Was BR involved? #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #261
You write as though you know the fake profile creator. Do you?
Nooo... I have an idea as to who the person(s) behind the fake profile may be, but I have no personal ties to him/them. We do have a FB friend in common, though; Mark Zuckerberg. :D




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • #262
Yes, but were hundreds of fibres found on the tape alone? And regardless, in a basement wine cellar, how do fibres from PRs jacket get on to a piece of duct tape? I contend that if this was indeed an intruder, there should not have been any fibres from PR on that tape.

I would say lots of ways what if JB laid on PR in the car, at the party, wallowed in her coat, I have taken my coat off tons of times in the car and put it over my 8 yo like a blanket, fibers are on JB, she puts nighties on, fibers were on skin or hair, duct tape applied , fibers get caught in tape, tape on body in basement , there ya go ?
 
  • #263
Yes, but were hundreds of fibres found on the tape alone? And regardless, in a basement wine cellar, how do fibres from PRs jacket get on to a piece of duct tape? I contend that if this was indeed an intruder, there should not have been any fibres from PR on that tape.
Yes, I believe hundreds of fibers were lifted from the tape, alone. I will find & post my source(s) ASAP.

Regarding your second point; The four fibers in question were not found to have come from PR's jacket. Rather, they were found to be microscopically similar. Black acrylic fibers are not a rarity. So, we do not know the origin of the fibers, but we know the possibility exists that they came from PR's jacket.

We also know that John Ramsey removed the tape from JB's mouth, then dropped it onto the blanket. Fleet White, then pulled the "sticky" tape off of the blanket, handled it, and, again, discarded it onto the blanket or the floor of the wine cellar. So, it is quite possible the fibers were transferred from the blanket to the tape or from the witnesses handling of the evidence; regardless of origin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • #264
Hundreds of fibers on the duct tape; unrefuted by Bruce Levin during JR's 2000 interview w/the BPD:

" 7 Q. (By Mr. Levin) I've got some
8 questions, Mr. Ramsey, that deal with fiber
9 evidence, and this is probably going to be
10 questions that your lawyer is going to advise
11 you not to answer, but I would like to pose
12 them to you.
13 MR. WOOD: Is this what we
14 discussed yesterday with Patsy?
15 MR. LEVIN: Different fibers
16 associated directly with --
17 MR. WOOD: I think the position
18 is, to save some time, if you want to
19 question Mr. Ramsey about test results, that
20 it is absolutely fair that we be allowed to
21 see the result ourselves before we answer
22 questions so that we are not dealing with
23 speculation and hypotheticals that are not
24 supported by the facts as you might represent
25 them.
0055
1 We couldn't get yesterday what I
2 discerned to be a consistent response from
3 any of you all about the test results that
4 you discussed on the red fiber. That just
5 tells me that, to try to go into this area
6 without being privy to the actual result, is
7 not something I am comfortable with in terms
8 of fundamental fairness. If you are willing
9 to disclose to us what you claim the result
10 to be, it makes absolutely no sense to me
11 that you would not share the actual result
12 with us. I do not see how that can in any
13 justified way impede your investigation or
14 prevent you from going forward with your
15 investigation.
16 So we are not comfortable with
17 your characterization of any test results
18 forensically. We will reconsider at the
19 appropriate time if we get there whether we
20 will answer those questions if you will
21 provide us with the actual result itself.
22 So that's our position yesterday. That's our
23 position today. That will be our position
24 tomorrow.
25 But if you will give us the
0056
1 results, we will look at them and we will
2 consider whether or not we can answer
3 questions based on those results.
4 Fair enough?
5 MR. LEVIN: I understand. And,
6 of course, and I believe you feel I am
7 entitled to at least pose the questions,
8 understanding your position, so they are part
9 of the record so this is an accurate --
10 MR. WOOD: Well, you can pose
11 them if you want to make a record, and I
12 think I understand pretty clearly why you
13 want to make that record based on what you
14 said yesterday.
15 I said yesterday I thought it was
16 an injustice for you to make those kinds of
17 representations through your questions or
18 statements.
19 If you are going to make
20 statements that contain some form of innuendo
21 that an article of clothing might possibly be
22 connected to some portion of the crime scene
23 or this man's daughter's body, I think you
24 have an obligation, not only to him but to
25 whoever reads that report and this
0057
1 transcript, to be candid and give full
2 disclosure, show the people what the results
3 are, show the people what you also had in
4 terms of fiber evidence.
5 We are told there are hundreds of
6 fibers, for example, on the duct tape. And
7 I think you have a fundamental right,
8 fundamental fairness requires that you
9 disclose that information and not single out
10 some hypothetical innuendo that unfairly casts
11 perhaps in someone's mind that reads this
12 some finger of blame at John or Patsy
13 Ramsey. I think it is totally inappropriate
14 for you to do so, but if you want to go
15 ahead and make a record for whatever reason,
16 I certainly am not here to stop you. You
17 have the right.
18 MR. LEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Wood.
19 I appreciate the opportunity.
20 MR. WOOD: Thank you.

21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is
22 our belief based on forensic evidence that
23 there are hairs that are associated, that the
24 source is the collared black shirt that you
25 sent us that are found in your daughter's
0058
1 underpants, and I wondered if you --
2 A. ********. I don't believe that.
3 I don't buy it. If you are trying to
4 disgrace my relationship with my daughter --
5 Q. Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to
6 disgrace --
7 A. Well, I don't believe it. I
8 think you are. That's disgusting.
9 MR. WOOD: I think you --
10 MR. LEVIN: I am not.
11 MR. WOOD: Yes, you are.
12 MR. LEVIN: And the follow-up
13 question would be --
14 MR. WOOD: Posing the question in
15 light of what I said to you yesterday is
16 nothing more than an attempt to make a
17 record that unfairly, unjustly, and in a
18 disgusting fashion points what you might
19 consider to be some finger of blame at this
20 man regarding his daughter, and you ought to
21 be ashamed of yourself for doing it, Bruce.
22 You knew we weren't going to
23 answer the question. Why don't you just
24 give us the report, and we'll put it out
25 there for someone to look at and tell us
0059
1 what it says and see how fair and accurate
2 you have been.
3 I know why you said what you said
4 yesterday about Patsy and the fibers and John
5 and the fibers. And you know why you did
6 it, Bruce. Because you want this somehow to
7 get out and then people will read that and
8 be prejudiced even further against this
9 family.
10 I just don't know why you want to
11 do it, but I can't stop you.
12 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood, if you
13 would like to, I would challenge you to find
14 any article anywhere that I have been quoted
15 as giving an opinion or any statement to the
16 press concerning this case.
17 MR. WOOD: You don't have to be
18 quoted. You don't have to be quoted.
19 MR. LEVIN: Or any piece of
20 evidence that I have released.
21 MR. WOOD: You don't have to be
22 quoted. You do not have to be quoted.
23 MR. LEVIN: This is a murder
24 investigation, and I am trying to get an
25 explanation, which can be an innocent
0060
1 explanation.
2 MR. WOOD: It could be, but you
3 pose your question as if it's not not.
4 That's what's unfair. Why don't you let us
5 see the report so we can know exactly what's
6 going on, exactly what other fibers were
7 found in that area so that you don't
8 unfairly cast an aspersion through innuendo
9 or suggestion toward this man and his
10 daughter.
11 It seems to me that you should
12 look over and go look, Mr. Wood, we want
13 your client's help, we will give you the
14 test results if it will help get this
15 answered, if it is so important, we'll tell
16 you whether there was another fiber or fibers
17 found that we doen't know where they came
18 from and maybe he can help you with that
19 information, but that is not what you are
20 doing. You are focusing on what you believe
21 is one specific area. And you are doing it
22 in a way that I think is just unfair.
23 Let me just answer your question
24 about you being quoted. Look, John and
25 Patsy Ramsey sat around for three years and
0061
1 did not go public with this case, even
2 though your people were talking to tabloids
3 and writing books and appearing on
4 television. Linda Arndt, Steve Thomas, Alex
5 Hunter.
6 You want to go through the litany
7 of how your people have publicly prosecuted
8 and persecuted this family, and now they
9 decided enough is enough and they tried to
10 go out with me, yes, sir, and them and try
11 to refute some of the absolute lies that
12 have been told about them. Do you have a
13 problem with that?
14 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood.
15 MR. WOOD: Because your people
16 have been saying it. I am not calling your
17 name. I don't know who it is linked to.
18 I don't know who gave the ransom note to
19 Vanity Fair. I'm not suggesting it is you.
20 But don't sit here and tell me that because
21 Bruce Levin hasn't been quoted that this
22 investigation from the Boulder Police
23 Department and the district attorney's office
24 is a lily white when it comes to talking
25 about this case in the media because that is
0062
1 false, and you know it.
2 MR. LEVIN: Now, Mr. Wood, if I
3 can just respond very briefly, and I want
4 Mr. Ramsey to listen to this because it's
5 important, the suggestion is that I am
6 suggesting that the only explanation for that
7 question is sinister. I am a part of a
8 team conducting an investigation into your
9 daughter's death, and an innocent explanation
10 that would help us further that investigation
11 is very welcome. I am not looking for a
12 sinister answer or innocent answer.
13 MR. WOOD: If you are looking for
14 that, then give us the test result and let
15 us know what it says.
16 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood, the fact
17 of --
18 MR. WOOD: No, Bruce. If you
19 wanted the answer so badly, you would give
20 us the test result instead of representing
21 what the test result is. I, for the life
22 of me, do not understand the logic.
23 You say we can tell you what the
24 test result is, but we can't show you the
25 test result. So trust us, Mr. Ramsey, and
0063
1 answer this hypothetical question.
2 If that information means that
3 much to this investigation, Bruce, you would
4 not hesitate to give us that report, period.
5 So let's move to something else.
6 MR. LEVIN: Let's move on to
7 another topic.
8 THE WITNESS: If the question is
9 how did fibers of your shirt get into your
10 daughter's underwear, I say that is not
11 possible. I don't believe it. That is
12 ridiculous."​
 
  • #265
I don't really think that clears anything up. LW does day "We are told that there are hundreds of fibres", then he admits he hasn't seen the report. But I guess if sticky duct tape was twice discarded on a fuzzy blanket in a dusty basement. there would be a lot of fibres. The only thing that is said as fact is that the fibres matched the shirt, not that they were similar to.

But regardless, if the Ramseys are innocent, cooperating with LE from day one would have gone a long way towards clearing their name. I still don't understand why they were not taken in to custody, why they were allowed to leave the house without being searched, and why certain items were allowed to be removed unchecked on their behalf. The Boulder police department is just so inept in their handling of this case, its sickening.
 
  • #266
So no proof that PR tied anything, but probably placed the duct tape on her mouth. The strange part is, that there were jacket fibers at all. When you come home from visiting somewhere, usually the first thing you do is take your jacket and shoes off, and get comfortable. I guess this would mean that the duct tape was applied the morning of the 26th, after PR had freshened up.Maybe JR tied the ligatures, maybe PR. Fibers from his Israeli shirt were there in JBR's underwear. I wonder if BR left JBR for dead after whacking her with the flashlight, and later, PR or JR discovered her. Then they decided to finish her off, and stage the crime scene. I see PR as being the strangler. Maybe she staged the whole scene, with no involvement from JR. No matter how you look at it, all three were involved, and all three are guilty. We are all shocked because the rich buy their way out of true justice, but it happens regularly in other countries. One of my landlords in Ukraine was told by police to pay $20000. to get her son off of charges. She sold her apartment out from under us when we had a six month lease, and my wife was pregnant. We lived there 2 and a half months. I don't know if she ever got him off or not.Millionaires don't have to answer to law. They make their own.It is funny for me to see how everyone treats the rich in this country. As for myself, I only respect people who keep their word, no matter how much money they have.Haven't found too many wealthy people with real character. Never met a rich man that I would trust. Sad to say though, politics is all about money. AH knew this. The rich get treated with kid gloves, while the rest of us get Tazed to death.

ukrberserker23,
Nope no proof who did what simply speculation based on the available forensic evidence. I reckon PR asphyxiated JonBenet, but that either JR or BR redressed JonBenet in the size-12's since PR places the size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer when they were actually absent!

In the USofA money plays the role that class plays in european countries, i.e. deference is required. Some millionares contribute to good causes and charitable foundations. Since money was invented the rich have always abused their power, going back to biblical times. Then debts were cancelled every so many years, jubilee? In modern times that practise has been discontinued. Children used to be used as collateral in biblical times, i.e. non-payment and your children ended up as slaves.

A very good example of the arrogance of Capital is Leona Helmsley, The Queen of Mean. She was convicted of Tax Evasion and jailed for 16 years but only served 19 months. During her trial she was quoted as saying We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes! Check her out in your favorite search engine.

.
 
  • #267
The one thing that bothers me is that IF the R's were innocent then why didnt they come forward to help with the investigation... They are most definitely covering for someone(one or the other or their son). If they were innocent they wouldn't have let their name be dragged through the mud and continued under the "umbrella of suspicion". They would not have covered up for an intruder but they would have covered for themselves or BR. I know alot of posters believe a 9 year old boy could not have hit his sister so hard that it cracked her skull but I do. IMHO I do not see Patsy or John as the one who did the head blow. I truly believe they loved her more than anything and I believe BR knew it too. I think something set him off that night and I believe he was the abuser(most do not believe this either). I have posted before about JR being the killer and PR being the killer but now im not so sure(and thanks to the GJ documents). And BR hit her before so whats to stop him from doing it again(and if she was struck from behind I believe he could have put enough force to it if he was that mad and obviously he was considering the massive blow. I just do not see P or J delivering the head blow(and JB talked about how much she missed her daddy when he was away, im sure she was a big daddys girl. I dont see him as the abuser... There may have been alot going on while JR was away that PR knew about but never told him. But anyways I think that BR did the head blow and the parents (or maybe just PR) helped with the cover up. And thats why they didnt cooperate with the police afterwards. And BlueCrab had a good theory about a fifth person being in the house that night and that he could be the killer(and since this was a friend, they would(though I do not really see them doing that) be covering for him. And the male DNA inside the panties and on the waistband is that of the killer. So who could that be? Someone please explain... and sorry for the long post :)
 
  • #268
The one thing that bothers me is that IF the R's were innocent then why didnt they come forward to help with the investigation... They are most definitely covering for someone(one or the other or their son). If they were innocent they wouldn't have let their name be dragged through the mud and continued under the "umbrella of suspicion". They would not have covered up for an intruder but they would have covered for themselves or BR. I know alot of posters believe a 9 year old boy could not have hit his sister so hard that it cracked her skull but I do. IMHO I do not see Patsy or John as the one who did the head blow. I truly believe they loved her more than anything and I believe BR knew it too. I think something set him off that night and I believe he was the abuser(most do not believe this either). I have posted before about JR being the killer and PR being the killer but now im not so sure(and thanks to the GJ documents). And BR hit her before so whats to stop him from doing it again(and if she was struck from behind I believe he could have put enough force to it if he was that mad and obviously he was considering the massive blow. I just do not see P or J delivering the head blow(and JB talked about how much she missed her daddy when he was away, im sure she was a big daddys girl. I dont see him as the abuser... There may have been alot going on while JR was away that PR knew about but never told him. But anyways I think that BR did the head blow and the parents (or maybe just PR) helped with the cover up. And thats why they didnt cooperate with the police afterwards. And BlueCrab had a good theory about a fifth person being in the house that night and that he could be the killer(and since this was a friend, they would(though I do not really see them doing that) be covering for him. And the male DNA inside the panties and on the waistband is that of the killer. So who could that be? Someone please explain... and sorry for the long post :)

There is nothing to prove the unknown male DNA is that of the killer. Until and unless that male DNA is identified by NAME, there is nothing that proves it had anything to do with the crime at all. This DNA is TOUCH DNA- aka skin cells- easily transferred from one surface or person to another with a simple handshake and/or touching the same doorknob, etc. Give us a NAME- and then (and only then) can we determine if the DNA belongs to someone who was actually there on the night of the killing.
 
  • #269
There is nothing to prove the unknown male DNA is that of the killer. Until and unless that male DNA is identified by NAME, there is nothing that proves it had anything to do with the crime at all. This DNA is TOUCH DNA- aka skin cells- easily transferred from one surface or person to another with a simple handshake and/or touching the same doorknob, etc. Give us a NAME- and then (and only then) can we determine if the DNA belongs to someone who was actually there on the night of the killing.

It would be nice knowing whose DNA is actually is though. I know nothing about that sorta thing so please explain why it cannot be identified. And also like you said it could have came from anywhere.
 
  • #270
Well, I just read the first 40 pages of SuperDave's book on Google books. It is available as a preview, and lists for $8.95. From that, I can understand Dave's theory, and point of view. I don't agree with it, but it does have it's merits. It is very easy to read though, and I will probably buy it when it get's to the Walmart shelves. I firmly believe that BR is the main suspect, with the others doing their part. Maybe PR finished JBR off with the strangulation.I don't believe she tied the ligature though. Maybe JR was molesting JBR. No proof one way or the other. But the lack of semen in JBR points to someone not able to produce it yet. Like I said before, this was a family affair. This family definitely picked the right town to kill a child in.We can definitely thank AH for all that has followed. I'm in total agreement on that.This is why I hate being from, and living in, a small town. Hope I can read the whole book soon.
 
  • #271
The one thing that bothers me is that IF the R's were innocent then why didnt they come forward to help with the investigation... They are most definitely covering for someone(one or the other or their son). If they were innocent they wouldn't have let their name be dragged through the mud and continued under the "umbrella of suspicion". They would not have covered up for an intruder but they would have covered for themselves or BR. I know alot of posters believe a 9 year old boy could not have hit his sister so hard that it cracked her skull but I do. IMHO I do not see Patsy or John as the one who did the head blow. I truly believe they loved her more than anything and I believe BR knew it too. I think something set him off that night and I believe he was the abuser(most do not believe this either). I have posted before about JR being the killer and PR being the killer but now im not so sure(and thanks to the GJ documents). And BR hit her before so whats to stop him from doing it again(and if she was struck from behind I believe he could have put enough force to it if he was that mad and obviously he was considering the massive blow. I just do not see P or J delivering the head blow(and JB talked about how much she missed her daddy when he was away, im sure she was a big daddys girl. I dont see him as the abuser... There may have been alot going on while JR was away that PR knew about but never told him. But anyways I think that BR did the head blow and the parents (or maybe just PR) helped with the cover up. And thats why they didnt cooperate with the police afterwards. And BlueCrab had a good theory about a fifth person being in the house that night and that he could be the killer(and since this was a friend, they would(though I do not really see them doing that) be covering for him. And the male DNA inside the panties and on the waistband is that of the killer. So who could that be? Someone please explain... and sorry for the long post :)

Why go to such lengths to cover for Burke? He was too young to be prosecuted.

And the male DNA in the panties could have come from when they were manufactured.
 
  • #272
It would be nice knowing whose DNA is actually is though. I know nothing about that sorta thing so please explain why it cannot be identified. And also like you said it could have came from anywhere.

elannia,
The male dna is touch-dna, its not sourced from semen, hair, blood etc. This means it could have arrived via secondary transfer, e.g. from the Partially Opened Christmas Gifts wrapping paper, or any other source in a long chain of forensic transfer. Consider JonBenet using the toilet at the White's party, she touches the toilet door handle, then the handle that flushes the toilet, so potentially transferring male touch-dna to her hands, so when at some later point she wipes her hand on her white gap top she transfers the touch-dna.

Another consideration is that we are only told about the unknown touch-dna, but not any known touch-dna found on JonBenet, e.g. Ramsey touch-dna, particularly BR's, since his touch-dna was found on the pink nightgown. This is relevant particularly if any is found on JonBenet's size-12 underwear?

The unknown touch-dna is a confounding factor but in itself does not mean that the owner of this touch-dna killed or assaulted JonBenet, it might have an innocent explantion.

Implicit in the Ramsey case is that the touch-dna should not be on JonBenet's clean on size-12's or longjohns, so from the R's version of events, we might expect PR's touch-dna to be all over the longjohns and size-12's, as I mentioned, there is silence on this aspect, why? I reckon because releasing JR's and PR's touch-dna data would mean releasing BR's!

.
 
  • #273
It would be nice knowing whose DNA is actually is though. I know nothing about that sorta thing so please explain why it cannot be identified. And also like you said it could have came from anywhere.

In addition to UKGuy's excellent explanation- DNA is usually entered into a database to find a match when there is no suspect in custody or identified. If there is no match, it means that the donor of the DNA will remain unknown until and unless someone is tested against it. In this case, there have been plenty of people tested, and there has been no match. As UKGuy explained, DNA from a PRIMARY source, such as blood, semen, and other bodily fluids, is much more likely to prove someone was there at the time of the crime and linked to the crime. With skin cells, they can come from anywhere, including items that have nothing at all to do with the crime. I shake your hand, you touch your clothing - my skin cells get on your clothes. We go our separate ways and later, someone breaks into your house and kills you. Police find MY Touch DNA on your clothes, but no where else at the crime scene. The chance of me being the killer and not leaving my tDNA anywhere else is very slim. In the JB case we have the same situation. The Touch DNA is only on her clothing. Not on the duct tape, cord, paint tote, her body itself, the doors and doorknobs (which were tested for prints), the flashlight, bowl of pineapple, etc. In short- NO WHERE except her clothes. The area where the skin cells were found matches the spots where someone would hold the garments when pulling them up or down. This is the case whether they were pulled up or down when she was alive (as in using the toilet) or whether the person redressing the body had the skin cells on their hands when they pulled her pants up and down. The skin cells have nothing to do with the killer or the coverup or else they would be in other places as well.
 
  • #274
Why go to such lengths to cover for Burke? He was too young
And the male DNA in the panties could have come from when they were manufactured.

exactly
 
  • #275
In addition to UKGuy's excellent explanation- DNA is usually entered into a database to find a match when there is no suspect in custody or identified. If there is no match, it means that the donor of the DNA will remain unknown until and unless someone is tested against it. In this case, there have been plenty of people tested, and there has been no match. As UKGuy explained, DNA from a PRIMARY source, such as blood, semen, and other bodily fluids, is much more likely to prove someone was there at the time of the crime and linked to the crime. With skin cells, they can come from anywhere, including items that have nothing at all to do with the crime. I shake your hand, you touch your clothing - my skin cells get on your clothes. We go our separate ways and later, someone breaks into your house and kills you. Police find MY Touch DNA on your clothes, but no where else at the crime scene. The chance of me being the killer and not leaving my tDNA anywhere else is very slim. In the JB case we have the same situation. The Touch DNA is only on her clothing. Not on the duct tape, cord, paint tote, her body itself, the doors and doorknobs (which were tested for prints), the flashlight, bowl of pineapple, etc. In short- NO WHERE except her clothes. The area where the skin cells were found matches the spots where someone would hold the garments when pulling them up or down. This is the case whether they were pulled up or down when she was alive (as in using the toilet) or whether the person redressing the body had the skin cells on their hands when they pulled her pants up and down. The skin cells have nothing to do with the killer or the coverup or else they would be in other places as well.

Thanks DeeDee, I had no idea about the DNA and still confused. (I understand about tDNA and I know what DNA is but obviously the killer(s) wore gloves? I mean there was no DNA right? And obviously the R's lived there so theirs would be everywhere. I do not understand how this was planned out so carefully(well mo)
 
  • #276
Maybe they didn't realise that BR couldn't be charged. It is called panic, and most people don't think too clearly in a panic situation. Ramsey's lawyer should have informed them of this that morning. I really believe the scandal aspect was the biggest factor. PR couldn't have here angel involved in petty incest. That is the social equivalent of the man of the house sleeping with the maid. Incest is a pretty regular occurrence here in WV. I'm sure PR was quite well aware of that fact. She had finally gotten away from the hillbilly crowd, and was part of Boulder high society.I think she was more afraid of being accused of incest rather than murder. People with money are just strange birds anyway. JR is right though. There will never be a victory in this.
 
  • #277
From another thread on the DNA... if JR brought her into the house was his tDNA found on her? How about LA when she moved JB? PR when she fell on top of JB? Or was the only tDNA found on her was the unknown source?
 
  • #278
tDNA is DNA. Period. "Touch" refers to the collection method.

DNA is DNA is DNA is DNA...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • #279
From another thread on the DNA... if JR brought her into the house was his tDNA found on her? How about LA when she moved JB? PR when she fell on top of JB? Or was the only tDNA found on her was the unknown source?
No Ramsey DNA has been reported to have been found on the victim, her clothing, nor the instruments used to kill her. Foreign, male DNA was, however, found under her fingernails, in the crotch of her panties, on her long johns, & on the ligature cord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • #280
From another thread on the DNA... if JR brought her into the house was his tDNA found on her? How about LA when she moved JB? PR when she fell on top of JB? Or was the only tDNA found on her was the unknown source?

JR said he carried her. BR said she was awake and walked in. That is the problem with this case. The Ramsey's have never sat down individually and given a minute by minute account of the events of that evening. They IMO always tried to keep the facts as fuzzy as possible and didn't agree to individual questioning until months later when they could have rehearsed a consistent story. What about JBs wet clothes in the bathroom. What about the pineapple. There should be very consider descriptions of these events but to my knowledge there is not.

Another point that bothers me is the vey sudden alienation of FW. These people were best pals and spent Christmas together. FW was there when the body was discovered. I believe FW had very strong suspicions about JR and simply could not ignore them. He wanted JR to cooperate with LE and when they refused the friendship was basically over.

I watched an interview with the female officer that was at the Ramsey's that morning and it was evident that she also believed JR was responsible. I put a lot more credence in actual human evaluations than I do in vague DNA samples, and it seems that everyone who was actually there believe it was JR. His actions point to it being JR. And if it walks like a duck...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
61
Guests online
2,588
Total visitors
2,649

Forum statistics

Threads
632,252
Messages
18,623,868
Members
243,066
Latest member
DANTHAMAN
Back
Top