Quote Originally Posted by andreww View Post
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.
She was wiped down with something, so until you can prove that "something" didn't have brown fibres, insinuating those fibres came from an intruder is just plain ridiculous.
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.
Again something we agree on. Not for the reasons you think however.
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.
The cloth that she was wiped with? Gloves?
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?
Did you just say that the intruder may have brought the ransom note? Now I've heard everything :gaah:
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?
Now you are just being a %$^). Patsy's sister wasn't accompanied by an officer. She was driven there by the cops but was allowed to take what she wanted, although she was not allowed in the basement. They had no clue what she took and they had no idea what might have been in the pockets of what she took. I'm pretty sure Fleet didn't pull over the car and pat down Burke either. As for the Ramsey's, lets face it, there wasn't much to carry. A roll of duct tape, a package of cord an a paintbrush tip? All would have fit in Patsy's purse quote nicely.
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?
Bernardo had his lawyer retrieve them after the cops had left the home. And they tore that place up pretty good looking for them.
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.
Patsy was wearing the boots when she left the home. And again you are avoiding the gist of the question. YES THE DA THWARTED THE EFFORTS OF THE POLICE.
