Debunking the Seven Pieces of "Evidence": #2 - The Duct Tape and The Cord Garotte

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Dunvegan, Aug 24, 2002.

  1. Dunvegan

    Dunvegan Guest

    One interesting thing about the piece of duct tape that the Ramseys point to as "evidence" supporting their intruder theory, is that the duct tape <b>far more strongly weighs in as evidence in placing Patsy Ramsey at the scene of the murder than an intruder.</b>

    Because fibers from Patsy Ramsey's black-and-red-checked jacket were found on the square of duct tape that was found on the mouth of a murdered JonBenet.

    Patsy's jacket was upstairs in the Ramseys' master bedroom all night Christmas night, according to the Ramseys themselves.

    So, riddle me this: are they saying that the perp enterd the Ramsey master bedroom on the third floor, touched the square of duct tape to Patsy's jacket hanging over a chair, descended silently to the second floor, somehow equally silently moved JonBenet to the basement, then somewhere in their progress (oh...about an hour after grabbing JonBenet and feeding her pineapple so that it partially digested...so, ummm...I suppose they read to her from a storybook or something for about 60 minutes....) they finally strike her a killing blow that nearly cleaved her cranium in half, strangle her with the cord ligature to end her suffering, and then place the duct tape with Patsy's jacket fibers on the child's silenced mouth <b>after</b> she was already dead?

    For that to be believed, for John and Patsy to have slept through a murder that ranged over four stories of their house...and a perp that came within inches of sleeping parents, the two of them would have both had to have been taking something considerably stronger than melatonin.

    And John says the "real killer" murdered JonBenet to get back at him. Well, if this so-called "real killer" was armed with a weapon that shattered JonBenet's skull, and in the master bedroom within inches of John blissfully anesthesized before them...totally at their mercy...why play stick-em with Patsy's jacket?

    Why not punish John "good-fashioned" right there, and right then?

    And, while we're on the subject, why would a child murderer carefully place a small square of duct tape on a dead victim's mouth?

    I believe a profiler would have only two possible explanations:<ol><b>1. Fetish.</b> The "intruder" did this as a "signature"...it's special to his "kink."

    Not that there has been any known occurrences of this sort of fetish being exhibited by a known child molester or killer either before or after the murder of JonBenet Ramsey

    <b>2. Staging.</b></ol>And what type of person resorts to "staging?"

    Someone who is certain to become the main suspect, if no evidence exists of an "intruder" or other suspect.

    So let's return to the Ramsey contention: is the duct tape "evidence" of an intruder?

    Remember: the court in a murder trial only asks for the jury to vote based upon their <b>"belief beyond a reasonable doubt"</b> to convict; e.g. what a reasonable person believes to be both credible, and probable. Probative evidence carries heavy weight at trial.

    In other words, is the "intruder" scenario <b>reasonable</b> in relation to the duct tape?

    Or is it, based on the evidence, <b>far more reasonable</b> that sometime after the Ramseys returned home from the White's party, and before Patsy had time to change out of her jacket, Patsy killed JonBenet and staged the murder scene? Is it not more probable that in staging such a scene, Patsy decided that placing duct tape on JonBenet's now all-too-still mouth would look more like someone else, someone not Patsy, some "intruder," attempted a kidnapping ("How can I explain not hearing her scream through all this? Gosh, what do kidnappers do? Oh...put tape over the victim's mouth to keep them quiet!)

    Thing is, the tape was only a small piece of tape...there is no way such a tiny square of tape would have silenced a screaming six-year-old..nor would it have reasonably stayed in place during the entire horrific bludgeoning, ligature strangling, and body positioning (wrapped in blankets and all.) As the record states, the tape showed a perfect impression of JonBenet's lip print.

    This sort of mistake is why successful staging is so very hard to do perfectly...and why Quantico has such faith in their ability to correctly attribute a murder scene to staging. And the Ramsey murder scene has been profiled by experts as an amateur's venture, despite what the Ramseys say about "sophisticated garrotes." (By the way: the garrote can be proved to be constructed in an extremely amateur fashion, even for a staged event.)

