What we don't know

[Nuisanceposter]

It wasn't John's shower that didnt work, it was Patsy's.

And that just pounds home the point that Patsy's reason for not showering is suspect...hers didn't work, but there were other functional showers in the house.

 

[Zman]

And that just pounds home the point that Patsy's reason for not showering is suspect...hers didn't work, but there were other functional showers in the house.

Its how you look at it.

PR not taking a shower points to her innocence.

If you just murdered your daughter and particapated in the coverup you would be more likely to shower. To help remove evidence.

 

[Maikai]

Jayelles,
There may be some mileage in your "double bluff" idea. Having an early morning shower could be interpreted as "normal" behaviour, after all I believe JR had a shower that morning, so which way does the guilt indicator swing?

Patsy was the wife of a millionaire, she had a housemaid, tumble dryers and washing machines, she could even send stuff to the dry cleaners, expense would not be an issue, so for me her wearing the same outfit two days running, particularly for entirely different social outings, is a red-flag.

wearing an outfit you only had on for a few hours the day before, and wearing one you might have worn before that was hanging in the closet?

 

[Jayelles]

I repeat.

1. We only have Patsy's word that she didn't take a shower that morning
2. I do not recall from the interview transcripts whether she was asked if she had taken one the previous night.

People expect that a killer would shower to get rid of forensic evidence. Many have been distracted by thoughts that Patsy was somehow "unclean" because they accept that she didn't shower. Now, if the ramseys are involved in this murder, don't you think it would have been a clever piece of cover-up if Patsy had used John's shower before he did and then claimed that she hadn't showered at all? Police could have checked her own shower and found no recent signs of use - thus supporting her claims. If she had been taken immediately to the police station and tested for forensics, there would have been none.

Like it or not, statistically, they are the most likely culprits and therefore the Ramseys' word should not be taken as gospel. If what they say cannot be corroborated by a third party or borne out by evidence, then it should be regarded as *potentially* false.

Unless the Ramseys can be unequivocably cleared by evidence, then the investigators must continue to regard them as suspects. I believe this to be the case. Mary Keenan/Lacy has been very careful in choosing her words regarding the Ramseys. She has never said that they have been cleared.

 

[Maikai]

in December, you'd know it's a very dry climate--you don't sweat unless you're a sweathog with a problem, or you've been up all night killing your child and covering it up. People that live there don't take showers everyday in winter, because it dries the skin out and instead just wash up and go on their merry way. Hairstyles last a lot longer, because of the dry climate---hair doesn't have to be washed everyday. Patsy dyed her hair Christmas day---chances are she washed the dye off in the shower--sometime before going to the White's. That's all there is to it.

 

[Maikai]

Someone can be cleared---and they can again be suspects. That terminology doesn't mean anything. Mary Keenan/Lacy said she agrees with Judge Carnes......who said there is evidence it was an intruder. If an intruder, it wasn't a Ramsey---that's as good as being cleared. Barry Scheck said the DNA was a problem, and the BPD can't have it both ways--they can't clear people because of DNA, and not the Ramseys.

 

[itsreenw]

Patsy supposedly didn't take a shower because her shower was broken. I am sure she found somewhere to shower before going to the White's party. I bet she was nice and clean and smelling good for that event. So why couldn't she use whatever shower she had been using in the days prior to that?

I also read somewhere that Patsy called down to Charlevoix and had the florist or someone put all the Christmas fixin's on the house so it would be nice and pretty for JR's kids and the son-in-law to be. She went through all that and didn't bother to bathe?? And for no other reason than for the sake of sharing pictures later, Patsy would have changed her clothes.

No way would she have been in pictures taken on the 25th AND 26th, wearing the same outfit. I'm not referring to studio pics, just pics taken by family members opening gifts, etc..

 

[txsvicki]

in December, you'd know it's a very dry climate--you don't sweat unless you're a sweathog with a problem, or you've been up all night killing your child and covering it up. People that live there don't take showers everyday in winter, because it dries the skin out and instead just wash up and go on their merry way. Hairstyles last a lot longer, because of the dry climate---hair doesn't have to be washed everyday. Patsy dyed her hair Christmas day---chances are she washed the dye off in the shower--sometime before going to the White's. That's all there is to it.

