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

[BBB167893]

I'm sorry, but repurposed duct tape is not a far-fetched idea. The rope coming from another source isn't crazy either. This was Christmas. Packages coming in, (maybe shipped in) opened and wrapped. It's unnecessary to think that an intruder had to bring them into the house. He could have just pulled them out of a trash bin. My household generated huge amounts of trash during the Christmas holidays. Rope and duct tape wouldn't be a mystery by any stretch of the imagination. In that case, there would have been no need to remove them from the house.

That works in favor of RDI, too.

 

[BBB167893]

There is no reason to believe that Mrs Ramsey would know how her fibers got where ever they got.

Yeah, I'll BET there isn't!

Just curious: Mrs Ramsey asphyxiates, etc her critically injured child. For some reason she is wearing her jacket and (not a fact) beaver boots at one o’clock in the morning. I guess the basement was cold.

More likely, she never took them off. And it was my understanding that it was her sweater, not her jacket. She actually named the sweater in her cover story in 2002.

Anyway, now she’s told that her fibers have been found in incriminating locations and are connecting her to the crime. Why doesn’t she say, sure, I was all over that room with my jacket on. Many times. And, oh yeah, I had my jacket on that time I did this or that or whatever with the paint tote.

I'm not the least bit psychic, Anti-K. Maybe she figured that would sound too convenient. Maybe she wanted to "distance" herself from the basement. Who can say for certain?

I don’t believe your FBI claim.

Here ya go:

A huge conference table dominated a large, windowless room, with an American flag in one corner and the FBI shield on the far wall. About two dozen people were waiting for us--some of the nation's foremost pathologists, behavioral science specialists, CASKU team members, hair and fiber experts, the Critical Incidence Response Group, and other veteran agents.

<snip>

Taken alone, they said, each piece of evidence might be argued, but together, enough pebbles become a block of solid granite.
--ITRMI, pages 240-242

 

[BBB167893]

The CODIS sample is exculpatory for everyone that it does not match.

BPD has used the DNA to eliminate 200+ people, so far. You know how these people were eliminated? Because they didn’t match. The DNA eliminated them.

Actually, that's a widely-accepted myth. According to ST's depo, nobody was eliminated SOLELY by DNA.

For some (un)reason RDI are okay with the DNA eliminating people, unless those people are Ramseys.

THIS one isn't.

 

[BBB167893]

BBM: I personally don't believe the tape was used before December 25th/26th (especially by PR while wearing her red Christmas jacket). SuperDave never said the tape was anywhere but the Ramsey house when being used, just that he believed it may have been used before. Either way, PR's receipt from McGuckin's Hardware casts serious doubt that an intruder brought the duct tape.

Let me be clear on this: I'm NOT saying that the tape was anywhere but the Ramsey house. Quite the opposite. And I'm NOT saying that, if it was a previously used piece, that she used it, clothes or no clothes.

 

[BBB167893]

I think it's a mistake to take ST's book as some kind of reference material on the murder.
Thomas himself, in his sworn deposition, contradicts much of what he wrote.

"9 What I'm asking you is do you know if there

10 was ever any forensic evidence indicating that

11 any article of clothing that Patsy wore was

12 found as a particle in that panty area of

13 JonBenet?

14 A. No, I am unaware of any forensic

15 or fiber evidence from Patsy Ramsey's clothing

16 to the victim's under clothing or underwear.

17 Q. Do you know if there was any

18 forensic evidence of Patsy Ramsey's clothing

19 at all besides the duct tape area on

20 JonBenet?

21 A. As we sit here now, no, I don't

22 recollect any other fiber evidence, other than

23 what we have discussed linking the mother to

24 JonBenet. "

I hardly see this as a contradiction, rex. He left the force in 1998, right before the Grand Jury. This depo was 2001, if I recall correctly.

 

[BBB167893]

I don’t mind the criticism and questions but sometimes it’s hard to take you seriously as you often don’t seem to have fully read, or understand, what I post.

Man, that's uncanny. Took the words right out of my mouth.

I don’t really care to get caught up in a discussion of Lacey and her reasoning,

So much the better for you!

but she claimed that the tDNA added “significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence.” And, she claimed “full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.”

What she CLAIMED doesn't make a damn bit of difference. From what others (Kane and Kolar among several) have told us, she didn't seem AWARE of the other evidence. Or, if she was, it didn't faze her.

 

[BBB167893]

Steve Thomas is discussing, "fiber evidence other than what we have discussed linking the mother to JonBenet". He's also speaking about fibers in JonBenet's "under clothing and/or underwear". I haven't seen anyone here stating Patsy's fibers were in JonBenet's underwear or under clothing, only black fibers consistent with one of John Ramsey's shirts. I don't understand how Steve Thomas contradicted himself.

