Team JonBenet

[Nuisanceposter]

"...could have very well been his" isn't identified. The print is today unidentified.

"...PR hasn't been excluded as the author" doesnt mean shes the author. The handwriting is today unidentified.

I'm reading about an unidentified palm print, unidentified DNA, missing roll of duct tape, and missing cord remnants too.

There's no way to age that footprint. It could have come from any of the workers the Rs had previously employed. It could have been a cop's footprint. It could have been Burke's. No one knows for sure when it left there.

Out of 73 people tested, Patsy was the only one not excluded. That says a lot. And there are several experts who say it looks like Patsy wrote it.

The palm print on the wine cellar door? There were three - one was Melinda's, the other two were Patsy's (ST's book). The killer had to push that door shut in order to leave it in the latched position it was in.

The old and degraded DNA? Could have easily been a factory worker or some inspector. Could have come from anyone who used the toilet before JB did as well.

Duct tape could have been taken off of any number of places in the house. There was no evidence on it that it had been on JB's lips while she was alive, that says more than it being there.

Cord? Same thing. Could have been a remnant floating around that the stager saw and thought was a good choice.

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks for that link. I have it in my notes.

"But when your 6 year old daughter wets the bed, even if it is for the 1000th time, when you have automatic washing and drying machines, an unlimited supply of sheets and a housekeeper to boot? I don't think so."

When you're worn out from trying to have Christmas in two places at once, possibly upset with your husband, and a few other contributing factors, it becomes a little easier.

"Are you saying Patsy's father sexually abused her? This is the first I ever heard of that."

It's possible, Goody. Aussiesheila's not the only one. Watch the tape of her interview when Tom Haney asks her about it. Her demeanor becomes that of a cringing, fearful child. Her voice becomes nearly inaudible. Admittedly, that's not proof, but it raises a red flag or two.

"Hand writing a 2 1/2 page ransom note while leaving a garrote around the murdered child made from pieces you broke off in your own paint tote isn't really a 'cover up', is it. Its a mess, isn't it?"

Sometimes I wonder if any of us could do any better?

"Hello, there was nothing overwhelming to link either parent to the murder, even though there was a ton of crime scene evidence."

You have a point. Each piece, by itself, is arguable. But all together, each brick becomes a wall.

"Dude...out of 73 people, Patsy alone was never excluded as the author of the ransom note, the note that was written on paper from inside the house with a pen from inside the house. That's overwhelming, if you ask me. Add in fibers matching her jacket found in the paint tray, on the piece of tape, and in the knot of the garotte. A less wealthy and affluent woman would have not have fared as well as Patsy Ramsey did with that kind of evidence pointing at her."

NP is right. There are people sitting in prison right now who were put there with less evidence than they had against Patsy. You want to free them all, HOTYH? Heck, Dennis DeChaine confessed to killing Sarah Cherry, but they're still trying to free him on DNA "evidence" no stronger than in this case!

"I thought the black fibers were from John's shirt??"

That's what the prosecutors said back in 2000. And as some of you might know, a prosecutor cannot lie to a suspect. They could be disbarred for that.

"OMG you're not serious, are you?!? PR's fibers found on JBR? PR is JBR's MOM! Of course she has her fibers all over her!"

But they're not "all over her," they're in very specific places.

"There's not ZERO evidence. There's an unidentifed footprint, unidentified handwriting, and cord and tape from an unknown source."

A footprint linked to Burke, and cord and tape that just "happen" to match items on a credit card bill in the house. Isn't that odd?

"There is ZERO evidence of any animosity towards JBR from any of her family members."

You don't understand, HOTYH. I don't think anyone is saying that there was. Patsy LOVED her. Of that, I have no doubt. She could never WILL her death. But she wasn't, imo, thinking of JB. She was only thinking of herself.

"That's overwhelming evidence that Patsy wrote the note, I agree. But it is not overwhelming evidence that Patsy or John or Burke killed JonBenet, accidentally or otherwise IMO."

Aussiesheila, you've got me there.

"Patsy fibers in Patsy's paint tray would have an innocent explanation."

They might, if not for the fact that she claims she never went near it that day.

"Patsy fibers on the piece of tape would also have an innocent explanation if as I believe, that the duct tape was pre-used, found lying around somewhere in the basement and placed over JonBenet's mouth after death."

Possible.

"Patsy fibers in the knot of the garotte is not a fact as far as I am aware."

I'm afraid it is. Give me some time, and I'll dig up the transcript for you. Speaking of which, Patsy's reaction when Levin tells her that the fibers are hers is quite telling: she looks like she's about to faint.

"Out of 73 people tested, Patsy was the only one not excluded. That says a lot. And there are several experts who say it looks like Patsy wrote it."

Some of them will go further than that.

 

[Britt]

I'm thinking the black fibres were 'consistent with' JR's black shirt.

Yes, that's what was stated in the 2000 Atlanta interviews, that black fibers from John's shirt were found on JonBenet's underwear.

 

[Britt]

Hand writing a 2 1/2 page ransom note while leaving a garrote around the murdered child made from pieces you broke off in your own paint tote isn't really a 'cover up', is it. Its a mess, isn't it?

Compared to what? A "mess" would be your child dead or near death on the bathroom floor and you with nowhere to go and no way to explain it.

Why would an intruder need the props in the first place, much less leave them behind as evidence?

 

[Britt]

When your husband is worth 7 million, you know how to spell 'b-u-s-i-n-e-s-s."

But you also know that a ransom-note-writing intruder might not.

 

[Brefie]

Well I do think so, because even if, in spite of all these benefits, your own father had sexually abused you when you were a small girl and you still haven't dealt with it, then when he starts abusing your own daughter and you are suffering the onset of ovarian cancer, I don't think you have the mental strength, especially if your husband is away on business a lot, to stand up for your daughter and stop it from happening to her. After that it's just an inexorable slide into having to accept that another, that being your husband's best friend, has possibly joined in the abusing also.

This post above basically says everything we are discussing hinges on Don abusing Patsy, no?

So when I challenge you, you produce this:

aussiesheila
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brefie
Good Lord. You don't FIGHT off a child molester everytime he wants to have his way with your child. I imagine you only have to let most abusers that you are on to them to get them to stop. I mean, really, if it's an on-going struggle to keep a child abuser away, then that's just plain demented and why wouldn't you shop them to the police???
It's not a matter of having to FIGHT off a child molester at all. The molester isn't going to do anything in front of Patsy or John for heaven's sake. In fact child molesters go out of their way to be friendly and helpful and generally well-liked and trusted by the parents. That way the mother (in this case) is going to feel happy leaving her daughter in the care of these people for whatever reason. She is never going to see any evidence of the abuse unless it is those vague symptoms that a pediatrician (if he is unscrupulous) can reassure the mother are due to innocent things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brefie
And I have NEVER, EVER heard of a mother just 'having to accept' that her husband's best friend is joining in the 'abuse'. Why wouldn't she just tell John?
Are you saying that because you have NEVER, EVER heard of a mother just 'having to accept' that her husband's best friend is joining in the 'abuse' that it never happens? This is erroneous thinking, a lot of things happen in the world that most people never hear about.

I am saying that in Patsy's case I think she must have decided, however subconciously, to accept what was happening. Clearly IMO, she suspected something because she was constantly taking JonBenet to Dr B. She seemed to accept his excuses for all the complaints that JonBenet suffered from, so she didn't really put up a fight, I say in that sense, she 'accepted' the abuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brefie
And 'POSSIBLY' joined in the abusing? Are you suggesting that Patsy offered up JonBenet to so many people she wasn't quite sure who all of the members were?
What I am saying is that just as she never saw her father do anything to JonBenet, she never saw this other person either. I have never suggested she 'offered up' JonBenet to anyone. I think the friend would have started abusing JonBenet at parties or when she came over to play with his daughter. Patsy would have seen indications but again, she went to Dr B, and again he made all the excuses that Patsy accepted.

Why didn't she tell John? Too difficult? Easier and more comfortable to keep it hidden? That is as close as I can can get to a reason.

The thing is that with situations like this it all starts so gradually and builds up little by little so that by the time you take a stand you are already involved yourself in that you have allowed it to happen for some time before blowing the whistle. The cunning abusers know this and use it against you, so that if Patsy was to tell John, she not only would have to face up to the fact that she was abused as a child, she would also have to explain to him why she had let it get to the stage it had.

Easier to ignore it and expect JonBenet to live with it, just as she did. What we experience in our families as children we accept as 'normal'. I don't think we ever escape from that. If the 'normal' experiences of your childhood happen to your own child it is much easier to accept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brefie
I don't know whose opinion of Patsy is worse....I daresay it's yours.
Although I feel pretty angry at Patsy, I keep telling myself she was a victim, which she was and she really should be pitied. If she was sexually abused by her father as a child she would have been very damaged by it. Not all victims are fortunate enough to get the therapy or whatever is required to get them to face up to what happened to them as a child and to begin to recover from it and heal to whatever extent is possible and to call themselves survivors. I think must be enormously confronting and traumatic to start this process and some people just never manage to do it for whatever reason and I would not like to judge them for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brefie
Edited to add: what makes you think Don abused Patsy?
.I'll have to leave my answer to this for the time being. I don't have the sources at my fingertips but I do have some. Will post later. Jayelles has the best one

If your argument hinges on Don molesting Patsy, how on earth are we supposed to discuss this?

 

[Toltec]

You're willing to believe that Patsy brought over Pedophiles to molest JonBenet yet she would not be capable of killing her??? Puleeez!

When asked about the fibers from her sweater, Patsy goes on to say that Priscilla had a sweater like hers...going so far as to say she might have borrowed the sweater Christmas night because she might have been a little chilly???? HUH??? She is clearly obfuscating the question, throwing a monkey wrench as they say.

There were fibers from a San Diego Chargers blanket that David Westerfield owned on Danielle Van Damm's earrings. The monster raped the poor baby and then used the blanket to either wrap her in it or placed her over it in his bedroom.

That sweater of Patsy's sure got around that night....going as far as the paint tote and the cord wrapped around that baby's neck. And how does Patsy explain that??? "Oh, Priscilla has a sweater like mine."

The flashlight? "It kind of looks like one John owns"

The duct tape? "It's too gooey."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

A footprint linked to Burke, and cord and tape that just "happen" to match items on a credit card bill in the house. Isn't that odd?

There's no footprint linked to Burke. There's no credit card bill with cord and tape on it. Where do you get this stuff?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

There's no way to age that footprint. It could have come from any of the workers the Rs had previously employed. It could have been a cop's footprint. It could have been Burke's. No one knows for sure when it left there.

Out of 73 people tested, Patsy was the only one not excluded. That says a lot. And there are several experts who say it looks like Patsy wrote it.

The palm print on the wine cellar door? There were three - one was Melinda's, the other two were Patsy's (ST's book). The killer had to push that door shut in order to leave it in the latched position it was in.

The old and degraded DNA? Could have easily been a factory worker or some inspector. Could have come from anyone who used the toilet before JB did as well.

Duct tape could have been taken off of any number of places in the house. There was no evidence on it that it had been on JB's lips while she was alive, that says more than it being there.

Cord? Same thing. Could have been a remnant floating around that the stager saw and thought was a good choice.

This is a pretty good example of intruder evidence being obfuscated for the sake of a rather dubious RDI staging claim. Its starting to look like JBR was dragged from her bedroom by the garrote and ligatures. This is far more likely and reality based than the garrote made up as a prop. The old and degraded DNA could be from the intruder. The duct tape and cord could have come from new rolls the intruder took with him. The handwriting, footprint, and palmprint could have come from the intruder.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Compared to what? A "mess" would be your child dead or near death on the bathroom floor and you with nowhere to go and no way to explain it.

Why would an intruder need the props in the first place, much less leave them behind as evidence?

What bathroom floor? Is there something I missed, becuase I haven't heard anything about the bathroom floor. Was the garrote found there? Did something happen that night in the bathroom? I thought JBR was found in the basement?

What props? He actually used the garrote on JBR. It was a weapon, not a prop!

 

[Britt]

...I haven't heard anything about the bathroom floor. Was the garrote found there? Did something happen that night in the bathroom? I thought JBR was found in the basement?

And I thought they found a ransom note. Where was the kidnapping? Which part of the presentation do we assume isn't a lie?

What props? He actually used the garrote on JBR. It was a weapon, not a prop!

He used a heavy object on her, too, so why didn't he leave that with the body as well?

If the garrote wasn't a prop, why did the perp leave it?

 

[BBB167893]

"Did something happen that night in the bathroom?"

Some of us think that's where the head blow took place.

There's no way she was dragged by that garrote. There was no upward deviation.

"There's no footprint linked to Burke. There's no credit card bill with cord and tape on it. Where do you get this stuff?"

Well, the footprint is from a news article from August 2002. The credit card bill is from PMPT and ST's book. It doesn't have the actual items on it, but the two prices at McGuckin's Hardware were identical. That's one hell of a coincidence.

"The old and degraded DNA could be from the intruder."

That doesn't make any sense, because JB had her DNA there, too, and it was just fine.

"The handwriting, footprint, and palmprint could have come from the intruder."

Most of the investigators say they didn't.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Wha? I thought you said the roll and cord were on a credit card bill. You mean only the amount was on the bill? what was the amount?

 

[BBB167893]

I never said that. I said it's one hell of a coinkydink!

The amounts escape me for the moment. But I'll find them!

 

[Jayelles]

I never said that. I said it's one hell of a coinkydink!

The amounts escape me for the moment. But I'll find them!

The amounts are irrelevant - peanuts. Alas the bill wasn't itemised. ALl we know is that Patsy made purchases in McGuckins Store just before Christmas and that one of the items was the same price as a roll of the duct tape used in the murder (did the cord come from there too? I wouldn't swear to having read that).

Patsy denied buying the duct tape. She would have been more believable perhaps if she and John hadn't refused interviews for 4 months and then denied knowledge of practically everything.

 

[BBB167893]

The amounts are irrelevant - peanuts. Alas the bill wasn't itemised. ALl we know is that Patsy made purchases in McGuckins Store just before Christmas and that one of the items was the same price as a roll of the duct tape used in the murder (did the cord come from there too? I wouldn't swear to having read that).

Patsy denied buying the duct tape. She would have been more believable perhaps if she and John hadn't refused interviews for 4 months and then denied knowledge of practically everything.

I believe the cord did come from there, Jay.

 

[Jayelles]

I believe the cord did come from there, Jay.

The debate could well have included the cord. I just don't remember for sure.

 

[BBB167893]

I'm pretty sure.

 

[Brefie]

There's no footprint linked to Burke. There's no credit card bill with cord and tape on it. Where do you get this stuff?

Why is there no credit card info? What do the Ramsey's want to hide?

 

[Brefie]

I am pretty sure the amount was $2.29