Yet another reason to wash her her hair again. Hair can still smell a little from the dye and be too dark after first dyeing and a couple of washes get it back to normal. I wonder if Patsy smoked or not. One of the books said that she stood outside chain smoking and got locked out while John was being questioned. If she did smoke during the Christmas holidays, her clothing could also smell like cigarette smoke somewhat even if she only smoked a few standing outside.

 

[LinasK]

The other option is that JBR was involved unwillingly in a 'choking game.' The glaring, stark problem with this theory is that she would be screaming alot.

I don't know what the perp did with JBR, but it had more to do with sexual assault and murder, and not a 'game' taken 'too far' so it accidentally got 'out of hand' and was 'staged to look like a foreign faction did it.' Thats just a baseless fictional creation.

You don't know that JB didn't scream her head off, supposedly some neighbors did hear screaming.

JBR was sexually assaulted in a game that did get out of hand. JR didn't plan to murder her, but was too chicken to seek help and admit what he'd been doing to her. It was easier on his reputation to concoct a "foreign faction" and pin a kidnapping on them. It would have gone according to plan if Linda Ardnt had searched the basement herself rather than making John do it. This is my theory...

Also, in response to another poster, Patsy purchased the size 12 panties for her niece. I believe she re-dressed her in the correct day of the week.

Kindergarden now is what the equivalent of first grade used to be.( I've seen the standards for the Calif. Dept of Education). Now they do in pre-school what we previously did in kindergarden.

 

[Jayelles]

Someone can be cleared---and they can again be suspects. That terminology doesn't mean anything. Mary Keenan/Lacy said she agrees with Judge Carnes......who said there is evidence it was an intruder. If an intruder, it wasn't a Ramsey---that's as good as being cleared. Barry Scheck said the DNA was a problem, and the BPD can't have it both ways--they can't clear people because of DNA, and not the Ramseys.

Carnes said that based upon the evidence - and we all know that she based her statement on the evidence she saw which was NOT the police file but Lou SMit's powerpoint presentation. That presentation was not updated after 1998 at that point.

There was a lot NOTconsidered by Carnes. She only had the Ramsey side of the story upon which to make her decision. There is no doubt whatsoever that if Judge carnes had made an opposite ruling based upon only BORG information, it would have been deemed unsafe by the RST. No doubt whatsoever.

 

[Leve]

Just a thought about the pony tails. JBR may have slept in pony tails beacuse of product in her hair. If you have to use alot of conditioner or if you use hairspray it can cause acne if your hair gets in your face at night. I read that JBR got acne after the pageants from the make-up so her face may have been sensitive.

I really wish the BPD had asked such questions or that we had access to the questions/answers.

 

[Maikai]

Carnes said that based upon the evidence - and we all know that she based her statement on the evidence she saw which was NOT the police file but Lou SMit's powerpoint presentation. That presentation was not updated after 1998 at that point.

There was a lot NOTconsidered by Carnes. She only had the Ramsey side of the story upon which to make her decision. There is no doubt whatsoever that if Judge carnes had made an opposite ruling based upon only BORG information, it would have been deemed unsafe by the RST. No doubt whatsoever.

The Ramseys hiring attorneys?

Pineapple in the small intestine?

Patsy wearing the same clothes two days in a row?

The bedwetting theory with no evidence JBR wet the bed that night?

A white male working in the underwear factory in Asia that left his DNA on the panties?

Carnes looked at the evidence, and she came to the conclusion there was evidence of an intruder---something the BPD should have concluded earlyon, instead of trying to make the evidence fit a suspect (the parents).

 

[Jayelles]

The Ramseys hiring attorneys?

Pineapple in the small intestine?

Patsy wearing the same clothes two days in a row?

The bedwetting theory with no evidence JBR wet the bed that night?

A white male working in the underwear factory in Asia that left his DNA on the panties?

Carnes looked at the evidence, and she came to the conclusion there was evidence of an intruder---something the BPD should have concluded earlyon, instead of trying to make the evidence fit a suspect (the parents).

What are you talking about? The pineapple is a fact. The sheets tested positive for urine. The people working most closely to the case say the DNA COULD have come from a worker at the panties factory.

She looked at the evidence she was given - decided that there COULD have been an intruder and said so. RST claim this means the Ramseys are cleared.

The Carnes judgement has no more value to the murder case than a Mickey Mouse judgement would have. She was ruling on a libel case - not a murder case.

 

[why_nutt]

Carnes looked at the evidence, and she came to the conclusion there was evidence of an intruder---something the BPD should have concluded earlyon, instead of trying to make the evidence fit a suspect (the parents).

Patsy's doctors in Charlevoix and Boulder came to the conclusions that she was suffering from spinal problems and possible pregnancy in 1992 and early 1993, but that did not make them correct. For that matter, her oncologist in Atlanta came to the conclusion that he had removed all of her cancer when he performed her hysterectomy, and he turned out wrong, since he missed a golfball-sized tumor present at the time.

What does this teach us? People who come to conclusions can and are wrong, and Carnes is no different.

If you want to believe her, though, then you have to concede that the Ramseys were lying through their teeth about the night of December 25th, because Carnes states unambiguously that Burke fell asleep in the car after the family left the Whites, and therefore he would have been in no shape to enthusiastically put together some complicated parking garage model with tiny decals for half an hour, as John Ramsey said happened.

Which do you throw your lot in with? Carnes knows the truth, and John Ramsey lied, or Carnes did not know all the truth, and got things wrong, which puts all of what she said at risk for credibility issues?

 

[capps]

Quote by Why_Nutt:
"If you want to believe her, though, then you have to concede that the Ramseys were lying through their teeth about the night of December 25th, because Carnes states unambigously that Burke fell asleep in the car after the family left the Whites, and therefore he would have been in no shape to enthusiastically put together some complicated parking garage model with tiny decals for half an hour, as John Ramsey said happened."

Why_Nutt,

Carnes said that Burke was sleeping after the Ramsey's left the White's?

I know JR said he and Burke were putting together a model.But a complicated model,and applying little decals for half an hour?

First I'm hearing these two things,can you give a source please?

 

[concernedperson]

Patsy's doctors in Charlevoix and Boulder came to the conclusions that she was suffering from spinal problems and possible pregnancy in 1992 and early 1993, but that did not make them correct. For that matter, her oncologist in Atlanta came to the conclusion that he had removed all of her cancer when he performed her hysterectomy, and he turned out wrong, since he missed a golfball-sized tumor present at the time.

What does this teach us? People who come to conclusions can and are wrong, and Carnes is no different.

If you want to believe her, though, then you have to concede that the Ramseys were lying through their teeth about the night of December 25th, because Carnes states unambigously that Burke fell asleep in the car after the family left the Whites, and therefore he would have been in no shape to enthusiastically put together some complicated parking garage model with tiny decals for half an hour, as John Ramsey said happened.

Which do you throw your lot in with? Carnes knows the truth, and John Ramsey lied, or Carnes did not know all the truth, and got things wrong, which puts all of what she said at risk for credibility issues?

This is a really good post and should set parameters for the future. This is addressing this case with heads on. Go, you are so importent.

 

[Maikai]

What are you talking about? The pineapple is a fact. The sheets tested positive for urine. The people working most closely to the case say the DNA COULD have come from a worker at the panties factory.

She looked at the evidence she was given - decided that there COULD have been an intruder and said so. RST claim this means the Ramseys are cleared.

The Carnes judgement has no more value to the murder case than a Mickey Mouse judgement would have. She was ruling on a libel case - not a murder case.

The point is, Carnes didn't speculate and try to explain away evidence that survived the messed up crime scene, or believed the circumstantial case presented at the trial.

The DNA is from a white male---what's the likelihood that a white male handled the underwear in an asian factory? The pineapple location in the digestive tract was eaten earlier in the day....if in fact it was pineapple and not some other greenish yellow vegetable or fruit. The urine on the sheets were traces, and considering JBR did have accidents once in the while, and Patsy kept a rubber covering on the mattress pad, traces don't point to her wetting the bed that night.

Carnes ruling was good enough that the current DA agreed with it---something she apparently supported way before the case before Carnes.

