The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee, you were the one who brought up JR carrying her, not me. You're arguing against yourself.

It is a FACT JR carried her up from the basement. There were lots of witnesses, some of them LE.
No argument there. BOTH parents touched those waistbands. Patsy when she dressed her in them, and JR when he carried her up. He may also have redressed her- we don't know who did what.

 

[vlpate]

They may have only tested a few items. We have no idea what all they tested. Touch DNA can't be recovered well from any material. And touch DNA isn't usually going to be there even if the item was touched. They're lucky they found this much.



Yes, we shed, but what does that have to do with the forensics? Are you saying they collected dust and tested it?

You left off the part where I corrected myself. I didn't realize one had to actually "touch" something for the skins cells shed to be defined as "touch" DNA. Still confusing.

As for what they tested....surely you agree they would have tested all the evidence the "intruder" would had to have "touched" that night. All of different texture and material.

I wonder if JonBenet had the longjohn on under the pants she wore to the party...someone whose DNA hasn't been tested may have helped her in the bathroom. But then, I just can't imagine she was wearing the huge panties at the party. Still, the DNA could have transferred from the longjohns to the panties. But then, whomever helped her would have said something by now....or would they....hmmm

 

[UKGuy]

You left off the part where I corrected myself. I didn't realize one had to actually "touch" something for the skins cells shed to be defined as "touch" DNA. Still confusing.

As for what they tested....surely you agree they would have tested all the evidence the "intruder" would had to have "touched" that night. All of different texture and material.

I wonder if JonBenet had the longjohn on under the pants she wore to the party...someone whose DNA hasn't been tested may have helped her in the bathroom. But then, I just can't imagine she was wearing the huge panties at the party. Still, the DNA could have transferred from the longjohns to the panties. But then, whomever helped her would have said something by now....or would they....hmmm

vlpate,
If JonBenet was wearing those size-12's to the White's party, then both the size-12's and her black velvet pants should have fibers from either. None is not conclusive, but it would not look good for those that claim JonBenet wore them to the White's party.

Can you imagine Patsy, who says she already disagreed with JonBenet's gap-top selection, allowing JonBenet to wear those size-12's?

Consider this: Patsy stated the longjohns were clean on JonBenet straight out the bathroom drawer. So theoretically there should be no dna other than JonBenet's and Patsy's on those longjohns. OK we will add John's because he carried JonBenet upstairs.

Does this not minimize the probable source for the touch-dna? e.g. an intruder, secondary transfer by gloves, size-12 package, flashlight, size-6 underwear?

John Ramsey's shirt fibers are allegedly deposited on the inside of the size-12's, just like the touch-dna, could this be a source, did John Ramsey have foreign touch-dna on his shirt, which contaminated the size-12's, alternatively, did he unknowingly have this touch-dna on his hands prior to handling the longjohns?

Also we can infer that the touch-dna arrived on JonBenet during the cleanup phase, since it was deposited inside the size-12's and on the outside of the longjohns. A stronger inference is that there should be the same touch-dna deposited inside JonBenet because Coroner Meyer stated that JonBenet has been subject to digital penetration. Also the same touch-dna should be at least be deposited on the broken paintbrush handle or the ligature cord?

With a lack of any corroborating evidence regarding the touch-dna, its seems probable that the touch-dna was transferred from John Ramsey's Israeli manufactured shirt, more so, if as alleged he wiped her down with this shirt!




.

 

[Junebug99]

The DNA in the underwear has never been identified as touch DNA, I hope one day testing is advanced enough they can tell us the source. The fact the LE said it could be from a factory worker sneezing makes me think that the reports that say they think it's saliva are accurate. I read an article that one day DNA testing will actually provide a pic of the perp, cool huh?

 

[UKGuy]

The DNA in the underwear has never been identified as touch DNA, I hope one day testing is advanced enough they can tell us the source. The fact the LE said it could be from a factory worker sneezing makes me think that the reports that say they think it's saliva are accurate. I read an article that one day DNA testing will actually provide a pic of the perp, cool huh?

Junebug99,

The DNA in the underwear has never been identified as touch DNA, I hope one day testing is advanced enough they can tell us the source.

Just why do think other members are as ignorant as you are? If they can extract the dna from the cells provided then from the cells types they know whether its semen or saliva DNA. Since both these cell types differ in their structure!

Also if it had not been touch-dna then this would have been evidence of an intruder, yet the DA or LW have said nothing!

So please stop posting misinformation, otherwise members might think you are working for LW or the Ramseys.




.

 

[Junebug99]

Junebug99,

Just why do think other members are as ignorant as you are? If they can extract the dna from the cells provided then from the cells types they know whether its semen or saliva DNA. Since both these cell types differ in their structure!

Also if it had not been touch-dna then this would have been evidence of an intruder, yet the DA or LW have said nothing!

So please stop posting misinformation, otherwise members might think you are working for LW or the Ramseys.

You're calling me ignorant? That is laughable. Unless you can source your BS, then I will consider it exactly what it is, BS. I have posted link after link regarding the DNA and I have yet to see a link disputing it. You RDI theorist are all the same, you deny everything pointing to idi, but refuse to post proof. We are just suppose to take your word for it, that's not how I roll, back up your claims, it shouldn't be hard, if they are true.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Let me ask you this, Junebug...

Does it kinda seem like the Rs made some weird choices the morning of Dec. 26th? Choices that actually would have ended up endangering their two youngest children, rather than protecting them?

As if they already knew what the outcome would be, and that there was no real SFF or a kidnapper/pedo intruder...

First Patsy has two different stories about finding the RN and/or JonBenet not in her bed. Check on a jumper, see the bed empty, find the note - or go to make coffee, and see the note and then find the bed empty?

Then when she does find the RN, she doesn't even bother to read it all the way through - which gives her the excuse to call police AND another half-dozen family friends.

The only connection she has to her missing child and she can't be bothered to read it all?

Then she passes it off to JR, and he...goes and lays it on the hallway floor to read? What? Oh, yeah, cause businessmen don't think to stand under a light to read an important paper - the only trace to where the missing child is - they, of course, spread it out on the floor and get down on all fours to read things of such magnitude.

Please. That was, IMO, really pouring it on thick. If the light is so good on all fours, how much better would it be standing up, right under the light, with no shadow of your head being thrown down as you kneel over it? How about a task light lamp at a desk? How about any light at all, just figure out where the 6 year old is! And he's describing kneeling, as if it's the most normal and logical thing to do.

Kneeling, for the love of God.

And Patsy's on a frantic dialing rampage, calling everyone she can think of because she hasn't read the note all the way through? Doing EXACTLY what the note says NOT to do if they want JonBenet to live to see 1997. And JR never runs over and slams his hand on the phone to cut her off in the middle of her roll once he gets that far in the note - to SAVE his daughter's life??? Doesn't try to stop her in any way, even after he's read the note and knows what threats have been made?

Oh, hells no. I don't believe either JR or PR were that egregiously careless with their beloved daughter's life, or ever would be. IMO, they already knew she was dead in the basement and that there was NO danger to JonBenet in calling as many people as Patsy could finger that keypad through. Both of them KNEW they needed as many people as possible over trample through the house and raise that so-desperately-needed potential evidence of someone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night.

Then...and this is the part that REALLY made me a believer that both PR and JR were in on it together from the get go - they actually send Burke OUT...not knowing where this kidnapper is, if they're being watched, whether they're ready to cut JonBenet's head off or not. They care so little about BOTH of their children that they are willing to risk having JonBenet murdered by whoever has her *AND* that same kidnapping faction ALSO getting hold of Burke and killing him, too...?

I think not. I think both JR and PR knew that Burke was in no danger of being assaulted or kidnapped or murdered by the author of the RN, and that they also knew JonBenet was in no danger, either (other the heinous danger that had already befallen her and left them all in this state.)

I do not believe for one second that either PR or JR would have chanced anything happening to either Burke or JonBenet, if they had actually believed the RN was written by someone who kidnapped JonBenet and was "monitoring" them, ready to kill her if they deviated at all from the instructions given in the RN.

IMO, the Rs knew the RN was a fake, and they knew JonBenet was dead in the basement. Otherwise, I can't see how they would have gambled with their children's lives like that. And that's exactly what they did. As if they didn't care if either of their two children were killed by them not even bothering to read the RN or heed the threats spelled out in it.

It doesn't make sense.

If you need links, please refer to the books "Death Of Innocence" by John and Patsy Ramsey, and "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" by Lawrence Schiller. Also "Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation" by Steve Thomas, if you wish to accept it.

 

[UKGuy]

Junebug99,

Just why do think other members are as ignorant as you are? If they can extract the dna from the cells provided then from the cells types they know whether its semen or saliva DNA. Since both these cell types differ in their structure!

Also if it had not been touch-dna then this would have been evidence of an intruder, yet the DA or LW have said nothing!

So please stop posting misinformation, otherwise members might think you are working for LW or the Ramseys.

You're calling me ignorant? That is laughable. Unless you can source your BS, then I will consider it exactly what it is, BS. I have posted link after link regarding the DNA and I have yet to see a link disputing it. You RDI theorist are all the same, you deny everything pointing to idi, but refuse to post proof. We are just suppose to take your word for it, that's not how I roll, back up your claims, it shouldn't be hard, if they are true.

Junebug99,
Will you stop wasting board members time. Its fairly obvious to IDI and RDI alike that if the DNA recovered from JonBenet's underwear was not touch-dna that would constitute prima facie evidence of an intruder.

To date neither Team Ramsey or the Boulder DA have made such a claim. Their claim is that the owner of the touch-dna is an intruder, but their DNA analysis does not offer any proof e.g. identifying the underwear sample as semen-dna or saliva-dna!

Some things do not need links, just the use of grey matter!




.

 

[Junebug99]

I will if you will, my opinions are no more wrong than yours.

 

[Junebug99]

Junebug99,
Will you stop wasting board members time. Its fairly obvious to IDI and RDI alike that if the DNA recovered from JonBenet's underwear was not touch-dna that would constitute prima facie evidence of an intruder.

To date neither Team Ramsey or the Boulder DA have made such a claim. Their claim is that the owner of the touch-dna is an intruder, but their DNA analysis does not offer any proof e.g. identifying the underwear sample as semen-dna or saliva-dna!

Some things do not need links, just the use of grey matter!


Until you link it, I'm ignoring you. I love how I am just suppose to take your word for it, which contradicts every thing I have read, no one knows for sure what kind of DNA it is, it could be from saliva, they don't know. And unless you've got some sort of super powers you don't know either. So link it or don't comment on my post, it's that simple.

.

 

[wonderllama]

I think you missed the "if" in the same sentence.

In fact, the quoting in this thread is all over the place and is making it even LESS coherent that it probably isn't!

 

[DeeDee249]

Just a point about the panty DNA- Please correct me if I an wrong, but the way I understand it, the TOUCH DNA was found on the WAISTBAND of the panties and longjohns, but the DNA under the spot of JB's blood in the panty crotch has not been identified as to it's substance. Therefore, the DNA ON the panties is Touch DNA/skin cells and the DNA IN the panties is unidentified.

 

[vlpate]

The DNA in the underwear has never been identified as touch DNA, I hope one day testing is advanced enough they can tell us the source. The fact the LE said it could be from a factory worker sneezing makes me think that the reports that say they think it's saliva are accurate. I read an article that one day DNA testing will actually provide a pic of the perp[/
B], cool huh?

BEM - A pic, like a picture? Did the article maybe say "snapshot"?

Information is only as good as the source, IMO.

 

[vlpate]

Let me ask you this, Junebug...

Does it kinda seem like the Rs made some weird choices the morning of Dec. 26th? Choices that actually would have ended up endangering their two youngest children, rather than protecting them?

As if they already knew what the outcome would be, and that there was no real SFF or a kidnapper/pedo intruder...

First Patsy has two different stories about finding the RN and/or JonBenet not in her bed. Check on a jumper, see the bed empty, find the note - or go to make coffee, and see the note and then find the bed empty?

Then when she does find the RN, she doesn't even bother to read it all the way through - which gives her the excuse to call police AND another half-dozen family friends.

The only connection she has to her missing child and she can't be bothered to read it all?

Then she passes it off to JR, and he...goes and lays it on the hallway floor to read? What? Oh, yeah, cause businessmen don't think to stand under a light to read an important paper - the only trace to where the missing child is - they, of course, spread it out on the floor and get down on all fours to read things of such magnitude.

Please. That was, IMO, really pouring it on thick. If the light is so good on all fours, how much better would it be standing up, right under the light, with no shadow of your head being thrown down as you kneel over it? How about a task light lamp at a desk? How about any light at all, just figure out where the 6 year old is! And he's describing kneeling, as if it's the most normal and logical thing to do.

Kneeling, for the love of God.

And Patsy's on a frantic dialing rampage, calling everyone she can think of because she hasn't read the note all the way through? Doing EXACTLY what the note says NOT to do if they want JonBenet to live to see 1997. And JR never runs over and slams his hand on the phone to cut her off in the middle of her roll once he gets that far in the note - to SAVE his daughter's life??? Doesn't try to stop her in any way, even after he's read the note and knows what threats have been made?

Oh, hells no. I don't believe either JR or PR were that egregiously careless with their beloved daughter's life, or ever would be. IMO, they already knew she was dead in the basement and that there was NO danger to JonBenet in calling as many people as Patsy could finger that keypad through. Both of them KNEW they needed as many people as possible over trample through the house and raise that so-desperately-needed potential evidence of someone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night.

Then...and this is the part that REALLY made me a believer that both PR and JR were in on it together from the get go - they actually send Burke OUT...not knowing where this kidnapper is, if they're being watched, whether they're ready to cut JonBenet's head off or not. They care so little about BOTH of their children that they are willing to risk having JonBenet murdered by whoever has her *AND* that same kidnapping faction ALSO getting hold of Burke and killing him, too...?

I think not. I think both JR and PR knew that Burke was in no danger of being assaulted or kidnapped or murdered by the author of the RN, and that they also knew JonBenet was in no danger, either (other the heinous danger that had already befallen her and left them all in this state.)

I do not believe for one second that either PR or JR would have chanced anything happening to either Burke or JonBenet, if they had actually believed the RN was written by someone who kidnapped JonBenet and was "monitoring" them, ready to kill her if they deviated at all from the instructions given in the RN.

IMO, the Rs knew the RN was a fake, and they knew JonBenet was dead in the basement. Otherwise, I can't see how they would have gambled with their children's lives like that. And that's exactly what they did. As if they didn't care if either of their two children were killed by them not even bothering to read the RN or heed the threats spelled out in it.

It doesn't make sense.

If you need links, please refer to the books "Death Of Innocence" by John and Patsy Ramsey, and "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" by Lawrence Schiller. Also "Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation" by Steve Thomas, if you wish to accept it.

Very nice. I would add that if it were me, I'd have dragged Burke's little behind out of bed and questioned him until I was sure he did not hear or see ANYTHING. She just let him sleep and then sent him off without so much as a question. Are you kidding me? The only way this adds up is if they were trying to hide something from him or he was involved.

 

[Junebug99]

Just a point about the panty DNA- Please correct me if I an wrong, but the way I understand it, the TOUCH DNA was found on the WAISTBAND of the panties and longjohns, but the DNA under the spot of JB's blood in the panty crotch has not been identified as to it's substance. Therefore, the DNA ON the panties is Touch DNA/skin cells and the DNA IN the panties is unidentified.

That is how I understand it, (except it being on the sides of the panties)and it all matched. Since touch DNA wasn't even invented in 1997, I don't see how the DNA commingled with the blood in her underwear can be considered touch. It's thought to be saliva, but that is not certain. It was once speculated that a worker had sneezed on them at some point, but that wouldn't explain the DNA on long johns and under fingernails. I read so many conflicting reports and he said she said I become more confused everyday.

 

[learnin]

You left off the part where I corrected myself. I didn't realize one had to actually "touch" something for the skins cells shed to be defined as "touch" DNA. Still confusing.

As for what they tested....surely you agree they would have tested all the evidence the "intruder" would had to have "touched" that night. All of different texture and material.

I wonder if JonBenet had the longjohn on under the pants she wore to the party...someone whose DNA hasn't been tested may have helped her in the bathroom. But then, I just can't imagine she was wearing the huge panties at the party. Still, the DNA could have transferred from the longjohns to the panties. But then, whomever helped her would have said something by now....or would they....hmmm

"I wonder if JonBenet had the longjohn on under the pants she wore to the party..."

I believe JBR did have the longjohns on at the party under her pants.

I also believe the unknown DNA might have came from the handlebar grips of JBR's new Christmas bicycle. It is a known fact that foreign DNA is contained on handlebar grips. People grip handlebars tightly and with sweaty hands. How many children handled JBR's christmas bike in the store before it was purchased? How many neighborhood children handled the bike that day?
At any rate, you can rest assured there was foreign DNA on those handlebar grips. I believe JBR could have gotten some of that DNA on her hands, went to the bathroom, at some point, transferred the DNA to her longjohns and then her crotch. At some point, she could have washed her hands and that explains how the DNA ended up under her fingernails very degraded.

Is it a coincidence that the places this DNA is supposedly found, are all places we could expect that JBR touched? I'd like to hear about the ligature rope? If the DA was testing for touch DNA, why not start with the ligature rope because we know...KNOW.... the perp touched the rope. I'll guarantee you there is no unknown DNA that matches the longjohn DNA.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave, it was a rhetorical question, because the obvious answer is it indicates he had no idea the pad was used for the RN. But this is a discussion forum, you can give give whatever opinion you want.

A simple "no" would have done just fine!

 

[BBB167893]

Your first sentence says it all. Private detectives hired by the Ramseys

NO kidding! I swear, DD, I think they think we're stupid or something.

 

[Whaleshark]

"I wonder if JonBenet had the longjohn on under the pants she wore to the party..."

I believe JBR did have the longjohns on at the party under her pants.

So why would Patsy say she changed JonBenet into those longjohns for bed?

Wouldn't it have been easier for her to say, if true, that when she got JonBenet ready for bed she just took her pants off and left her in the longjohns she already had on. That way she could have said she didn't even see under the longjohns to see the underwear either?

 

[vlpate]

"I wonder if JonBenet had the longjohn on under the pants she wore to the party..."

I believe JBR did have the longjohns on at the party under her pants.

I also believe the unknown DNA might have came from the handlebar grips of JBR's new Christmas bicycle. It is a known fact that foreign DNA is contained on handlebar grips. People grip handlebars tightly and with sweaty hands. How many children handled JBR's christmas bike in the store before it was purchased? How many neighborhood children handled the bike that day?
At any rate, you can rest assured there was foreign DNA on those handlebar grips. I believe JBR could have gotten some of that DNA on her hands, went to the bathroom, at some point, transferred the DNA to her longjohns and then her crotch. At some point, she could have washed her hands and that explains how the DNA ended up under her fingernails very degraded.

Is it a coincidence that the places this DNA is supposedly found, are all places we could expect that JBR touched? I'd like to hear about the ligature rope? If the DA was testing for touch DNA, why not start with the ligature rope because we know...KNOW.... the perp touched the rope. I'll guarantee you there is no unknown DNA that matches the longjohn DNA.

BEM: ....and the pen, paper, door knob to JonBenet's room, the pineapple bowl, her blanket, the legs of her long johns, the stair railings, the door to the basement - you know darn well they tested all of these things and the only place they found the foreign DNA was the waist of the longjohns and her undies.

Good point about the bicycle handlebars...