Questions you'd like answers to...

[AlGx]

AlGx,
Years ago I rejected the Erotic Asphyxiation theory proposed by some for this very reason, i.e. it would all be extremely painful for JonBenet.

.

So the garrote knot was tied when she was on her back? I can only assume.

 

[OliviaG1996]

So the garrote knot was tied when she was on her back? I can only assume.

It's more likely JBR was on her stomach when she was strangled as evidenced by the urine stains on the front of her underwear and on the carpet in front of the wine cellar door. (Urine is released from the bladder upon death.)

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

Oh my gosh! I wrote it wrong sorry! I meant to say the FIBERS from the sham and duvet where found on JBR's body. Sorry for the confusion!

Haha, no worries! I meant to respond to this days ago but got sidetracked.

Yeah, as sbaughman wrote, it says this in the Carnes decision from the Chris Wolf case. You can view a PDF of it on Woodward's website here:
http://www.wehaveyourdaughter.net/evidence-1/

The problem with evidence that is listed in the Carnes doc is that much of it is inaccurate. For example, it lists an "unidentified" pubic hair and palm print as proof that someone other than the Ramseys was in the home that night. But the palm print in question belonged to Melinda Ramsey and the hair was neither pubic nor foreign; it was an arm hair linked by mitochondrial DNA to Patsy or someone she's related to. There's other iffy evidence included there but my main point is that none of the information in that document came from the police files or any official source. It comes directly from Lin Wood, who presumably got it from Lou Smit, and it was never fact checked or authenticated.

Here's what the JBR wiki has to say:

Fibers from Sham & Duvet
Where Found. A sham and duvet were found in the suitcase beneath the train room window.

Match to Fibers on JBR? "A CBI examiner issued a report indicating fibers from the pillow sham and comforter were found on JonBenet's shirt, on her vaginal area, on the duct tape from her hand, on the hand ligature and inside the body bag." This is the lab report referenced in the Carnes opinion: "A lab report indicated that fibers from the sham and duvet were found on the shirt that JonBenet was wearing when she was found in the wine cellar. (SMF P 147; PSMF P 147.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 32, p. 68).

Fibers on JBR Unmatched? However, it also has been reported “FBI analysis: FBI examiners said the fibers on JonBenet came from a source other than the pillow sham and comforter -- but none of them matched anything else in the house. "If the FBI examiner is right, the killer had to take that piece of material out with him," Smit said.”

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682473/Fiber Evidence#FibersfromShamampDuvet

Here is a link to the story about Smit that refers to both lab reports, which - beware - is riddled with inaccuracies and outdated info.
https://web.archive.org/web/2001061...n/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html

As we can see, even Smit was not certain if the fibers came from the sham and duvet or not since the CBI and FBI disagreed. Lin must have decided the CBI report reflected best on his clients and used that one, but in reality who knows. I'm not convinced the fibers, whatever they are, are particularly important. This is the only source I've seen for either of these reports so it's hard to know what the police actually know about those fibers at this point in time or what relevance they give them now. Smit left in 1998 and a lot of testing has been done since then.

 

[UKGuy]

Haha, no worries! I meant to respond to this days ago but got sidetracked.

Yeah, as sbaughman wrote, it says this in the Carnes decision from the Chris Wolf case. You can view a PDF of it on Woodward's website here:
http://www.wehaveyourdaughter.net/evidence-1/

The problem with evidence that is listed in the Carnes doc is that much of it is inaccurate. For example, it lists an "unidentified" pubic hair and palm print as proof that someone other than the Ramseys was in the home that night. But the palm print in question belonged to Melinda Ramsey and the hair was neither pubic nor foreign; it was an arm hair linked by mitochondrial DNA to Patsy or someone she's related to. There's other iffy evidence included there but my main point is that none of the information in that document came from the police files or any official source. It comes directly from Lin Wood, who presumably got it from Lou Smit, and it was never fact checked or authenticated.

Here's what the JBR wiki has to say:

Here is a link to the story about Smit that refers to both lab reports, which - beware - is riddled with inaccuracies and outdated info.
https://web.archive.org/web/2001061...n/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html

As we can see, even Smit was not certain if the fibers came from the sham and duvet or not since the CBI and FBI disagreed. Lin must have decided the CBI report reflected best on his clients and used that one, but in reality who knows. I'm not convinced the fibers, whatever they are, are particularly important. This is the only source I've seen for either of these reports so it's hard to know what the police actually know about those fibers at this point in time or what relevance they give them now. Smit left in 1998 and a lot of testing has been done since then.

DrollForeignFaction,
The importance of the fibers will be they link the suitcase to JonBenet. Also if there were more than one specific fiber type, e.g. sham and comforter, then the probability of accidental transfer reduces.

If JR had never said he moved the suitcase downstairs, I doubt it would ever have been reviewed?

.

 

[AlGx]

There was two types of shoe prints found in the wine cellar, where police ever able to identify the second one?

 

[Annapurna]

There was two types of shoe prints found in the wine cellar, where police ever able to identify the second one?

I haven't heard of a second shoe print. I remember there was a suggestion that another mark on the floor may have been a child's bare footprint, but I think that was a Smit thing and he tends to invent evidence imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AlGx]

I haven't heard of a second shoe print. I remember there was a suggestion that another mark on the floor may have been a child's bare footprint, but I think that was a Smit thing and he tends to invent evidence imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this is what I'm talking about:

 

[Annapurna]

I think this is what I'm talking about:

Isn't that the Hi-Tek brand shoe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AlGx]

Isn't that the Hi-Tek brand shoe?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this was the Hi-Tec pic..

I think the print in this pic looks different.. unless I'm going blind!

 

[otg]

There have been three different “shoe/foot prints” that have been discussed over the years. From numerous reports (links below), the Ramseys, their friends and relatives, and any suspects were asked about whether or not they owned either Hi-Tec or SAS brand shoes. From published CS photos the questioned prints can be seen. The Hi-Tec logo (what they refer to as the “poon”) is clearly visible in one of the photos. The other print only shows what appears (to me anyway) to be an “X” and a “P” (or possibly an “I” or “T”) in the imprint. I don’t know how (or even if) this imprint is tied to the SAS brand shoe. I’ve looked over the years, but haven’t been able to connect them or even an “XP” to any other brand of shoe. It could be something other than the brand, but investigators somehow connected it to the SAS brand of shoe -- known for “comfort” footwear. Could it stand for something like “Extra Padded” or “Extra Padding?” (I don’t know the answer to this, so I'll leave it to some other sleuther to investigate if they wish.)

The third “footprint” is nothing more than the delusional speculation of Lou Smit demonstrating (yet again) his ineptitude. He claimed it was a “bare footprint” in the WC that matched the size of his 6-year-old granddaughter. He therefore surmised it was evidence that JonBenet had walked barefoot in that secluded room before she was killed. (See how one misstep in an investigation can lead to false assumptions about everything else?) But the CS photo of that imprint has an ABFO standard scale lying next to it for measurement. ABFO scales are in centimeters -- not inches. Apparently Smit interpreted the ~7 marks on the scale as 7-inches and thought it was the same length as his granddaughter’s foot. But in actuality, the 7 marks on the scale indicate 7-cm (just under 3 inches) and would be about the size of a newborn’s foot (https://cdn.kinsights.com/cache/3b/75/3b754851b6104eb5d9081bc6cd834f43.jpg).

Further, the imprint found on the WC floor doesn’t even look like a footprint should look (other than the general shape). The shadows of it in the CS photo appear to be not of a foot, but of some other object that I’ve speculated before might have been a climber’s carabiner (carabiners, or "crabs," come in different sizes and shapes, and mountain climbers use pre-assembled sections of cord and rope with carabiners attached for connecting quickly to their main climbing line.) If (and that's a big IF there) that imprint in the mold on the WC floor was from a carabiner, it could have been that it might have had a piece of Stansport utility cord attached to it and it was from big brother's climbing equipment.

Typical basic carabiners:

Years ago, the legendary poster “koldkase” put together these CS photos for comparison. Here is her post from 2009:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...Hi-Tec-crime-scene-photos&p=179664#post179664


Here is a quote from a Rocky Mountain News article from December 21, 1997, with the sub-headline “Ramsey investigation on track after a year of disappointment”:

Within the past two months, police have submitted or resubmitted evidence for testing at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

Police are trying to identify the source of two kinds of footprints found in the Ramsey house, including the basement. The prints came from SAS shoes and Hi-Tec hiking boots.

The footprints were discovered the first day of the investigation, but the information was overlooked until the past two months.
​

:findinglink: More references to the WC prints:

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/12/27-2.html
http://www.upi.com/Archives/1997/12/09/Ramsey-case-Shoe-clue/9522881643600/
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1997/J...-on-Shoes/id-88bac30bcdb22c1ac06bcbe3a1e0c243
https://web.archive.org/web/20010303153907/http://denver.rockymountainnews.com:80/extra/ramsey/0208jon.html

 

[Annapurna]

There have been three different “shoe/foot prints” that have been discussed over the years. From numerous reports (links below), the Ramseys, their friends and relatives, and any suspects were asked about whether or not they owned either Hi-Tec or SAS brand shoes. From published CS photos the questioned prints can be seen. The Hi-Tec logo (what they refer to as the “poon”) is clearly visible in one of the photos. The other print only shows what appears (to me anyway) to be an “X” and a “P” (or possibly an “I” or “T”) in the imprint. I don’t know how (or even if) this imprint is tied to the SAS brand shoe. I’ve looked over the years, but haven’t been able to connect them or even an “XP” to any other brand of shoe. It could be something other than the brand, but investigators somehow connected it to the SAS brand of shoe -- known for “comfort” footwear. Could it stand for something like “Extra Padded” or “Extra Padding?” (I don’t know the answer to this, so I'll leave it to some other sleuther to investigate if they wish.)

The third “footprint” is nothing more than the delusional speculation of Lou Smit demonstrating (yet again) his ineptitude. He claimed it was a “bare footprint” in the WC that matched the size of his 6-year-old granddaughter. He therefore surmised it was evidence that JonBenet had walked barefoot in that secluded room before she was killed. (See how one misstep in an investigation can lead to false assumptions about everything else?) But the CS photo of that imprint has an ABFO standard scale lying next to it for measurement. ABFO scales are in centimeters -- not inches. Apparently Smit interpreted the ~7 marks on the scale as 7-inches and thought it was the same length as his granddaughter’s foot. But in actuality, the 7 marks on the scale indicate 7-cm (just under 3 inches) and would be about the size of a newborn’s foot (https://cdn.kinsights.com/cache/3b/75/3b754851b6104eb5d9081bc6cd834f43.jpg).

Further, the imprint found on the WC floor doesn’t even look like a footprint should look (other than the general shape). The shadows of it in the CS photo appear to be not of a foot, but of some other object that I’ve speculated before might have been a climber’s carabiner (carabiners, or "crabs," come in different sizes and shapes, and mountain climbers use pre-assembled sections of cord and rope with carabiners attached for connecting quickly to their main climbing line.) If (and that's a big IF there) that imprint in the mold on the WC floor was from a carabiner, it could have been that it might have had a piece of Stansport utility cord attached to it and it was from big brother's climbing equipment.

Typical basic carabiners:

Years ago, the legendary poster “koldkase” put together these CS photos for comparison. Here is her post from 2009:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...Hi-Tec-crime-scene-photos&p=179664#post179664


Here is a quote from a Rocky Mountain News article from December 21, 1997, with the sub-headline “Ramsey investigation on track after a year of disappointment”:

Within the past two months, police have submitted or resubmitted evidence for testing at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

Police are trying to identify the source of two kinds of footprints found in the Ramsey house, including the basement. The prints came from SAS shoes and Hi-Tec hiking boots.

The footprints were discovered the first day of the investigation, but the information was overlooked until the past two months.
​

:findinglink: More references to the WC prints:

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/12/27-2.html
http://www.upi.com/Archives/1997/12/09/Ramsey-case-Shoe-clue/9522881643600/
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1997/J...-on-Shoes/id-88bac30bcdb22c1ac06bcbe3a1e0c243
https://web.archive.org/web/20010303153907/http://denver.rockymountainnews.com:80/extra/ramsey/0208jon.html

I wonder if any of her injuries could have been made by a carabiner or something usually kept with one. Or if it was used in any way really. Hi Tek hiking boots (complete with compass) and a carabiner, some rope, I wonder if there is a theme or it's a coincidence. It is Colorado after all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AlGx]

Okay, few questions I have! Sorry if the have already been answered.

1. Was John's DNA found on JB's waistband?
2. Was there any fibers from the carpet in JB's bedroom found on JB's feet?
3. Was a brick found with fibers from carpet in basement/living room?
4. What was the story behind the Showgirl costume? Didn't Patsy realize she had gone a bit too far?

 

[andreww]

Okay, few questions I have! Sorry if the have already been answered.

1. Was John's DNA found on JB's waistband? No
2. Was there any fibers from the carpet in JB's bedroom found on JB's feet? We haven't heard if they were
3. Was a brick found with fibers from carpet in basement/living room? No
4. What was the story behind the Showgirl costume? Didn't Patsy realize she had gone a bit too far? Patsy? Never.

Answered above.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

Okay, few questions I have! Sorry if the have already been answered.

1. Was John's DNA found on JB's waistband?
2. Was there any fibers from the carpet in JB's bedroom found on JB's feet?
3. Was a brick found with fibers from carpet in basement/living room?
4. What was the story behind the Showgirl costume? Didn't Patsy realize she had gone a bit too far?

Re: the showgirl outfit
It was a duplicate of a costume Patsy had worn back in her pageant days. Actually, JB's was even more elaborate with the big feathered ruff in the back. DeDee posted a picture of Patsy circa 1977 in the costume about midway through this page:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?76520-Patsy-Ramsey/page6

According to PMPT, it was actually JB's grandma Nedra who came up with the outfit. What a weird family.

In all, Pam Griffin made half a dozen outfits for JonBenét, some of which cost as much as $ 600. Several of the outfits were not typical pageant attire but more like theatrical costumes. One day Patsy’s mother, Nedra, who occasionally came to Pam’s house with Patsy, showed her a photograph of an outfit with marabou and glitter. Nedra said it was just right for “Patsy’s doll baby,” as she liked to call JonBenét. She thought it would be perfect for the “Anybody from Hollywood” category at the next pageant, where the children could dress as Shirley Temple or Charlie Chaplin or any other star—or, for example, a Las Vegas Ziegfeld Follies showgirl, which Nedra thought would be perfect for JonBenét.

Photographer Mark Fix described the moment JonBenet debuted the outfit at a May 1996 pageant in Denver to Schiller. It appears Patsy did eventually realize it was too much.

JonBenét came out in this shocking outfit, and a noticeable murmur went through the room. There were all these feathers, like an ostrich. Someone called it a Ziegfield costume—so much more expensive and elaborate than anyone else’s. You could see it was custom-tailored for her. It was like showing up in a tuxedo when everybody is wearing sandals and T-shirts. Patsy realized she’d overdone it. She was as shocked as everybody else. I don’t think JonBenét ever wore that outfit again, not even in the national pageant that I photographed two months later. In July, at the national finals, JonBenét’s costumes were less frilly. They were still on the cutting edge, but they’d been changed to fit the pageant system.

 

[Userid]

I have a question about the pillow on the kitchen table:

Jim Clemente on his podcast is really awe-struck about the pillow that was found on the kitchen table. He said this pillow is most likely from JBR's bed, since her bed didn't have a pillow on it. This is particularly confusing to me because a) wasn't there a pillow at the foot of JBR's bed? There was no pillow at the head of the bed, granted, but there was one at the foot; and b) hasn't it been said that the pillow was put there after the police arrived?

Clemente thinks that this proves JBR woke up in the middle of the night, clutched her pillow (like children tend to do), and went downstairs.

 

[questfortrue]

I have a question about the pillow on the kitchen table:

Jim Clemente on his podcast is really awe-struck about the pillow that was found on the kitchen table. He said this pillow is most likely from JBR's bed, since her bed didn't have a pillow on it. This is particularly confusing to me because a) wasn't there a pillow at the foot of JBR's bed? There was no pillow at the head of the bed, granted, but there was one at the foot; and b) hasn't it been said that the pillow was put there after the police arrived?

Clemente thinks that this proves JBR woke up in the middle of the night, clutched her pillow (like children tend to do), and went downstairs.

I disagree with Clemente on this point. The pillow at the foot of JB’s bed features a Beauty and the Beast pillowcase, matching her sheets.

The pillowcase on the pillow downstairs appears to be a plain white one. See post 17 - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...sey-house-interior-photos&p=197769#post197769

There may be a possibility (only a possibility) the pillow depicted on the counter was from BR’s bed. See Post 19 http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...sey-house-interior-photos&p=197791#post197791

 

[Userid]

^Thanks Quest, that's what I thought. Great pics too, thanks again.

I also disagree with Clemente big time, at least on this issue. It's amazing that someone so involved with the case can make such an easy mistake like this.

Do we know when that picture was taken with the pillow on the kitchen counter? I ask because it's well known that many people were in that kitchen (the people PR called over to the house), eating in and using it. So my next question is: why the heck would all of those people simply leave that pillow there, while they were preparing their bagels, etc? Wouldn't they have moved the pillow if they were using the counter, if it indeed was there before they arrived?

 

[singularity]

That pillow played a game of musical chairs. Its entering red herring territory.

Never understood why some act like the location of Jonbenet's pillow on her bed is so bizarre. Its in the exact spot you'd expect her pillow to be if she laid there watching TV.

 

[Userid]

^ Hmm, interesting thought about the bed pillow.

What's your take on the pillow (found on the kitchen counter), Singularity? I agree it's more than likely a red herring, but it still baffles me. When was it put there? And who put it there? When was that picture taken with it there exactly?

 

[singularity]

I don't even take the kitchen pillow into account as it doesn't really convey anything except in the imagination of theories. The only thing interesting about it is how its hopping all over the place and as you know, its not the only item in the house that was doing that. Its main problem is that its doing this in heavy traffic. How early in the timeline did it show up in a photograph? If its before the house turned into grand central station, then MAYBE it might mean something but even then...it doesn't tell us much. One of the kids could've been carrying it but dropped or threw it down for whatever reason and then later on, someone picked it up. Did these kids watch wrestling? Little kids would sometimes "wrestle" their pillows. Another thing...anything concerning this pillow could've happened before that night.

The fact that some theories use the pillow as a building block is laughable. One of many things that show how thin BDI really is.

It means less than nothing if it wasn't photographed before every Tom, Dick, and Sheila showed up.