 

[Maikai]

Patsy's doctors in Charlevoix and Boulder came to the conclusions that she was suffering from spinal problems and possible pregnancy in 1992 and early 1993, but that did not make them correct. For that matter, her oncologist in Atlanta came to the conclusion that he had removed all of her cancer when he performed her hysterectomy, and he turned out wrong, since he missed a golfball-sized tumor present at the time.

What does this teach us? People who come to conclusions can and are wrong, and Carnes is no different.

If you want to believe her, though, then you have to concede that the Ramseys were lying through their teeth about the night of December 25th, because Carnes states unambiguously that Burke fell asleep in the car after the family left the Whites, and therefore he would have been in no shape to enthusiastically put together some complicated parking garage model with tiny decals for half an hour, as John Ramsey said happened.

Which do you throw your lot in with? Carnes knows the truth, and John Ramsey lied, or Carnes did not know all the truth, and got things wrong, which puts all of what she said at risk for credibility issues?

in Boulder. Patsy had first had symptoms in Boulder, but the cancer was missed because the CAT scan didn't cover the area the tumors were located in. It may or may not have made a difference in the stage of the tumors. Ovarian cancer wasn't suspected when she first started seeking medical help for symptoms. What that teaches us is doctors can be wrong, and mistakes can be deadly.

I'll take your word that Carnes believes Burke was asleep---I don't recall reading that, but I only perused her opinion. I don't think it matters one way or another. A kid can be sound asleep one minute, and running around the next. Mary Keenan Lacy went on the record publically agreeing with Carnes opinion about the intruder theory---which hopefully, sent the investigation in another direction.

 

[Jayelles]

The point is, Carnes didn't speculate and try to explain away evidence that survived the messed up crime scene, or believed the circumstantial case presented at the trial.

The DNA is from a white male---what's the likelihood that a white male handled the underwear in an asian factory? The pineapple location in the digestive tract was eaten earlier in the day....if in fact it was pineapple and not some other greenish yellow vegetable or fruit. The urine on the sheets were traces, and considering JBR did have accidents once in the while, and Patsy kept a rubber covering on the mattress pad, traces don't point to her wetting the bed that night.

Carnes ruling was good enough that the current DA agreed with it---something she apparently supported way before the case before Carnes.

This post is so full of oft-repeated misinformation that it almost seems futile to correct it.

1. We cannot tell race from DNA. At least we couldn't at the time Lou Smit stated the DNA was from a white male. The "caucasian" bit almost certainly came from a hair and we do not know that the foreign DNA and the hair were from the same person. BIG LEAP.

2. The whole point about the pineapple is that if it WAS eaten earlier in the day then the time at which the Ramseys came home was at the very latest extreme of when she must have died. That points to the ramseys as the killers.

3. The urine on the sheets is of little relevance as you say Jonbenet was a bedwetter. However, the RST are always claiming that the sheets were dry when of course this is ridiculous. You cannot tell from a photo whether the bed had been wet the previous night. The photo was taken many hours later when the sheets would have dried naturally. Anyone using that photo as "evidence" that she didn't wet the bed has very low standards indeed. The sheets had traced of creatin (sp) on it. Creatin is found in urine but it doesn't make up 100% of urine. You would expect to find TRACES. Besides, the whole bed-wtting thing is just a theory that Steve Thomas offered as a motive for Patsy taking a fatal slug at JonBenet. I personally think it's unlikely but even if the motive wasn't bed-wetting. Logically, it doesn't mean that Patsy didn't kill her for some other reason.

Carnes did her job - which was to rule on a civil libel case. Mary Lacy has played a careful political game with the ramsey case. She acknowledged Carnes' judgement whilst quietly underlining that the Ramseys are NOT excluded from the investigation.

I simply cannot understand the thinking of people who interpret carnes and Lacy's comments as the Ramseys being cleared.

 

[Nehemiah]

Trixie posted on another thread her thoughts about the possibility that the entire autopsy report was not released to the public. I honestly hadn't thought of that before, but I can see that it could be something that LE is still holding onto.

Why would only a partial report have been released? Is this a common practice...to satisfy the public? Anyone know?