Patsy Ramsey

[Blue Bottle 01]

You still have not produced the data report that explains WHAT DNA you are talking about.

There is no matching DNA. If there is produce the report.

 

[DeDee]

0153
16 Q. You were shown, I believe,
17 photographs that were taken -- and this is
18 during your '98 interview -- photographs that
19 were taken at the White's house Christmas
20 night at dinner. In that you are wearing a
21 red coat, kind of a wool, wool jacket. Do
22 you recall seeing that?
23 A. It is kind of a black and red
24 and gray fleece.
25 Q. Cut more like a blazer than --

0154
1 A. Like a peacoat.
2 MR. WOOD: Well, the picture is
3 the picture, isn't it?
4 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Right, like a
5 peacoat. I just want to make sure we are
6 talking about the same thing. Do you
7 remember that jacket?
8 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
9 Q. I would like you to give us a
10 little background on that coat, and again I
11 am not going to hold you to days of the
12 week, but do you recall, first of all, where
13 you purchased it?
14 A. Well, Priscilla had had one like
15 it that I admired. And she told me, I
16 believe she told me she got hers at EMS.
17 So I went there to look. And they didn't
18 have one or I didn't want to get one exactly
19 like hers. So I think I got that one at
20 Marshals in Boulder.
21 Q. Do you recall what year you
22 purchased it?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Let's -- I can understand that.
25 Now I am going to -- we will take a time

0155
1 frame. Was it a fairly, by your
2 recollection, was it a fairly recent purchase
3 that you had or was this a coat you'd had
4 for some period of time prior -- and, of
5 course, I am using it as the date of
6 JonBenet's murder.
7 A. Well, I can't remember. I am
8 sure I bought it in -- as it was getting
9 colder. So it was either probably fall of
10 '96 or '95.
11 Q. That, the coat that you wore the
12 night to the Whites, was it something that
13 was -- I mean, the primary color is red.
14 MR. WOOD: Well, don't fight over
15 -- excuse me, Patsy. Don't you have a
16 picture?
17 MR. LEVIN: I don't have a
18 picture with me.
19 MR. WOOD: Why characterize it.
20 It is what it is.
21 THE WITNESS: There is a picture.
22 MR. WOOD: It is in the picture.
23 Let's look at that.
24 MR. LEVIN: Just to expedite
25 things, because I am not fighting over the

0156
1 color, what I want to know is --
2 MR. WOOD: I think she said it
3 was red and black and gray.
4 THE WITNESS: A red and black and
5 gray check
6 Q. (By Mr. Levin) What I am, what
7 I am interested in is, I am certainly not
8 going to debate concentration of colors. It
9 is irrelevant. What I am interested in, is
10 it something that you wore exclusively during
11 the Christmas season or is this a coat that
12 you wore anytime it was appropriate for the
13 weather?
14 A. Anytime it was appropriate.
15 Q. So it is not like a special
16 Christmassy type, type of Christmas sweater,
17 I know you talked about Christmas?
18 A. (Witness shook head negatively).
19 MR. WOOD: Your answer is not,
20 because you are nodding your head.
21 THE WITNESS: No, it is not.


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.

0202
8 MR. LEVIN: I understand your
9 position.
10 In addition to those questions,
11 there are some others that I would like you
12 to think about whether or not we can have
13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
14 understand you are advising her not to today,
15 and those are there are black fibers that,
16 according to our testing that was conducted,
17 that match one of the two shirts that was
18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
19 Those are located in the
20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
22 other areas that we have intended to ask
23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
24 explaining their presence in those locations.


Interesting how Patsy inserts Priscilla into the investigation as if the fibers may have come from PWs jacket.

LE has scientific proof of Patsy and John's fibers in incriminating places which boots any speculation otherwise. LE did not present suppositions to the witness.

 

[bettybaby00]

It's all in the totality of everything.


jmo

Agreed, also with Questfortrue

A coincidence or 2 is reasonable and/or explainable.....

Coincidence, after, coincidence after coincidence, and so on and so on = pattern

 

[pukasonqo2]

i go from Rs did it to maybe an intruder was involved (this mostly for the sake of argument) but i sometimes think that B might have been the actually catalyst. kids fight, kids are impulsive and they do feel things very hard; i remember reading that JB enjoyed destroying B's lego buildings as he would go on a rage which brings me to a conclusion that many here have reached, let's speculate, B is busy building/playing w something, JB thinks it would be "fun" to push her brother's buttons by breaking it only to have B lash at her w maybe a golf club or the extremely clean torch.

i don't think B meant to, i think it was done in anger and with no further thought. kids say horrible things sometimes to each other: i wish you were dead, i am going to kill you and the feeling, at the moment, is frightening intense. most kids don't act on it but some do.

i am not convinced B had anything to do w the sexual abuse of JB. kolar's book has a PM pic of the controversial burn type marks on JBs back which he showed to be consistent not w a stunt gun but w the joiners of B's train tracks

PR and JR are guilty of misleading the police, the public and of covering up for the murder of their daughter.

and before i get again saddled with the "in your opinion" a disclaimer: all MOO, my voices have no interest in this case and same goes for my cats


lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

 

[pukasonqo2]

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

same could be said of anyone the Rs paid to conduct any type of defence or investigation. goes both ways


lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

 

[TaylurRose02]

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

So fibers off of PR's clothes innocently floated around and ended up on her dead daughters body and the murder weapon? I don't buy that many innocent coincidences. "According to the Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, about 80% of homicides with children as the victim are perpetrated by parents." Sometimes cases are what they seem.

Well I live in the Midwest and I wear my jackets and sweatshirts inside all the time. Again, PR answered the door the next morning wearing the same outfit as the night before. So if she would wear it then, why not at night?

There is no dna discussion. It's the only "evidence" of an intruder and that's why it's clung to so much. There has been innocent explanations for both the DNA and the fibers. That would be why I don't hold it to a high standard. If you step back and look at the totality of the case it points towards the Ramsey's rather than away.

 

[TaylurRose02]

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

Right. Where's the DNA report that you sited earlier? About the DNA in the pants matching the DNA in the underwear? I don't think I've seen that one.
It'd be a little hard to make a match considering they'd have to be strands, which they weren't.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Right. Where's the DNA report that you sited earlier? About the DNA in the pants matching the DNA in the underwear? I don't think I've seen that one.
It'd be a little hard to make a match considering they'd have to be strands, which they weren't.

BBM

What do you mean by "strands"?

 

[Venom]

BBM

What do you mean by "strands"?

DNA strands.

 

[Venom]

So fibers off of PR's clothes innocently floated around and ended up on her dead daughters body and the murder weapon? I don't buy that many innocent coincidences. "According to the Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, about 80% of homicides with children as the victim are perpetrated by parents." Sometimes cases are what they seem.

Well I live in the Midwest and I wear my jackets and sweatshirts inside all the time. Again, PR answered the door the next morning wearing the same outfit as the night before. So if she would wear it then, why not at night?

There is no dna discussion. It's the only "evidence" of an intruder and that's why it's clung to so much. There has been innocent explanations for both the DNA and the fibers. That would be why I don't hold it to a high standard. If you step back and look at the totality of the case it points towards the Ramsey's rather than away.

BBM. Just as sometimes good people do bad things.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

DNA strands.

So they weren't DNA strands? I don't understand.

 

[Anti-K]

So fibers off of PR's clothes innocently floated around and ended up on her dead daughters body and the murder weapon? I don't buy that many innocent coincidences. "According to the Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, about 80% of homicides with children as the victim are perpetrated by parents." Sometimes cases are what they seem.

Well I live in the Midwest and I wear my jackets and sweatshirts inside all the time. Again, PR answered the door the next morning wearing the same outfit as the night before. So if she would wear it then, why not at night?

There is no dna discussion. It's the only "evidence" of an intruder and that's why it's clung to so much. There has been innocent explanations for both the DNA and the fibers. That would be why I don't hold it to a high standard. If you step back and look at the totality of the case it points towards the Ramsey's rather than away.

Actually, I suggested that the fibers could have transferred from Jonbenet and/or her bedding to the killer’s gloves and then on to the cord and the paint tray.
.

Was she wearing her jacket when the police came to the door, or was she simply wearing the same clothes? I don’t know. And, if she was, so what? She comes home, she takes her jacket off; she gets up in the morning, she puts her jacket on.
.

Of course there is dna discussion. There are innocent and nefarious explanations for all the trace evidence, but none of the innocent ones have been established when it comes to the unsourced trace evidence.

It is simply not true to say that the dna evidence is the only intruder evidence, and it is a gross misrepresentation to say that the totality of the evidence points towards the Ramseys. Even if all you concede is the dna, the dna is still part of the totality of the evidence – that’s what totality means – all of it.

Kane said, "The things that would normally say it was somebody on the inside were certainly very much there," but, “"On the other hand, you had things that said there is no way it could have been somebody on the inside." Garnett said the case file was equivocal and, iirc, pointing in no direction; there’s no prior history, no motivation, no sense to it.

The male, foreign DNA, specifically the panty/leggings DNA represents a potential suspect who must be identified and investigated. It may have an innocent explanation but so far, despite effort, none has been found.

There are 2 and ½ pages of unidentified handwriting. Say what you will about being not excluded, etc. but at the end of it none of the qualified experts has identified anyone as author.