    Although I don't believe that either Patsy or John were conversant with the scientist <b><a href="http://www.profiling.org/journal/vol1_no1/jbp_ed_january2000_1-1.html">Locard, they are probably familiar with his "exchange principal,"</a></b> as are we all. This principal states that whenever we come in contact with anything else, we both leave something of ours, and conversely, take something from the scene away.

    It is highly likely that Patsy is aware of transfer evidence...there is no one who watches television or movies at all regularly that doesn't know about fiber evidence. All the detective/police/crime shows and novels use it as a plot device. Movie plots revolve around it routinely. It is reasonable to assume that if Patsy Ramsey was trying to evade blame for the killing of her daughter, if she were afraid of being found out and was taking the time to stage the crime scene, that she would have also thought that no matter how careful she was she might have left microscopic fibers somewhere during the night.

    And that would have to be accounted for to make the staging "complete."

    This may reasonably explain why Patsy greeted Officer French at the door on or about 6:00 a.m. December 26, 1996 wearing the exact same outfit she wore all day Christmas day and, perhaps, all night Christmas night...and yet, had fresh makeup on. John could (and did) shower...in this scenario, he had little or nothing to do with the body, no worries about transference. But, in the case of fiber contamination during the murder, Patsy needed to wear the same clothes so that, no matter who found JonBenet, Patsy could fling herself on JonBenet and make witnessed transfer.

    That's a very good reason to call a long roster of people to come to the house, so as to have witnesses in place before the first officer arrived on the scene, in case the first police found JonBenet's body immediately.

    Now, all Patsy had to do was watch and wait to make certain that she didn't miss the chance to touch the body before it was removed from the house for autopsy, and be certain that she had witnesses that would testify to that fact that she'd innocently touched the body after it had been found. That would then account for any fiber evidence and complete the staging.

    After all...when Officer French came up from the basement, he saw Patsy "peeking through her fingers." Patsy really needed to know if the police were coming up with JonBenet...or had found her...so that she could move to the body and by touching it, cross-contaminate and confuse the evidence.

    After the first house search failed to surface JonBenet's body, for some time witnesses later noted that Patsy rootedly stayed put in an area of a den which eerily was very nearly <b>directly over JonBenet's body. This may be explained as having been done just so as to hear when anyone reached up the the ceiling and turned the high latch on the wine cellar door. That would be her cue to put the crime staging "final touch" in place.

    </b> From, <i>JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation</i>, by Steve Thomas and Don Davis (pg. 18-19, hc):<ol>While the father seemed calm and composed, he was not comforting the mother, who had dissolved into an emotional mess, lying alone on the floor in a nearby room, hugging pillows, clutching a crucifix, and wailing."</ol>...and, from page 23...<ol>In the basement, [Officer Rick French] also came to the white door at the far end that was closed and secured at the top by the wooden block on a screw. French was looking for exit points from the house, and the door obviously was not one. No one could have gone through that door, closed it behind them, and locked it on the opposite side by turning the wooden latch, so he did not open it.

    When he went back upstairs, the patrolman noticed Patsy Ramsey watching him through parted finger that covered her face. "Eyeballing" him, he would later recall.</ol>But no one found the body in the basement right away.

    Hours, and hours, and hours passed.

    To make the contamination argument work, John HAD to find the body before they were asked to leave the house. That's the only chance that Patsy had left to touch the body <b>in front of witnesses after JonBenet was already dead.</b> And, to do so while still wearing the same outfit that she wore during the murder. Then, their defense could claim any fiber evidence might have been transferred to JonBenet's body after death...and is, therefore, inconclusive.

    So far, pretty smart thinking, all-in-all.

    If this is the real scenario, the problem with this oh-so-carefully thought-out defense occurred when John finally had to himself discover the body.

    At that point, John completely blew it.

    John Ramsey himself took the tiny square of duct tape off of JonBenet's mouth <b>before</b> he brought the body upstairs.

    Even though Patsy Ramsey threw herself on JonBenet's body (theatrically squealing, "Jesus...you raised Lazarus from the dead, please raise my baby from the dead!)

    And even though she was successful in cross-contaminating JonBenet's body,<b> Patsy Ramsey absolutely did not throw herself on that critical piece of evidence still lying on the wine cellar floor: the duct tape from JonBenet's mouth. Any fiber left on the tape must have been left there between the time JonBenet was assaulted, pari or post-mortem...and before Officer French arrived at the Ramsey house.</b>

    That little piece of tape held Patsy's jacket fibers firmly embedded into it's adhesive...then, now and, locked in by chain-of-evidence, forevermore.

    Patsy's defense will have an extremely difficult time successfully distancing her from the murder scene, because her jacket fibers place themselves between the square of tape...and JonBenet's mouth.

    So...in reality...what the Ramseys should be trying to do, now that John destroyed Patsy's well-crafted staging, is <b>purposefully place the duct tape in the house and as part of their household.</b>

    That way they'd have a tinker's chance of defending against the damning fiber evidence clinging to the piece of tape placed on JonBenet's mouth after her death.

    And, yet, if we are to believe this second of the "seven proofs of an intruder," there is no reasonable explanation for Patsy's jacket fibers being on this otherwise pristine patch of tape.

    It is certainly <b>reasonable</B> that the "rest of the tape" was carried out of the house by someone...Pam Paugh was allowed to take a list, written by John and Patsy Ramsey back to the house on Fifteenth Street, and under the ostensible cover of picking up a few necessities for the Ramseys who were living in exile at the Fernies home on Tin Cup Circle, toted a huge number of unusual items out of the house. Two of the "necessities" Aunt Pam absconded with could have easily held the answer to the "rest of the tape": John's golf bag, and a large painting panted by Patsy Ramsey.

    It is not reasonable that a man "needs" his golf bag in December in Colorado, in the days prior to his murdered child's burial. Nor is it reasonable that while the Ramseys are sleeping on the Fernies' couch and floor that they would "need" one of Patsy's huge canvases.

    Was the "rest of the tape" tossed in John's golf bag which sat just outside the "wine cellar" door? Was the piece of tape perhaps from the back of one of Patsy's painting, resonating with the use of her broken paint brush, which was used as an instrument to simulate sexual assault on the dying or dead child?

    Because the bag and picture were removed without analysis, we cannot know. So, the "missing roll of tape" doesn't count one way or the other.

    <b>But the fibers from Patsy's jacket on that little piece of tape count for a great deal.</b>

    Does anyone have a <b>reasonable</b> scenario as to how those fibers got on that piece of tape that rules out Patsy as the murderer of JonBenet? If there is a <b>reasonable</b> scenario it would be Patsy Ramsey's only defense.

    If so, I'd love to hear it.

    I'll even wager the Ramseys would love to hear it, too.<ol><font color="firebrick"><b>Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practice to deceive.</b></font color></ol>I'd honestly very much like either the Ramseys or Lin Wood to explain this "duct tape evidence"...and explain it, not as to how it will play in a courtroom devoted to a trial of a non-existent intruder...but how they intend to defend against this argument at Patsy Ramsey's murder trial.

    Oh..that's right...Lin Wood is not fit to answer this question as his practice is in civil law...not criminal law.

    Speaking of "practice"...John and Patsy: seems you need a little more "practice to deceive"...<b>so far, the only person profiling as the "intruder" according to your very own "seven proofs," is Patsy Ramsey.</b>
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 13, 2002
  2. Ayeka

    Ayeka Member

    bumpie

    Must have missed this one the first time around.... An excellent post all around. I couldn't possibly add a thing.

    Ayeka
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice