Something that has been bugging me... (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT)

[Anti-K]

View attachment 75022

Even though we know some crime scene photos do not purely portray how the items in the photos were originally found, the Barbie nightgown looks pretty out in the open to me. Besides, what about the blood on the nightgown? Certainly the nightgown was close and in sight while the sexual assault/something involving JBR's blood was occurring otherwise the blood wouldn't have made it's way towards the Barbie nightgown. According to PR, JBR didn't normally get nosebleeds, so the blood most likely had to do with the crime, right? As for the white blanket, I know some IDIs don't take what Linda Hoffmann-Pugh had to say as serious evidence (I don't understand why), but here:

From: Perfect Murder, Perfect Town: The Uncensored Story of the JonBenet Murder and the Grand Jury's Search for the Final Truth
by Lawrence Schiller:
"They also showed [LHP] a picture of JonBenet's white thermal blanket which had many urine and brown-colored stains on it. Some of them looked like dried blood. Then they showed her a picture of JonBenet's bed, which looked strange to her. Looking at the comforter, you couldn't tell that the blanket beneath it had been pulled off. The bed looked barely disturbed. Hoffmann-Pugh knew that to pull the blanket off, you had to first remove the comforter, otherwise it would get messed up. But in the photo, it was neat. Maybe the white blanket hadn't been on the bed at all. She told the police that the blanket might have been in the washer-dryer outside JonBenet's room. Then they showed her a photograph of the dryer, with the door open. Inside, she saw JonBenet's pink-and-white-checkered sheets, which she had put on the bed two days before the murder. But on JonBenet's bed in another photo were the Beauty and the Beast sheets.

"The logical explanation, Hoffmann-Pugh said, was that JonBenet had wet the bed on either Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday night. The clean sheets had probably been put on the bed and the wet sheets, blanket, and maybe even the Barbie nightgown were put in the wash and dried. The Ramseys didn't even have a clothes hamper, she said. When they took off their dirty clothes, they would just leave them lying around. The only things that went directly into the washer were JonBenet's urine-soaked sheets and blanket, so that they wouldn't smell. Only someone who knew which washer and dryer the Ramseys used for JonBenet's sheets and blanket would know where to find the blanket if it wasn't on the bed. Just as important, the washer-dryer outside JonBenet's room was built into a cabinet. Hoffmann-Pugh speculated that whoever killed JonBenet knew where the blanket was that night and probably took it out of the dryer."

I have no idea as to whether the blood on the night gown was fresh. It certainly could have been fresh, but I don’t know that it was. I don’t know if it wasn’t.

None of this matters to the point which was that the killer may not have been aware of the nightgown. By this, I mean that it ended up in the basement (if it wasn’t already there) by accident, without intent; static cling or simply caught up with the blanket or victim.

Maybe he did know about it, and maybe he even brought it to the basement on purpose. However, I see no reason why we should believe this to be true.
.

Maybe someone else remembers this better than me (or, maybe my memory is wrong), but I think that at some point LHP was shown photographs wherein items had been rearranged. Anyway...

I don’t see anything being said by LHP about a “warm blanket fresh out of the dryer.” But, thank you for the quotes.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Did they compare those beaver hairs to Patsy's beaver boots that she was apparently proud of? Oh, and wasn't she seen wearing them at the White's that night?

IIRC, they did not check the boots you refer to. However...

This is what they did: they floors and the closets. Presumably, if the boots or some other object was shedding/transferring hairs/fibers than they should have found some on the floors or in the closets. Same thing with the animal hairs. Same thing with the unsourced fibers.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM: I was talking about how none of JR's prints were found, not PR's or BR's. I don't think any RDI believes they were wearing gloves while handling the bowl of pineapple, so I'm not quite sure what you were getting at there.

BBM: Oh, those hairs. I thought you were speaking of hairs from an unknown human being. The problem there is that there is absolutely no way of knowing whether or not the animal hairs matched anything containing fur in the house. This is what Steve Thomas had to say:

From ACandyRose:
STEVE THOMAS: "I agree with you on one issue about the beaver hair -- too bad there wasn't a DA who would approve warrants and subpoenas for Patsy's fur garments, coats, boots, etc. That way we could have done comparison analyses, and determined if Patsy had anything that 'matched' or was 'consistent'. Or, for your argument, that didn't. I feel it would have been wise to take those steps, to determine whether there was a match, or not. It would have been invaluable to have known, to both sides."


Speaking of hair, body hair from PR's maternal lineage was found on the blanket. Is it insignificant? Maybe, but it was there along with the animal hairs on JBR's hands and the duct tape. The hairs, in my opinion, don't prove either RDI or IDI.