There are un-sourced, brown, cotton fibers found in incriminating locations.

There are unsourced animal (beaver, wolf or dog) hairs found in incriminating locations (tape, hands).

There are items missing from the house; for example: a brown, cotton item used to wipe the body, pages from notepad, roll of tape, length of cord, end of paint brush.

There are items not sourced to the house; for example: cord and tape.

These are all intruder indicators. There may be innocent explanations for each and every one of them, but so far, despite effort, they have not been found.

Some intruder evidence is evidence inferred; if they didn’t do it, an intruder must have. There is the contradiction between note and body in house (no one has ever reported a fake kidnapping before disposing of their victim).

This is all evidence that makes up that totality that you’re talking about, but this none of this is evidence that points towards the Ramseys, so the claim that the totality of the evidence points towards the Ramseys is false.
...

AK

 

[Venom]

Was that jacket a plaid pattern? TIA.

A checked pattern?

11 Q. That, the coat that you wore the
12 night to the Whites, was it something that
13 was -- I mean, the primary color is red.
14 MR. WOOD: Well, don't fight over
15 -- excuse me, Patsy. Don't you have a
16 picture?
17 MR. LEVIN: I don't have a
18 picture with me.
19 MR. WOOD: Why characterize it.
20 It is what it is.
21 THE WITNESS: There is a picture.
22 MR. WOOD: It is in the picture.
23 Let's look at that.
24 MR. LEVIN: Just to expedite
25 things, because I am not fighting over the

0156
1 color, what I want to know is --
2 MR. WOOD: I think she said it
3 was red and black and gray.
4 THE WITNESS: A red and black and
5 gray check
6 Q. (By Mr. Levin) What I am, what
7 I am interested in is, I am certainly not
8 going to debate concentration of colors. It
9 is irrelevant. What I am interested in, is
10 it something that you wore exclusively during
11 the Christmas season or is this a coat that
12 you wore anytime it was appropriate for the
13 weather?
14 A. Anytime it was appropriate.
15 Q. So it is not like a special
16 Christmassy type, type of Christmas sweater,
17 I know you talked about Christmas?
18 A. (Witness shook head negatively).
19 MR. WOOD: Your answer is not,
20 because you are nodding your head.
21 THE WITNESS: No, it is not.


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.

 

[TaylurRose02]

Actually, I suggested that the fibers could have transferred from Jonbenet and/or her bedding to the killer’s gloves and then on to the cord and the paint tray.
.

Was she wearing her jacket when the police came to the door, or was she simply wearing the same clothes? I don’t know. And, if she was, so what? She comes home, she takes her jacket off; she gets up in the morning, she puts her jacket on.
.

Of course there is dna discussion. There are innocent and nefarious explanations for all the trace evidence, but none of the innocent ones have been established when it comes to the unsourced trace evidence.

It is simply not true to say that the dna evidence is the only intruder evidence, and it is a gross misrepresentation to say that the totality of the evidence points towards the Ramseys. Even if all you concede is the dna, the dna is still part of the totality of the evidence – that’s what totality means – all of it.

Kane said, "The things that would normally say it was somebody on the inside were certainly very much there," but, “"On the other hand, you had things that said there is no way it could have been somebody on the inside." Garnett said the case file was equivocal and, iirc, pointing in no direction; there’s no prior history, no motivation, no sense to it.

The male, foreign DNA, specifically the panty/leggings DNA represents a potential suspect who must be identified and investigated. It may have an innocent explanation but so far, despite effort, none has been found.

There are 2 and ½ pages of unidentified handwriting. Say what you will about being not excluded, etc. but at the end of it none of the qualified experts has identified anyone as author.

There are un-sourced, brown, cotton fibers found in incriminating locations.

There are unsourced animal (beaver, wolf or dog) hairs found in incriminating locations (tape, hands).

There are items missing from the house; for example: a brown, cotton item used to wipe the body, pages from notepad, roll of tape, length of cord, end of paint brush.

There are items not sourced to the house; for example: cord and tape.

These are all intruder indicators. There may be innocent explanations for each and every one of them, but so far, despite effort, they have not been found.

Some intruder evidence is evidence inferred; if they didn’t do it, an intruder must have. There is the contradiction between note and body in house (no one has ever reported a fake kidnapping before disposing of their victim).

This is all evidence that makes up that totality that you’re talking about, but this none of this is evidence that points towards the Ramseys, so the claim that the totality of the evidence points towards the Ramseys is false.
...

AK

1.) I understand what you're saying, but I do not buy that her fibers magically clung to the intruders supposed gloves and then managed to transfer to all of the places they were found. It's a difference of opinion, and I'm not playing the "what if" scenario's.

