Patsy Ramsey

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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

Because it matters. It is evidence that points to someone. That fingers someone. It is evidence that corroborates other evidence.

 

[gramcracker]

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

hey, if all ya got is 0.01% of the indicators/evidence, ya go with what ya got :floorlaugh:

 

[Anti-K]

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.

You’ve said too much here for me to comment on without going on forever, and I already have a bad enough problem saying anything in twenty words or less. So, I’m just going to address a cpl of your points:

Yes, I left out a lot of information but that’s because I was only addressing your claim regarding the totality of the evidence pointing towards the Ramseys. This claim is false, as I have shown; some of the evidence points towards the Ramseys and some of it points away from the Ramseys.
.

There’s no magic involved in the transfer of fibers. Transfer comes from contact. Ramsey fibers found on Ramsey items in the Ramsey house– this is to be expected.
.

Whatever you may think of Mrs Ramsey, getting up in the morning and putting on the clothes you wore the night before is not an unusual act.
.

So far none of the innocent explanations for the dna has proven to be true despite great effort and expense. Although, I would agree that if Kolar’s description of the dna is correct, than there is likely an innocent explanation for SOME of the dna.

But, we don’t have those explanations yet, and until we do the dna – specifically, the CODIS sample and matching tDNA samples – do, in fact, indeed, beyond all reasonable doubt – represent a person who must be identified and investigated. Perhaps an investigation would excuse that person from suspicion. If that happened, then we could say that the dna has an innocent explanation, but that hasn’t happened yet.
.

No one knows why an intruder would have done the things that were down. We don’t know why because we don’t know who. You tell me who and I’ll tell you why, at least I’d be able to make an educated guess. Here are a few reasons the killer could have had for leaving both a ransom note and a body in the house:

1. a kidnapper could have intended on murdering and hiding his victim in the house right from the get-go, possibly believing that the Ramseys would not call the police and that he could collect his money before they discovered the body (why would they look for it?). Murdering and hiding the body in the house relieves him of the risk of having to handle, transport, hide and return/dispose of his victim and reduces the risk of forensic evidence accruing.

2. a molester who happened to kill (as opposed to a killer who happened to molest) could have created the note as a means of hiding from himself and/or others his perverse desires and true motivation. Wiping, redressing, covering body and elements of a kidnapping (cord, tape, note) all could have been done as a means to misdirect. <quote> “We know that offenders are more reluctant to admit sexual motives than other types of motives (e.g., profit, revenge, anger, power). Some offenders may not even realize their true motivation. An offender may eventually request a ridiculously small ransom for a child he had abducted to molest in an apparent attempt to convince others, but primarily himself, that he is not a sex offender” <unquote> http://tinyurl.com/dxqnv

3. a killer wishing to direct suspicion towards the occupants of the house (thus, away from himself); see my Theory if Intent

4. a killer wishing to create an enduring mystery; see my Theory if Intent
5. a killer hoping to create for the parents a sense of false hope mingled with hours of angst and pain reaching its peak when the body is discovered

All of the above are also reasons the killer could have had for taking his victim to the basement. To those we add,

1) because he had nowhere else to take her
2) because he had no means of transporting her
3) because it fulfilled a fantasy, a desire
4) because, once decided to commit the crime in the house, the basement presented the least chance of being caught.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

1.) <snip>
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?

<snip>

“Why wasn't PR's DNA found on her longjohns considering she claimed to have dressed her?”

Although DNA transfer can and does occur easily and readily, it does not necessarily occur. A person can touch an object and transfer nothing. Or, Person A can transfer Person B’s DNA without transferring their own. These are facts as we presently know them. So, while Mrs Ramseys’ DNA could be on the leggings, it is not true that it should be or would be on the leggings.

For DNA transfer several factors are known to come into play, such as: a person’s shedder status; state of agitation (nervous, excited, etc); state of cleanliness; recent contact with mouth; type of contact, duration of contact, material contacted, etc.

Let’s say Mrs Ramsey was a poor shedder and the killer was not. There’s your answer. I know that’s probably not very satisfying, so, let’s say that Mrs Ramsey removes Jonbenet’s pants at bedtime. She uses some caution and care so as to not wake the child and thus her contact is minimal. Maybe she transfers some of her own DNA, but these pants are, understandably, never tested. Maybe the amount of DNA transferred to the pants diminishes the amount available for transfer to the leggings. Maybe there is no transfer at all.