Yes, I realize you were talking about Mr Ramsey. I was using a real example from the case to show that often fingerprints are not found. That includes Mr Ramsey’s.

I don’t know what all was dusted for prints and I don’t know that all the found/identified prints have been revealed. Shouldn’t they have found LHP’s prints on something, or any of the people that were in that house Christmas day? Maybe they did. Maybe Mr Ramsey’s prints were found on something, too. I don’t know.

I completely agree with you that the hairs “don't prove either RDI or IDI.” I’ll add to that the fibers and the DNA. However, this trace evidence found in incriminating locations does support the argument that an unknown person committed this crime. Doesn’t prove it. But, if we could identify this person, this trace evidence could connect him to it.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

Whether or not there were no fingerprints, or whether fingerprints were not obtained or, whether the fingerprints were smudged, or whether the information about the fingerprints is correct or not is totally beside the point.

What you sated was that the fibers came from the gloves they wore to kill their daughter.

That is not a fact.

No, I said that JB was wiped down with something (fact) and that the Ramseys likely wore gloves (supported by evidence). Both these items would have been hidden or disposed of and that they are likely the source of the unidentified fibers. Remember, "unsourced" simply means that you do not have the source item. If that item no longer exists, you can't say that because they are unidentified, that they point to the possibility of an intruder.

Don't forget about OJ Simpson and his Bruno Magle shoes. Cops couldn't find those either and he said he never owned them. Then that Enquirer picture showed up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

IIRC, they did not check the boots you refer to. However...

This is what they did: they floors and the closets. Presumably, if the boots or some other object was shedding/transferring hairs/fibers than they should have found some on the floors or in the closets. Same thing with the animal hairs. Same thing with the unsourced fibers.
...

AK

Really doesn't matter what they did. Beaver hairs were found on the dead girl. Patsy owned beaver skin boots and wore them that night, yet no comparison was ever done. Why? Another thing AH needs to answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[inspector rex]

No, I said that JB was wiped down with something (fact) and that the Ramseys likely wore gloves (supported by evidence). Both these items would have been hidden or disposed of and that they are likely the source of the unidentified fibers. Remember, "unsourced" simply means that you do not have the source item. If that item no longer exists, you can't say that because they are unidentified, that they point to the possibility of an intruder.

Don't forget about OJ Simpson and his Bruno Magle shoes. Cops couldn't find those either and he said he never owned them. Then that Enquirer picture showed up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. What you actually said was "I never said the unsourced fibers were from a random visitor, I said they were from the gloves the Ramsey's wore to kill their daughter".
You did not use the word "likely", or even "in my opinion" or "I think" or "I believe" to indicate what you said was not a fact.

There is absolutely no evidence to support your speculation about the Ramseys wearing gloves.
There is also absolutely no evidence that any items that you believe were used by the Ramseys in the murder of their daughter were "hidden" or "removed" by them.
Yes, unsourced means you do not have a source.
But this is far more likely to have been brought in from outside the home and taken away again, than originating inside the house.
The Ramseys left their home shortly after the murder never to return.
Their home was taken over by the Police who processed it for forensic evidence for as long as they chose to do so.
And found nothing.

If you are implying that the lack of evidence was due to a conspiracy with the Ramseys and with the DA's office or the Police, to conceal or dispose of incriminating evidence, this is simply you trying to create evidence against the Ramseys where none exists.

 

[andreww]

No. What you actually said was "I never said the unsourced fibers were from a random visitor, I said they were from the gloves the Ramsey's wore to kill their daughter".
You did not use the word "likely", or even "in my opinion" or "I think" or "I believe" to indicate what you said was not a fact.

Sorry, after trying to explain that simple fact to thick headed people for the hundredth time, I forgot to add IMO. Sorry.


There is absolutely no evidence to support your speculation about the Ramseys wearing gloves.

I beg to differ. Their lack of fingerprints on things that should have had fingerprints shows otherwise.


There is also absolutely no evidence that any items that you believe were used by the Ramseys in the murder of their daughter were "hidden" or "removed" by them.

Then where are they?


Yes, unsourced means you do not have a source.

Wow, we actually agree on something


But this is far more likely to have been brought in from outside the home and taken away again, than originating inside the house.
How the heck do you come to that conclusion? You supposed intruder doesn't want to be caught carrying a ransom note to the house, but has no problems taking rope and duct tape home after committing a murder?

The Ramseys left their home shortly after the murder never to return.

Were they searched before they left? Was Burke searched when he left? Was what Patsy's sister took out of the house itemized and recorded? No.


Their home was taken over by the Police who processed it for forensic evidence for as long as they chose to do so.
And found nothing.

Paul Bernardo's house was searched as well and they never found his video tapes did they. That package of size 12s was still in the house and the cops didn't find them, so really your statement means nothing. You have to remember that the cops had the house in the days right after the crime. They had not developed any theories, had no clue about hairs and fibres, so they really wouldn't have known what to look for would they?

If you are implying that the lack of evidence was due to a conspiracy with the Ramseys and with the DA's office or the Police, to conceal or dispose of incriminating evidence, this is simply you trying to create evidence against the Ramseys where none exists.

The beaver skin boots are a perfect example of how the DA thwarted LE's efforts to identify evidence. That is crystal clear.

Comments added

 

[BOESP]

IIRC, they did not check the boots you refer to. However...

This is what they did: they floors and the closets. Presumably, if the boots or some other object was shedding/transferring hairs/fibers than they should have found some on the floors or in the closets. Same thing with the animal hairs. Same thing with the unsourced fibers.
...

AK

BBM: Many posters (IDI, RDI, or undecided) have commented on primary, secondary and tertiary transfer. So, imo, the above BBM comment is misleading and based on IDI bias.

 

[Anti-K]

BBM: Many posters (IDI, RDI, or undecided) have commented on primary, secondary and tertiary transfer. So, imo, the above BBM comment is misleading and based on IDI bias.

Wow. That’s a pretty bold and offensive statement. Care to back it up, and/or explain it?
...
AK

 

[BOESP]

Wow. That’s a pretty bold and offensive statement. Care to back it up, and/or explain it?
...
AK

Seems to me you were saying the wolf/beaver hair(s) and various unsourced fibers meant an Intruder left them therefore it is proof the Ramseys could not have deposited them. If that's not what you meant then please explain otherwise.

 

[andreww]

IIRC, they did not check the boots you refer to. However...

This is what they did: they floors and the closets. Presumably, if the boots or some other object was shedding/transferring hairs/fibers than they should have found some on the floors or in the closets. Same thing with the animal hairs. Same thing with the unsourced fibers.
...

AK

Not sure where that info is from but I very highly doubt that they picked up every hair and fibre in that house. There would have to be millions of pieces collected. My guess is they took small samples from various suspect areas to see what they could come up with.

 

[Mama2JML]

Police seized control of the Ramsey's 15th street property, @ 8:20 pm on 12.26.96, then executed a search spanning 10 days. Searches in Charlevoix, @ AG, of JR's hangar, and additional searches of the 15th street property followed. Investigators made valiant efforts to source any & all trace (or not) evidence to the Ramseys.

 

[CorallaroC]

Not sure where that info is from but I very highly doubt that they picked up every hair and fibre in that house. There would have to be millions of pieces collected. My guess is they took small samples from various suspect areas to see what they could come up with.

ITA, andreww.
Also, I recall mention of the paint tote being vac'd, which is how they found fibres consistent with the jacket PR wore to the party on 25th.

Re: the beaver hairs - I believe it is very common for artist's paintbrushes to be made with beaver hairs. As we know, the brush-end of the paintbrush used for the garrote was not found. So it makes sense to me that the animal hairs found on her hands might have been from the broken brush.

 

[Anti-K]

Seems to me you were saying the wolf/beaver hair(s) and various unsourced fibers meant an Intruder left them therefore it is proof the Ramseys could not have deposited them. If that's not what you meant then please explain otherwise.

The post you quoted and bolded made no mention of IDI.

I said that they taped the floors and the closets (from Smit deposition).

I said that, presumably, if the boots or some other object was shedding/transferring hairs/fibers than they should have found some on the floors or in the closets. Same thing with the animal hairs. Same thing with the unsourced fibers.

I made no reference to IDI, or RDI, or how any hairs, etc should be interpreted. You’re accusations of misleading and lying are false and unwarranted.

Good grief.
.

BTW, here’s a couple of things that I have said about the unsourced evidence, on this thread (BBM):
From post 556, The DNA is not necessarily intruder evidence. I agree. However, it does represent an individual who cannot be excused without being identified and cleared.

From post 563, I completely agree with you that the hairs “don't prove either RDI or IDI.” I’ll add to that the fibers and the DNA. However, this trace evidence found in incriminating locations does support the argument that an unknown person committed this crime. Doesn’t prove it. But, if we could identify this person, this trace evidence could connect him to it.

Any more questions, false accusations, misinterpretations; misrepresentations you wish to aim at me?
...

AK

 

[BOESP]

The post you quoted and bolded made no mention of IDI.

I said that they taped the floors and the closets (from Smit deposition).

I said that, presumably, if the boots or some other object was shedding/transferring hairs/fibers than they should have found some on the floors or in the closets. Same thing with the animal hairs. Same thing with the unsourced fibers.

I made no reference to IDI, or RDI, or how any hairs, etc should be interpreted. You’re accusations of misleading and lying are false and unwarranted.

Good grief.
.

BTW, here’s a couple of things that I have said about the unsourced evidence, on this thread (BBM):
From post 556, The DNA is not necessarily intruder evidence. I agree. However, it does represent an individual who cannot be excused without being identified and cleared.

From post 563, I completely agree with you that the hairs “don't prove either RDI or IDI.” I’ll add to that the fibers and the DNA. However, this trace evidence found in incriminating locations does support the argument that an unknown person committed this crime. Doesn’t prove it. But, if we could identify this person, this trace evidence could connect him to it.

Any more questions, false accusations, misinterpretations; misrepresentations you wish to aim at me?
...

AK

The unsourced fibers could have been deposited via the Ramseys in a primary, secondary or tertiary manner or deposited in the clothes dryer for all we know. So, no, the fibers don't necessarily support "an argument for an unknown person," a/k/a Intruder, committing this crime.

To put it another way: the unsourced fibers are just data that can not (as far as I know) be correlated with other data to mean much of anything.

I do, however, agree with your "good grief" remark.

 

[UKGuy]

Any more questions, false accusations, misinterpretations; misrepresentations you wish to aim at me?

Anti-K,
Yes, all this stuff you keep bringing up regarding forensic links to the intruder have been answered many times in the past, from PR's arm hair, to the beaver hair originating either from her boots or a paintbrush.

IDI protagonists have been there before you, and members here have enlightened many to such an extent they either accept the reasoning, transformed into RDI or left the board. Note there are not that many since the evidence does not exist to support a cogent IDI theory. Last person to try was Lou Smit, and that one was rejected wholesale.

I'm bored reading all these posts about non-evidence or stuff that might link to an intruder, or might be non-ramsey, it just wastes time, regurgitating old ideas and recycling myths about intruders etc.

The case is blatantly RDI, its definitely not IDI, since no evidence exists to support such a theory.

Do some research on this board about fibers or hair or anything else relating to the mythical intruder and you will likely find it has already been answered!

.

 

[inspector rex]

Originally Posted by inspector rex View Post
No. What you actually said was "I never said the unsourced fibers were from a random visitor, I said they were from the gloves the Ramsey's wore to kill their daughter".
You did not use the word "likely", or even "in my opinion" or "I think" or "I believe" to indicate what you said was not a fact.

Sorry, after trying to explain that simple fact to thick headed people for the hundredth time, I forgot to add IMO. Sorry.

I feel exactly the same way about thick headed people, however, I don't state as a fact things that I simply believe in order to back up my own theory. A small point I know, but you must try to understand the difference between things you THINK happened against things you can actually PROVE happened. Somehow, I don't think you are getting it.

There is absolutely no evidence to support your speculation about the Ramseys wearing gloves.

I beg to differ. Their lack of fingerprints on things that should have had fingerprints shows otherwise.

Here you go again, stating things as facts that you only believe to be true. As AK pointed out, there can be no fingerprints found due to several reasons. I'm not going to repeat these here, you can just read his post. It is a laughable suggestion that they walked around in their own house wearing brown cotton workman's gloves.

There is also absolutely no evidence that any items that you believe were used by the Ramseys in the murder of their daughter were "hidden" or "removed" by them.

Then where are they?

At the present time, I could not say. But I believe they were both brought into the house and taken out again by whomever murdered JonBenet. It is elementary.

Yes, unsourced means you do not have a source.

Wow, we actually agree on something

Lovely isn't it? You don't have a source and neither do I.

But this is far more likely to have been brought in from outside the home and taken away again, than originating inside the house.

How the heck do you come to that conclusion? You supposed intruder doesn't want to be caught carrying a ransom note to the house, but has no problems taking rope and duct tape home after committing a murder?

We don't know that the murderer didn't bring the ransom note, that is your assumption. Sure, I have no difficulty believing the items were brought in and taken out. Why would it be? It was the middle of the night. There would be no expectation by the murderer that he would be caught before he either disposed of them or arrived home. He could have lived in the neighbourhood. The body was placed in an isolated location in the house and he correctly assumed it would not be found till he was well away. Why do you try to make it seem like it is inconceivable?

The Ramseys left their home shortly after the murder never to return.

Were they searched before they left? Was Burke searched when he left? Was what Patsy's sister took out of the house itemized and recorded? No.

You need to make up a story to account for lack of evidence. Maybe an alien landed his spaceship on the roof and took all your evidence away? Patsy's sister was accompanied by a police officer. Do you honestly think they would let her take out evidence? Fleet White took Burke to his place, so maybe he would have noticed a backpack full of the missing evidence? Patsy and John weren't even able to take a change of clothes with them when they left, how did they take any evidence?

Their home was taken over by the Police who processed it for forensic evidence for as long as they chose to do so.
And found nothing.

Paul Bernardo's house was searched as well and they never found his video tapes did they. That package of size 12s was still in the house and the cops didn't find them, so really your statement means nothing. You have to remember that the cops had the house in the days right after the crime. They had not developed any theories, had no clue about hairs and fibres, so they really wouldn't have known what to look for would they?

BBM. Not sure what you mean? They obviously did find them. Who are you saying found them then if it wasn't the cops?

If you are implying that the lack of evidence was due to a conspiracy with the Ramseys and with the DA's office or the Police, to conceal or dispose of incriminating evidence, this is simply you trying to create evidence against the Ramseys where none exists.

The beaver skin boots are a perfect example of how the DA thwarted LE's efforts to identify evidence. That is crystal clear.

Again, not sure what you mean. The Police had the house for forensic testing, collected fibers from the Ramseys clothing. They didn't take them with them when they left the house. Are you suggesting the boots are in Burkes little back-pack of evidence too?

Comments added in red.

 

[icedtea4me]

andreww,
BBM: Well since the last time LHP washed it. A defence lawyer can try out anything he wants, but I'll bet any jury would see the significance of the bloodstain, BR's touch-dna, and the pink-nightgown all arriving at a crime-scene, and I'll bet they would not view it as a matter of chance.


Also we do not know if any other Ramsey touch-dna was found on JonBenet, they only released the information regarding the unidentified dna found in her underwear, i.e. BR's touch-dna might be on the longjohns and it should not be there since JonBenet was placed directly in bed, freshly dressed in the longjohns.

.

I'm leaning towards JonBenet having worn the pink nightgown that night when she received the blow to the head. Then she was later redressed in the white Gap top and longjohns.

 

[Anti-K]

The unsourced fibers could have been deposited via the Ramseys in a primary, secondary or tertiary manner or deposited in the clothes dryer for all we know. So, no, the fibers don't necessarily support "an argument for an unknown person," a/k/a Intruder, committing this crime.

To put it another way: the unsourced fibers are just data that can not (as far as I know) be correlated with other data to mean much of anything.

I do, however, agree with your "good grief" remark.

Actually, I said the TRACE evidence supports the argument for an unknown person. Fibers, hairs, DNA. And, yes, this is true. IDI could still be false, but the unsourced trace evidence found in incriminating locations is evidence of the exact kind that we should expect to see if an unknown person did commit this crime. That is simply true. Even if RDI is true.

Yes, I understand that the fibers could have transferred by this, that or whatever means. This isn’t a question of how they got there, it’s a matter of where did they come from. If they’re not sourced than you can’t say where they came from.
If you try to source them to a person, a place, a thing and you fail than you have to admit to the possibility that they came from some other person, place; thing.

These fibers are all the same. If some can be innocently transferred, than all can be innocently transferred. If the identified fibers can be incriminating, than the unsourced ones can be incriminating. The same principles apply to all of the fibers.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
Yes, all this stuff you keep bringing up regarding forensic links to the intruder have been answered many times in the past, from PR's arm hair, to the beaver hair originating either from her boots or a paintbrush.

IDI protagonists have been there before you, and members here have enlightened many to such an extent they either accept the reasoning, transformed into RDI or left the board. Note there are not that many since the evidence does not exist to support a cogent IDI theory. Last person to try was Lou Smit, and that one was rejected wholesale.

I'm bored reading all these posts about non-evidence or stuff that might link to an intruder, or might be non-ramsey, it just wastes time, regurgitating old ideas and recycling myths about intruders etc.

The case is blatantly RDI, its definitely not IDI, since no evidence exists to support such a theory.

Do some research on this board about fibers or hair or anything else relating to the mythical intruder and you will likely find it has already been answered!

.

You can skip my posts.

No one knows that that beaver hair came from those boots. That’s just speculation and opinion.
No one knows where the animal hairs came from, or the fibers, or the DNA.

I’ve heard all the excuses and rationalizations. I’ve read all the “answers.” Speculation and opinion, and some of it improbable. Sometimes, I get bored too.
...

AK