of resources. If they had an innocent explanation than that should have been discovered. I appreciate your comments on the dna, but I don’t care to address them. These objections are often expressed so I’ve already addressed them many, many times, and I don’t want to turn this topic into another dna discussion. We can do that some other time, if you wish, on one of the dna threads.
...

AK

 

[TaylurRose02]

No. Not really. Because there have been people convicted on the totality of evidence only to be freed decades later by DNA. DNA is the one thing that can not be disputed. That is where the key is in this case..

Call me crazy, but I think I'm going to side with Dr.Lee in his opinion that this is not a DNA case. A partial print can be disputed.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Call me crazy, but I think I'm going to side with Dr.Lee in his opinion that this is not a DNA case. A partial print can be disputed.

IT is a DNA case. That is undisputed. He can say what he wants because he is a PAID expert.