2.) Agreed, but what I find odd is that she wore the same clothes as the night before. After getting ready with her make up and hair she chose to put on the same exact dirty outfit as the night before? She was a pageant girl. That doesn't add up for me.

3.) Yes there has been innocent explanations for the unsourced DNA. I don't find it reliable evidence, but again this is a difference of opinions.

4.) I know what totality means, that would be why I used it and how I have come to my own conclusion.

5.) Potential suspect, or innocent transfer. That's disputable and it's NOT a set in stone piece of evidence. You can't say the fibers were transferred innocently, but not the DNA. That's hypocritical. Why wasn't PR's DNA found on her longjohns considering she claimed to have dressed her?

6.) IMO, the fact that not even Team Ramsey could exclude PR as the author is a red flag. I believe she wrote it. Why would an intruder who was prepared enough to leave NO fingerprints use paper and pen from the Ramsey household and then put them back neatly?

7.) Weird, because before Christmas, during the month of December, PR had a receipt to the hardware store for an item costing $1.99 which happened to be the exact price of duct tape. Hmm. I wonder if that's why team Ramsey wanted credit card purchases. "During the search of the residence, the detectives found pictures hanging on the walls with black duct tape used in the framing on the back. This tape appeared to be identical to the duct tape found in the wine cellar. Both the tape found in the wine cellar and the tape on the back of the pictures were sent to the FBI for analysis which concluded that the two samples were consistent in manufacturer, but from a different production time." Another strange coincidence considering PR told Haney she never bought duct tape and only the "clear kind" because she thought it was too sticky.

8.) There's quite a bit of things missing from the home. Pam made off with boxes and boxes of their belongings. Remember that?

9.) Well, you just said totality is "all of it." but you left off quite a bit of important information.
-Linda's interview, "I think she had multiple personalities. She'd be in a good mood and then she'd be cranky. She got into arguments with JonBenet about wearing a dress or about a friend coming over. I had never seen Patsy so upset...I don't believe Patsy meant to kill her. I truly believe it was an accident that just continued," said Hoffmann-Pugh, who worked in the Ramsey house until three days before the slaying on Dec. 26, 1996, and testified before the grand jury in January 1999." Considering she worked for the R's and saw them on a day-to-day basis I would consider her interview important. She wasn't a friend. She wasn't anyone of a higher status, so she saw the real Ramsey's IMO.
-PR's palm prints were found on the wine cellar door
-Mismatching stories and lies told by the parents from day 1
-The placement of the RN is important as well. How would an intruder know which stairwell she would descend from? She claimed to have stepped over the step with the note on it and then turn around and read it. Detectives tried this and couldn't without falling because it was so steep. Again, it doesn't add up.
-The FBi said the "disposal of the body had the classic elements of a staged crime."
-The multiple RN mistakes and slip ups. For a example, the author first wrote "The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do particularly like you" and then carrot-ed not into the sentence. Why would an intruder make this mistake as well as the others?
-What would the intruders motivation be? It obviously wasn't money considering he or she never made a move to contact the parents and left the body in the home. I don't believe it was sexual, but I could be wrong. If it was, it still wouldn't explain the RN. If it was the parents I believe it was a coverup.

As I've said before, the intruder theory leaves me with more questions than answers.

 

[tezi]

The irony...

Yep, the irony. Still banging my head...LOL:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Yet, a blog post implicating Rod Westomoreland was cited. Double-standard, much?:facepalm:

 

[tezi]

Touch DNA transfer between members and surfaces is common too.

There you go, inserting facts again....LOL:floorlaugh::loveyou:

I'd be scared to see how much TDNA I had on me today...Just from Wal-Mart and the gas station...Scary.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Touch DNA transfer between members and surfaces is common too.

Except we know that this transfer was not that way as there is no RAMSEY DNA and the DNA in her panties matches the Touch DNA found on the pants.

Just because people want to believe it does not exist does not mean it will go away. That DNA is science and the answer to who hurt her that night. IMO

 

[tezi]

Except we know that this transfer was not that way as there is no RAMSEY DNA and the DNA in her panties matches the Touch DNA found on the pants.

Just because people want to believe it does not exist does not mean it will go away. That DNA is science and the answer to who hurt her that night. IMO

Exactly...Kind of like those pesky grand jury indictments. Just because they want them to go away, does not mean they don't exist.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Exactly...Kind of like those pesky grand jury indictments. Just because they want them to go away, does not mean they don't exist.

JMO

The Grand Jury predates the Touch DNA evidence. Had they had that I bet it would have come out much differently.

 

[tezi]

The Grand Jury predates the Touch DNA evidence. Had they had that I bet it would have come out much differently.

It's a good thing we aren't placing bets then, right?

Why is it whenever we discuss something the TDNA has to come into the mix? Every. Single. Time.

JMO