Now, Mrs Ramsey puts the leggings on Jonbenet, still using caution and care; her contact is minimal and gentle. No transfer occurs.

Later, DNA-man, maybe with gloves on (sweaty hands?), and in a presumably excitable state, and with NO caution or care, pulls down the victim’s leggings. With the panties/leggings down the killer removes his gloves (ostensibly to achieve skin to skin contact) and he does not put them back on until after he has pulled the leggings back up.

Possibly, he removes and/or “destroys” DNA transferred by Mrs Ramsey – if any - when he pulls the leggings down, and transfers his own when pulling them back up.
...

AK

 

[gramcracker]

Whatever you may think of Mrs Ramsey, getting up in the morning and putting on the clothes you wore the night before is not an unusual act.

for her, it was a very unusual act. this was attested to by friends and household staff. when she realized that LE was aware of this because of various lines of questioning, she intentionally wore a particular outfit (a suit) two days in a row. IIRC this was noted in Steve Thomas' book. another of the myriad little things that add up when examining the big picture

so many of the incidents/behaviors seem inconsequential when standing alone but the overwhelming imbalance of the totality tells the complete story

 

[gramcracker]

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

positing BDI also precipitates a vigorous response. every. single. time.

 

[pukasonqo2]

quoting from memory here, but when the Rs did LE the favour of handing over the clothing they wore, PR's jacket was a brand new one. it might have been kolar's book or this forum where i read it

now, if you have nothing to hide and you want to know who murdered your child, why would you not cooperate w LE and give them what they ask for? this (and other little details) makes it hard not to see the Rs as being somehow involved on JBs death either by direct action or by knowingly misleading authorities




lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

 

[tezi]

positing BDI also precipitates a vigorous response. every. single. time.

Yes, I know. LOL

 

[BBB167893]

For their story to have legs they would have had to dispose of the body before reporting a kidnapping,

And just how would they do that? Runs too much risk of being spotted. Besides, I'm sure Patsy wouldn't hear of it. After all, if JB was too ravaged by the elements, Patsy wouldn't have been able to crow about how beautiful she looked in her casket.

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.

NOT if they already had a possible fall-guy in mind.

Why would it have to look like nothing was out of place before finding the note?

Because the whole scenario hinged on the note, that's why. The note created solid "proof" that JB had been kidnapped and not just wandered off.

If RDI, they didn’t even find the note – they created it and they lied about finding it.

Quite so. I should have put "find" in quotation marks.

So, they could have lied and said that a door was unlocked. And, if RDI wouldn’t it be better to say that something was out of place? Of course it would.

Easy to say 17+ years later.

 

[BBB167893]

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

No, they weren't. Meaning, they weren't COMPLETE, RANCH. JB's DNA was fully intact, as you would expect. The supposed "intruder" DNA did not even have all of its markers.

 

[Chewy]

Easy to say 17+ years later.

You're seriously suggesting that 17 years of insight would give them the "easy to say" answer of saying "the door was opened when I came downstairs."

Gotta love the logic in these theories. :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No, they weren't. Meaning, they weren't COMPLETE, RANCH. JB's DNA was fully intact, as you would expect. The supposed "intruder" DNA did not even have all of its markers.

They were indeed intact or it would not be in CODIS.

This is a fact of the case. There is no way to change it, get past it, or alter it.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

It can be spun and whitewashed forever by intruder theorists but the DNA was fragmentary and none of the samples matched and it was illegally handled and presented by Mary Lacy who teamed up with Michael Tracey to bring us JMK.

 

[DeeDee249]

quoting from memory here, but when the Rs did LE the favour of handing over the clothing they wore, PR's jacket was a brand new one. it might have been kolar's book or this forum where i read it

now, if you have nothing to hide and you want to know who murdered your child, why would you not cooperate w LE and give them what they ask for? this (and other little details) makes it hard not to see the Rs as being somehow involved on JBs death either by direct action or by knowingly misleading authorities




lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

Proper police procedures would have been to require EVERYONE to turn over to police the clothing they wore to the Whites as well as what they had on when police arrived BEFORE they were allowed to leave the house. Police did not do this- I think the DA's office would not allow it. Then- it took over a YEAR for the Rs to send to the police the clothing they said they wore to the party. Police do have photos of the Rs at that party so they did know what they wore- at least by sight. Police said that when they received the clothes, some of them appeared to be brand-new- never worn or laundered.
Not sure if Patsy's jacket was the actual jacket or a replacement.
This is what happens when the DA works for the defense.

 

[pukasonqo2]

Proper police procedures would have been to require EVERYONE to turn over to police the clothing they wore to the Whites as well as what they had on when police arrived BEFORE they were allowed to leave the house. Police did not do this- I think the DA's office would not allow it. Then- it took over a YEAR for the Rs to send to the police the clothing they said they wore to the party. Police do have photos of the Rs at that party so they did know what they wore- at least by sight. Police said that when they received the clothes, some of them appeared to be brand-new- never worn or laundered.

Not sure if Patsy's jacket was the actual jacket or a replacement.

This is what happens when the DA works for the defense.

per memory, PRs jacket was a replacement.

if it took a year for them to give LE the clothes they wore that night, are we meant to believe that they kept the clothes in the same state for a whole year? the clothes were never laundered or wore again?

they should use the ramsey case as a entry level training course in LE academies: how not to handle a CS, suspects and let the suspects manipulate the whole investigation.

what a mess!


lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

 

[DeDee]

What? A replacement jacket? Let's think about this:

At trial, the witness, PR, is told that her Essentials jacket/blazer match the fibers found in the ligature, in the paint tote, on the white blanket and on the duct tape; however, the joke is on the prosecution when the witness whips out a receipt showing she actually purchased a [replacement] jacket/blazer in 1997, after the murder; therefore, the fibers could not possibly be from the night of the murder. (End of fiction.)


The truth is PR was living elsewhere when she shipped her Essentials blazer and John's shirt(s) to LE in CO. Not one who defends the Rs but it is LEs fault for not requesting their clothing in a more timely fashion.

I think John was shocked to learn his Israeli wool shirt fibers were found [perhaps planted by the devious Patsy] in the crotch of his daughter's size 12 underwear. The incriminating fibers were considered by the GJ. It could be one reason why the GJ could not decide who was responsible for the crimes against JB.

"Patsy Ramsey gave Oscar-quality performances during police interviews about the murder, if you believe forensic psychiatrist Dr. Steven E. Pitt, a former consultant for the Boulder police and DA's office who scrutinized the videotaped interviews. Pitt reveals that one particular exchange 'practically made me jump out of my seat. It's the part when Patsy denied any knowledge of how pineapple got into the child's digestive tract after the family arrived home from a party. She snarled that she had put the girl right to bed and had not served her any fruit. But there was a spoon and bowl of fresh pineapple in the breakfast nook and the bowl had Patsy's fingerprints on it. Academy awards have been given for lesser performances. She was a very attractive woman, almost seductive. She knew how to work it'"
The Globe, December 25, 2006

PR handed over the Essentials jacket/blazer that she wore to the Ws and, apparently, kept it on for later that evening when she performed the horrific child abuse that resulted in her daughter's death.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

"Patsy Ramsey gave Oscar-quality performances during police interviews about the murder, if you believe forensic psychiatrist Dr. Steven E. Pitt, a former consultant for the Boulder police and DA's office who scrutinized the videotaped interviews. Pitt reveals that one particular exchange 'practically made me jump out of my seat. It's the part when Patsy denied any knowledge of how pineapple got into the child's digestive tract after the family arrived home from a party. She snarled that she had put the girl right to bed and had not served her any fruit. But there was a spoon and bowl of fresh pineapple in the breakfast nook and the bowl had Patsy's fingerprints on it. Academy awards have been given for lesser performances. She was a very attractive woman, almost seductive. She knew how to work it'"
The Globe, December 25, 2006

This is another example of the capability of a person with Borderline Personality Disorder.

 

[BBB167893]

You're seriously suggesting that 17 years of insight would give them the "easy to say" answer of saying "the door was opened when I came downstairs."

Actually, I was talking about you. it doesn't matter what THEY say now, because they're locked into the story.

Gotta love the logic in these theories. :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Would that some people COULD see the logic...

 

[BBB167893]

They were indeed intact or it would not be in CODIS.

This is a fact of the case. There is no way to change it, get past it, or alter it.

Look again, Scarlett. CODIS requires 13 markers minimum to be accepted on a permanent basis. The DNA in this case only had 9-1/2, and THAT was only AFTER DNA testing tech had improved sufficiently to get it. CODIS took it on a renewed basis because Lin Wood was threatening to raise hell about it and the FBI didn't need MORE bad publicity.

 

[pukasonqo2]

screen shot from my ipad edition of kolar's book.


lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit