Addressing Louisadelmar's Pro-Ramsey Spin Attacking Stacy Dittrich's Article

[Jayelles]

Here we go, I'll tackle this little by little as time permits. For anyone who isn't familiar with Louisadelmar/Tipper, she has posted on the forums for years and is very good at producing references - I will give her that. However, although terribly sweet on the forums, what she says in private and what she says publicly aren't always the same thing and she did show her true colours recently at Crimelibrary.

I lost respect for Tipper when she made a post at Websleuths claiming that she had no axe to grind and that she was unbiased. In fact, she defends the Ramseys to the hilt to the point of lacking reason and so she is either wearing a pair of blinkers which she is unaware of or she is playing a rather devious game. Either way, I would place her in the top ten RST members of all time :-)

Now to her attack on this journalist:-

1)

First, we must question how reliable the DNA testing that was recently performed is. It was done through a private lab and is fairly new. The FBI DNA database, CODIS, is compiled of DNA from local, state, and federal labs. As Atlanta District Attorney Eleanor Dixon pointed out, it is unknown if this could even be admissible in court. It was sufficiently admissible to get an innocent boy released from a life sentence.

Tipper conveniently doesn't cite the case in question so that we can look at it, but it should be pointed out that an incomplete set of markers may be enough to get someone off the hook but still not be enough to incriminate them. That has been stated all along in the Ramsey case. If there are markers in the incomplete sample which do NOT match a person - it will be exculpatory. However, if all of the markers in the incomplete sample match the suspect, it wouldn't be enough on its own to incriminate them because it might be that the missing markers were NOT a match.

In fact, I have been studying some rather interesting articles from the New Scientist and other equally respectable sources today about "familial checking" of DNA. Quite a few cold cases have been solved recently because although a perp is NOT on the DNA database, a relative is - a relative with whom they share common DNA markers. The relative is NOT a match, but close enough to suggest that they are related to the person who owns the DNA. This scenario alone tells us that an incomplete sample of DNA will not be enough to incriminate someone in the absence of other evidence because relatives can share a significant percentage of their DNA profile. What if that was all that existed in a partial sample? They wouldn't be able to tell which family member "did it"!

So, bottom line, the only thing that Stacy D could be legitimately criticised for here would be if DA Eleanor Dixon did NOT say what Stacy D claims she said. Either way, it doesn't seem as though she's being accredited with false information!

Therefore, it seems as though this was simply a snide remark for the sake of it so....

Stacy D 1 Tipper 0

[Jayelles]

Love this one:-

Next, we have the initial DNA sample taken from the underwear at the time of JonBenét's murder. It was described by the Boulder DA's office as a significant blood sample. Not so, says forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee. The amount of the sample was so minute on the brand new underwear JonBenét was wearing, that it could have possibly come from the manufacturer itself. Did you take DNA samples from everyone at the manufacturing company, Mary? Both Elvis and I believe, Lonesomepolecat have addressed this.

Was this worthy of a comment? Not sure because Tipper doesn't elaborate on what she means. Is she saying that she, Elvis and LPC have already asked the questions that Stacy D is asking... or that they have already answered Stacy D's question?

In either case, what IS Tipper's point? Does she think that Stacy D has no right to reiterate something that has already been addressed on the forums?

Stacy D 2 Tipper 0

[sboyd]

Love this one:-




Was this worthy of a comment? Not sure because Tipper doesn't elaborate on what she means. Is she saying that she, Elvis and LPC have already asked the questions that Stacy D is asking... or that they have already answered Stacy D's question?

In either case, what IS Tipper's point? Does she think that Stacy D has no right to reiterate something that has already been addressed on the forums?

Stacy D 1 Tipper 0

Keep going Jayelles.

[Jayelles]

OK, moving on.

The following is where I take the biggest issue. As we all know, the initial investigation into the murder was comparable to a street carnival. No sense of order or evidence preservation commenced in this "panic." Once the body of JonBenét was located by her father (pictured right), the body was handed off and touched by approximately three or four people before it was secured and evidence preserved. John and Patsy had two couples and their minister in the home by the time police arrived.

I'm curious. Did each and every one of these people submit DNA samples? Patsy admittedly pulled up JonBenét 's long johns prior to the arrival of law enforcement. Yes, she pulled them up the night before when she changed JonBenet into the longjohns. Did this woman attend the Steve Thomas School of Misleading Phraseology?

This comment is certainly dripping with sarcasm but is the attack merited? Let's see. I'm going to take it bit by bit.

SD>>The following is where I take the biggest issue.

Here she is talking about the chaos which effectively caused most damage to the investigation.

SD>>As we all know, the initial investigation into the murder was comparable to a street carnival. No sense of order or evidence preservation commenced in this "panic."

Is it misinformation? Is it an unreasonable statement? I would say that this is one area where most people agree.

SD>>Once the body of JonBenét was located by her father (pictured right), the body was handed off and touched by approximately three or four people before it was secured and evidence preserved.

OK - let's analyse this for accuracy. Once John Ramsey located Jonbenet's body, who touched it?

1) John Ramsey himself when he carried it upstairs
2) Linda Arndt when she moved it
3) PatsyRamsey when she threw herself upon it

ANyone else? That's at least three - Stacy D says "approximately 3 or 4" - I'd say that was pretty accurate.

SD>>John and Patsy had two couples and their minister in the home by the time police arrived.

Is this incorrect - actually yes. According to the Wiki which summarises the various timelines of when people arrived, Officer French arrived first. It would be true to say that John and Patsy had two couples (the Whites and the Fernies) and their minister (Father Rol) come over to their home via a request by telephone BEFORE the police arrived, but the police got their first. SO here we have the first inaccuracy. Is it sufficient to merit the sarcasm and attack?....

SD>>I'm curious. Did each and every one of these people submit DNA samples?

Is this an unreasonable consideration? We know the Fernies gave DNa and we know the Whites did - but did Father Rol? (I don't know - is his name on any official list?) Is this question worthy of such a nasty attack?

SD>>Patsy admittedly pulled up JonBenét 's long johns prior to the arrival of law enforcement.

Law Enforcement arrived around 6am. We know JonBenet wasn't wearing the longjohns at the Whites so the substantiated TRUTH is that sometime between leaving the Whites and the police arriving, JonBenet was changed into the longjohns. Stacy D has made a completely accurate statement, whilst Tipper spits:-

Tipper>>Yes, she pulled them up the night before when she changed JonBenet into the longjohns. Did this woman attend the Steve Thomas School of Misleading Phraseology?

Which would stand up better in court? We have only Patsy Ramsey's word that she changed Jonbenet the night before and not during the night or even that morning!

So - a better question would be "Did Tipper attend the Susan Bennett aka jameson School of Misleading Phraseology?" (It must surely be the finest in the land).

FTR - On many, many occasions I have responded to Tipper on the forums pointing out to her how misleading HER posts have been - how she has omitted a significant part of a quote or left out an important counter argument.



(Moab - could this be added to the smilie collection please)


Stacy D 3 Tipper 0

[Jayelles]

Thanks for editing the scores. I hadn't actually been keeping a running total - it was just a facetious "comment" on each point - but yours is a better idea.

Also good to see that Margoo has been reading my posts about familial DNA either here or at CL where I made several posts earlier. She's started a thread about it at Sycamore - maybe some of her buds will take it more seriously now that it's coming from one of their own

[DeeDee]

PR admitted in her depos to dressing JBR in the long johns after getting home that night. JR reports carrying her to her bed and taking off her shoes, and leaving PR to "take care of the rest" as she usually did. PR then says that she couldn't find the pink pajamas from the night before, so she got the long johns and pulled them on her. That much isn't in dispute. If the DNA on the long johns is skin cells, PR could easily have gotten them on her own hand at the party, all it takes is a handshake. If she hadn't washed her hands after that (and she or her kids weren't known to be especially into cleanliness) those skin cells and subsequent DNA could have been transferred to the waistband of those longjohns.
What I'd like is to see that DNA matched against all the males of any age at the party, and also any males at the homes the Rs stopped at on the way home. There could be a very innocent explanation for that DNA and Lacy knows that very well.

[Moab]

(Moab - could this be added to the smilie collection please)

My pleasure!

[Jayelles]

Excellent! Many thanks.

[Jayelles]

OK, Louisa's big brave friends are over at Topix posting under anonymous hats and using anonymous servers accusing me of being a coward because I'm posting snide comments about this here under the protection of FFJ (just like Louisa/Tipper posted her snide comments at Sycamore under the protection of Athena/JustMe? LOL) How awful of me, addressing snide spin with snide FACTS.

Nevertheless, since Louisa/Tipper's friend seems to want more - here we go.

(Tipper's comments in red)

December 25, 1996 10:00 p.m. - John Ramsey is the last person in the family to see JonBenét alive. She was "on her bed." No. Patsy was the last to see her. Where does this woman get her information?

If Patsy was the last person to see Jonbenet alive then that means Patsy was the killer.... However, I'm sure that isn't what Tipper means to say here. Stacy has it wrong because according to the Ramsey account of events, John carried JonBenet upstairs and then Patsy came in and dressed her. I cannot find any source which backs up the claim that John was last to see her alive.

Tipper is right (even if she had to be snide about it).

December 26, 1996 05:52 a.m. - Patsy Ramsey wakes up, walks downstairs and finds a ransom note claiming to have kidnapped her daughter. The note claims she is being watched and not to call the police or JonBenét would be killed. Without hesitation, Patsy calls the police. Again, No. Patsy did several things before calling 911.

This is classic :spin:

Here Tipper acts obtuse in interpreting Stacy D's words. She presents it as though Stacy D means that Patsy found the note and immediately - i.e. without hesitation - called 911. Of course, in reading Stacy D's words, it is clear that in saying "without hesitation", Stacy D is referring to the note's instructions not to call police and NOT to Patsy's sequence of actions. By all accounts, the Ramseys did not hesitate in calling the police - i.e. hestitate because of the threats in the ransom note that Jonbenet would be beheaded if they did.

Stacy D's account of this is accurate. Tipper's snide and classic :spin: almost certainly intended to detract from the FACT that the Ramseys didn't stop to consider the threats in the ransom note before calling over friends and police and not even asking them to be discreet!

[Watching You]

find it "off the beaten" path that a highly organized group of kidnappers seeking money would resort to low-grade child rape and murder. Or, on the flip side, a low-grade child rapist who has the "kahunas" to perform the rape and murder inside the home taking a high and probable risk of getting caught.

I don't have the time to get into this in depth (and you all are doing just fine, anyway), but I did want to make one observation regarding the "kidnappers." According to the three-page ransom note, this small foreign faction demanded money for the return of JonBenet. While there have been cases where the victim is murdered, usually, kidnappers who really have the intention of returning the kidnappee once they get their money, do not damage the goods by raping and murdering their kidnap victim, because s/he is the only collateral they have to exchange for the money.

Kidnappers don't stay in the house for hours after they kidnap the victim in order to rape and kill the victim.

You know, all these years later, after millions of posts on the subject, just the thought of what this "kidnapper" was supposed to have done (climb through a small basement window, take her from her bed and two floors down to the basement, sexually assault, bash her in the head, and strangle her - all without leaving fibers, hairs, DNA, fingerprints) just seems even more ludicrous. How could anyone be so stupid as to believe any of this stuff, and where are the professionals who could stop it? Why do they continue to be silent and protect the participants of one of the biggest farces in the history of crime? Is there no one powerful enough who will step up to the plate and end this travesty of justice? Is there no honor left in this country?

Future true crime buffs will read about the JonBenet case, some day, and they will shake their heads in disbelief at the incompetence and corruption evident in the case. They will also ask, why didn't anyone stop Mary Lacy and her thugs? I can tell them - it's because our public officials who could have stopped Lacy were all Gutless Wonders who should have been run out of office. And, because a six-year-old child's murder became a nuisance to the people of Boulder who should have been screaming bloody murder for the truth.

Anyone who thinks our justice system isn't broke and corrupt is crazy.

[sboyd]

OK, Louisa's big brave friends are over at Topix posting under anonymous hats and using anonymous servers accusing me of being a coward because I'm posting snide comments about this here under the protection of FFJ (just like Louisa/Tipper posted her snide comments at Sycamore under the protection of Athena/JustMe? LOL) How awful of me, addressing snide spin with snide FACTS.

Nevertheless, since Louisa/Tipper's friend seems to want more - here we go.

(Tipper's comments in red)




If Patsy was the last person to see Jonbenet alive then that means Patsy was the killer.... However, I'm sure that isn't what Tipper means to say here. Stacy has it wrong because according to the Ramsey account of events, John carried JonBenet upstairs and then Patsy came in and dressed her. I cannot find any source which backs up the claim that John was last to see her alive.

Tipper is right (even if she had to be snide about it).



This is classic :spin:

Here Tipper acts obtuse in interpreting Stacy D's words. She presents it as though Stacy D means that Patsy found the note and immediately - i.e. without hesitation - called 911. Of course, in reading Stacy D's words, it is clear that in saying "without hesitation", Stacy D is referring to the note's instructions not to call police and NOT to Patsy's sequence of actions. By all accounts, the Ramseys did not hesitate in calling the police - i.e. hestitate because of the threats in the ransom note that Jonbenet would be beheaded if they did.

Stacy D's account of this is accurate. Tipper's snide and classic :spin: almost certainly intended to detract from the FACT that the Ramseys didn't stop to consider the threats in the ransom note before calling over friends and police and not even asking them to be discreet!

I responded to Solange and OOT, whoever these morons are. Mame also. So who is Solange and OOT?

[Jayelles]

Here's an old favourite piece of :spin: - in fact, it will identify RST - especially those who educated themselves at the Susan Bennett School of Spinology!

06:10 a.m. - The first officers from the Boulder Police Department arrive on scene. One of the first priorities in a missing child investigation is to search the house. They do not search the house at this point. Instead, they wait on a promised 10:00AM phone call from the kidnappers as stated in the ridiculous ransom note. They do, however, check the exterior of the residence and find it is completely locked, no signs of forced entry, and there are no footprints in the thin layer of snow and frost that covers the Ramsey lawn. An incredible feat for any experienced criminal to pull off. So much for the RDI claim that the 'no footprints' claim is no longer believed by anyone

I find it incredible that there are still people who get excited about the "no footprints in the snow" observation. Reichenbach (sp?) described the snow covering, noted that it wasn't universal but patchy, noted the consistency of this snow and observed that there were no footprints in this snow. A perfectly clinical observation of conditions. Now, with the exception of one very early, inaccurate press report which suggested that "no footprints in the snow was some kind of proof of an inside job, no-one is suggesting this as evidence for a minute! Yet time and again, the RST will bring up this "no footprints in the snow" jab as though they'e caught out the RDIs in misinformation. It's quite pathetic.

IN her article, Stacy D noted that :-

there are no footprints in the thin layer of snow and frost that covers the Ramsey lawn.

From the Ramsey Police report:-

Sgt Reichenbach states in his report that he had arrived at the Ramsey home at approximately 0600 hours on December 26 and that he had examined the exterior of the Ramsey home as well as the yard. Sgt Reichenbach noted that the air temperature was approximately 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Sgt Reichenbach noted in his report that there was a very light dusting of snow and frost on the exposed grass in the yard outside the Ramsey home. Some of the grass and yard was covered with snow from previous snowfall(s) and this snow was described as being crusty and measuring one-two inches deep. Sgt Reichenbach states that he saw no fresh footprints in any of the snow or in the frost on the grass..."

Where's the contradiction ? Methinks Louisa/Tipper has become so dug into her RST thinking that she is struggling to separate fact from fantasy on this point.

Nowhere did Reichenbach say that the snow covering was universal, nowhere did Stacy D suggest this either. Straight thinkers fully appreciate that there was early and erroneous reporting of the case but that this was clarified a LONG time ago. ONLY diehard RSTs still jab about the "no footprints in the snow".

Stacy D 5 Tipper 0