By the way, I have now been told that James Kolar's book, The Bonita Papers, and now Steve Thomas's book are unreliable and should be taken with a grain of salt. Should I just take the Ramseys' word for everything and throw anything that brings suspicion upon them out the window?

BBM That's the impression I get. And I should know, OliviaG1996.

 

[BOESP]

I'm not convinced that unsourced touch DNA is evidence pointing in favor of the defendant. Firstly, the case didn't go to trial and secondly (as has been pointed out on this forum many times) there are innocent ways that Touch DNA could've been deposited; thirdly, if it's exculpatory without knowing who it belonged to, if I were a juror, I wouldn't consider it one way or another.

Based on what I know, I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that one of the Ramseys killed JonBenet by reckless behavior. I think Patsy wrote the note (and she agreed that whoever wrote the note killed JonBenet). What I haven't decided is what precipitated the events that killed JonBenet.

Thanks for the response AK.

 

[inspector rex]

I hardly see this as a contradiction, rex. He left the force in 1998, right before the Grand Jury. This depo was 2001, if I recall correctly.

He published his book when? 2000?

He's not being forgetful, he is simply stating that to his recollection, there was no fiber evidence linking Patsy to JonBenet (aside from the four red fibers).

I'm thinking if there was any evidence he wouldn't have had any trouble remembering it?

 

[Anti-K]

That's true of ANY case, Anti-K. That's the point I've tried to make these many years.



As experienced prosecutors (at least Kane is), I imagine they'd already know.



Ain't it the truth.

Uh, what?

You wrote that the totality of the evidence is RDI&#8217; I replied that you were wrong because exculpatory evidence does exist. And, now you say that that's the point you've tried to make these many years. You&#8217;re contradicting yourself.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Yeah, I'll BET there isn't!



More likely, she never took them off. And it was my understanding that it was her sweater, not her jacket. She actually named the sweater in her cover story in 2002.



I'm not the least bit psychic, Anti-K. Maybe she figured that would sound too convenient. Maybe she wanted to "distance" herself from the basement. Who can say for certain?



Here ya go:

A huge conference table dominated a large, windowless room, with an American flag in one corner and the FBI shield on the far wall. About two dozen people were waiting for us--some of the nation's foremost pathologists, behavioral science specialists, CASKU team members, hair and fiber experts, the Critical Incidence Response Group, and other veteran agents.

<snip>

Taken alone, they said, each piece of evidence might be argued, but together, enough pebbles become a block of solid granite.
--ITRMI, pages 240-242

It was a jacket (from the 200 interview):

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,

Very easy for Mrs Ramsey to explain away those fibers if she had wanted to and IMO she would have if RDI was true.
.

Thanks, I’m aware of Thomas’ version of events
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Actually, that's a widely-accepted myth. According to ST's depo, nobody was eliminated SOLELY by DNA.



THIS one isn't.

Persons were eliminated as being the source for the DNA. That is not a myth. It is a fact.

“The police department has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet.” Mark Beckner http://tinyurl.com/n6pt3kz
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I'm not convinced that unsourced touch DNA is evidence pointing in favor of the defendant. Firstly, the case didn't go to trial and secondly (as has been pointed out on this forum many times) there are innocent ways that Touch DNA could've been deposited; thirdly, if it's exculpatory without knowing who it belonged to, if I were a juror, I wouldn't consider it one way or another.

Based on what I know, I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that one of the Ramseys killed JonBenet by reckless behavior. I think Patsy wrote the note (and she agreed that whoever wrote the note killed JonBenet). What I haven't decided is what precipitated the events that killed JonBenet.

Thanks for the response AK.

Some might say that the exculpatory evidence (since strengthened with the inclusion of the tDNA) was one of the reasons that this didn’t go to trial.
...

AK

 

[inspector rex]

BBM: Can you give me an example of something written in Steve Thomas's book that was proven incorrect, please? And by whom was it proved incorrect by?

Ok, so have you heard that Chet Ubowski stated that he believed Patsy wrote the RN as her handwriting was consistent in 24 out of 26 letters of the alphabet?

Privately, however, Ubowski, who had made the early discovery that Patsy’s handwriting was consistent with the ransom note on twenty-four of the twenty-six alphabet letters, had recently told one detective, “I believe she wrote it.”
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 174

However, during the course of his deposition, he was questioned about the accuracy of this:

2 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) After your book
3 came out, sir, were you aware that
4 Mr. Ubowski publicly denied the accuracy of
5 the statement that he concluded Patsy Ramsey
6 wrote the ransom note?
7 A. No. You're telling me this for
8 the first time.
9 Q. Are you familiar that Mr. Ubowski
10 stated that he had never reached the
11 conclusion that 24 of her letters out of the
12 26 letters of the alphabet were matched with
13 the ransom note?
14 A. No, I have not heard that.
15 Q. And you stated to the contrary in
16 your book, didn't you?
17 A. Yeah, I stated what I was told by
18 my detective sergeant.
19 Q. And you weren't even, I guess,
20 aware that Mr. Ubowski and the CBI said they
21 don't even make that kind of analysis with
22 respect to the 24 out of the 26 letters of
23 the alphabet, you don't know anything about
24 that --
25 A. No.
1 Q. -- in terms of the public
2 statement by the CBI after your book was
3 published?
4 A. The CBI made a public statement?
5 Q. Yes, sir.
6 A. As an organization, I haven't seen
7 that.

 

[inspector rex]

No, I am most assuredly NOT kidding. Even leaving aside the DA's edict to treat them with kid gloves, it was, I think, two days later. As far as the police knew, the crime scene was in the basement. Pam should NEVER have been allowed to take a single thing.

Apparently the investigators taped the clothing in the closets for fibers, so they must have had some inkling what they were looking for?
If the whole house wasn't being regarded as a crime scene, why weren't the Ramseys permitted to return and just told not to go into the basement?

Now I think YOU'RE kidding. What's this "weighed down" stuff? Just how much was supposed to have been taken?

Well, because I'm thinking there would have been quite a lot of evidence that he would have had to take out of the house.
Of course, what exactly it would have been, depends on which RDI theory you embrace.

Why would they be bulging?

I expect that there would be quite a bit of evidence to take out, depending on which RDI theory you embrace LOL.

Since no one noticed where JR went for quite a while, it's not beyond possibility.

By "no one" I'm thinking you mean Det Arndt? The only person who was asked, the only officer in the house at that time if I'm not mistaken, or more correctly the person who actually made the assumption that he was missing (to get the mail - although she later recanted), simply because SHE lost sight of him or didn't remember him being there for a period of time. And she probably could probably said that applied to pretty much everyone in the house, at one time or another, as there were a lot of people to keep track of, but it was only John's whereabouts that she was questioned on.

That assumes, of course, that they weren't already carrying them. Of course, THAT assumes that they hadn't been disposed of already. And THAT assumes that there was any to dispose of.

Er, yeaaarrrs... assuming that there was any evidence for them to dispose of.
So like I say, if RDI could come up with one single cohesive theory, then we could go through and work out exactly what they needed to get rid of, or not, as they case may be.

Whether or not they KNEW is one thing. But I'm sure a few things would have stood out. Even in the pre-CSI era, most people knew SOME about forensics.

Not that it matters. You asked how they could have done it. I gave you some possibilities.

They were savvy enough to take all the incriminating evidence with them.

Yet they (according to RDI) left the head-bash weapon (flashlight) sitting in plain sight on the kitchen counter??
Didn't even put it back in the drawer where it belonged.....

No, it wasn't. I guess I'm not the only one with memory "issues!"

It appears that "investigators never even asked to see the other panties in the matching set her mother bought her (though the DA's office now has them, Wood says)"
And as far as the timeline is concerned " It is not clear at what point in time this transfer to BPD would have been made, but presumably was sometime after the Boulder DA took over the case in late 2002 and June 2003." (Clay Evans, "We're Failing JonBenet" Boulder Daily Camera, June 15, 2003)

To look cooperative? Don't forget: Ellis Armistead quit right around that time because they did things he didn't agree with.

Of course.

With them, if memory serves.

Packed away with their other sundry possessions I think.

 

[BOESP]

You&#8217;re completely wrong about this.

Trace evidence found in incriminating locations is PRESUMED &#8211; not assumed, but presumed &#8211; to be evidence transferred during the commission of a crime.

That&#8217;s why they look for trace evidence in those locations.

That&#8217;s fundamental, it&#8217;s basic; it&#8217;s the whole premise around which everything else revolves.

Presumption is that which must be disproved, it is that which is generally accepted as being true because in most cases, it is. Presumption is &#8220;assumed fact when lacking evidence to the contrary.&#8221;

The unsourced trace evidence, DNA included, is exculpatory because it is evidence in the Ramsey&#8217;s favor; it raises the possibility that someone else was involved in this crime. The fact that it is unsourced does not diminish that possibility.
...

AK

BBM: sounds like a request to prove the negative to me. On this board are statements that show why that Touch DNA is not the smoking gun Ramsey apologists want it to be. It might mean something or it might not and based on the whole ball of wax it doesn't mean much to me.

Regardless, the DA was out of order exonerating anyone - she doesn't have that power.

Like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[BOESP]

Some might say that the exculpatory evidence (since strengthened with the inclusion of the tDNA) was one of the reasons that this didn&#8217;t go to trial.
...

AK

If what you say is fact, then why lie about the true bill the Grand Jury sent down. Why not use protocol, such as a filing to the contrary or whatever it is they do in Colorado, instead of years of lying about the Grand Jury decision.

Innocent people and their representatives don't need to lie.

 

[questfortrue]

BBM: sounds like a request to prove the negative to me. On this board are statements that show why that Touch DNA is not the smoking gun Ramsey apologists want it to be. It might mean something or it might not and based on the whole ball of wax it doesn't mean much to me.

Regardless, the DA was out of order exonerating anyone - she doesn't have that power.

Like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Hey, Boesp, can I join your ‘Agree to Disagree’ group? IIRC, wasn’t ML the priestess of Boulder County and could do what she wanted? Oh, wait a minute, Garnett said they weren’t priests and it wasn’t their role to “forgive”, “exonerate.” Yeah, what he said exactly was “Under our system of justice everyone is presumed innocent (or, is "exonerated" ), unless charges are brought and there is a conviction by a jury in open court.”

Of course, others may remind that Beckner’s statement in the Daily Camera characterizes the tDna as the smoking gun, the smoking gun which identifies the perp. However, one should also quote the substantive response he gave to the tDna question in Reddit, before he found out it wasn’t a private chat room, and the public was reading. A Reddit participant questioned Beckner about the new DNA testing and asked for a rebuttal to Kolar’s assertion that the DNA in no way exonerates the Rs, and that the idea it even clears the parents is ludicrous. Beckner responded: “Sorry, I can't provide the rebuttal, as I agree with Jim Kolar. Exonerating anyone based on a small piece of evidence that has not yet been proven to even be connected to the crime is absurd in my opinion. You must look at any case in the totality of all the evidence, circumstances, statements, etc. in coming to conclusions.

Carry on, just my :twocents:

 

[OliviaG1996]

Ok, so have you heard that Chet Ubowski stated that he believed Patsy wrote the RN as her handwriting was consistent in 24 out of 26 letters of the alphabet?

Privately, however, Ubowski, who had made the early discovery that Patsy’s handwriting was consistent with the ransom note on twenty-four of the twenty-six alphabet letters, had recently told one detective, “I believe she wrote it.”
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 174

However, during the course of his deposition, he was questioned about the accuracy of this:

2 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) After your book
3 came out, sir, were you aware that
4 Mr. Ubowski publicly denied the accuracy of
5 the statement that he concluded Patsy Ramsey
6 wrote the ransom note?
7 A. No. You're telling me this for
8 the first time.
9 Q. Are you familiar that Mr. Ubowski
10 stated that he had never reached the
11 conclusion that 24 of her letters out of the
12 26 letters of the alphabet were matched with
13 the ransom note?
14 A. No, I have not heard that.
15 Q. And you stated to the contrary in
16 your book, didn't you?
17 A. Yeah, I stated what I was told by
18 my detective sergeant.
19 Q. And you weren't even, I guess,
20 aware that Mr. Ubowski and the CBI said they
21 don't even make that kind of analysis with
22 respect to the 24 out of the 26 letters of
23 the alphabet, you don't know anything about
24 that --
25 A. No.
1 Q. -- in terms of the public
2 statement by the CBI after your book was
3 published?
4 A. The CBI made a public statement?
5 Q. Yes, sir.
6 A. As an organization, I haven't seen
7 that.

BBM: I'd like to read this public statement. Is it available online? As for Chet Ubowski's alleged denial of saying Patsy was the author of the ransom note, I found this here:

"Detectives quickly determined that the note had been written on a pad of paper found in the Ramseys' house, with a Sharpie pen also found in the home.

"Convinced that the ransom note had most likely been written at the house, investigators next took writing samples from dozens of people, including John, Patsy Ramsey and Burke Ramsey, John Ramsey's children from his first marriage, former friend Fleet White, Bill McReynolds, who portrayed Santa Claus at the Ramseys' Christmas party, neighbor Joe Barnhill, and others.

"Handwriting experts from CBI eliminated John Ramsey as the note's author, but they couldn't do the same for Patsy. Although they collected at least five handwriting samples from Patsy, along with 'historic' samples of things she wrote before JonBenét's death, they could neither eliminate her as the writer, nor say definitively that she was.

"Chet Ubowski of CBI wrote of one of her samples that 'This handwriting showed indications that the writer was Patsy Ramsey.' Ubowski told investigators that the samples she gave 'do not suggest the full range of her handwriting.'"


By "full range of her handwriting" I assume he's talking about the 24 out of 26 letters.

 

[UKGuy]

If what you say is fact, then why lie about the true bill the Grand Jury sent down. Why not use protocol, such as a filing to the contrary or whatever it is they do in Colorado, instead of years of lying about the Grand Jury decision.

Innocent people and their representatives don't need to lie.

BOESP,
This is why the case is RDI. No amount of nonsense put out by the IDI apologists can delete those Ramsey charges.

Innocent people and their representatives don't need to lie.

Not unless its really BDI?

.