JB's blood on the pillowcase...

Are we not supposed to discuss this on this thread? As usual I'm confused.

 

Well thank you very much Moab. I hope you have a wonderful Sunday!

 

This thread is amazing! I cannot believe for the life of me that ANYONE, especially someone in law enforcement, would have let Patsy make a statement about not seeing blood on a curtain tie-back without a remark, without honing in on that. I watch "The First 48" on A&E a LOT, and those detectives always grind away at their suspect(s), and there are other detectives watching from outside the room on closed-circuit video, and watching for signs, statements, etc. that they can use in the interrogation process.

I guess everyone in Boulder had pretty much already decided that Patsy and John were innocent, and gave them a pass on anything they said and did. Patsy made SO many mistakes during the interviews (they weren't interrogations) and yet Haney NEVER caught any of it. He wasn't listening to her as a SUSPECT, but as a WITNESS. That's the difference. He was questioning her as if she had material information to HELP the investigation, not as if she were part of the suspect list.

:steamed::stupid1::rage::banghead:

 

I think LE had already decided the exact opposite, heymom. I think they were sure the Ramseys did it, but they knew it was all over by '98 and the DA interviews were really only to appease the governor, who was taking a drubbing from the public and had called a group of "advisors" together--other lawyers and DAs--to tell him how to handle this "done deal" publicly. So the governor told Hunter to hire a "special prosecutor" and call a grand jury, or he'd take the case away from Boulder. This is all documented.

The upshot was Hunter went back to his office and hired Michael Kane, who said call the Ramsey lawyers and tell them they either consent to interviews or they'll talk to a grand jury. I'm not sure what happened between the Ramsey '98 DA interviews and the grand jury actually being called, as no one has talked, but my guess is Michael Kane had something to do with the grand jury finally being sworn in.

After the '98 interviews, Hunter also took Lacy and DeMuth off the case. Smit knew he was going soon as well, when he was told he wouldn't appear before the grand jury with his "intruder" theory--Smit said that recently in an interview that was online with a Co. media org. So Lacy and DeMuth got huge chips on their shoulder--Lacy has proven that with her Ramsey-lovefest for 8 years, devoted to proving "LACY WAS RIGHT!" DeMuth has appeared in every news report and TV croc he could get his face in, denouncing the RDI/BPD, as well. Smit took another route...sort of: he copied Thomas and sent his own "resignation letter" to Hunter and the public. Then Smit stole the PowerPoint slide show he made, work product for Hunter copied from case evidence while Smit being paid by the citizens of Boulder County. He also took copies of the videotapes of the LE interviews, and then blackmailed Hunter to let Smit keep copies of the PowerPoint and videos, as well as present his "intruder dog and pony show" to the grand jury anyway. Once the grand jury was finished and Hunter announced no idictments, Smit was free to go on a personal "Free John and Patsy" media tour with the PowerPoint, videotapes (yeah, those jams SOLD to the tabs for $40K), and whatever else he managed to get from Hunter, with Smit's signed contract to keep quiet about Hunter's little "secrets".

But before Smit's pro-Ramsey tour, the grand jury was called for a year as an investigative body. We don't know what they saw nor thought, because, IMO, Hunter knew before going in that he was never going to indict the Ramseys. He was following orders to even hold a grand jury on this murder, I believe. I don't think for one minute Hunter meant to indict, because he never called the Ramseys, who would have to have either answered questions without their lawyers present OR to PLEAD THE FIFTH.

Think about that.

Getting the Ramseys under oath to commit to ONE STORY, to answer those very FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS, heymom, with NO LAWYERS TO CUE THEM OR INTERRUPT FOR THEM, OR TO PLEAD THE FIFTH.

And Hunter never called them, using the Co. law (at that time) that grand jury witnesses got to see their prior statements as an excuse. Does ANYONE believe the Ramseys hadn't ALREADY seen every piece of evidence in this case, COMPLIMENTS OF HUNTER AND SMIT?

Oh, well. I went off on this, didn't I? Sorry. I will believe to the day I die that Hunter was in on this cover up all along. Why else REFUSE to get a subpoena for PHONE RECORDS for the family of a child murdered IN HER OWN HOME with ONLY the family present and NO EVIDENCE OF AN INTRUDER--and that's INARGUABLE ON DAY ONE?

What I want to know is if the GRAND JURY asked for those phone records? Not that they would have helped by that time, as they were already wiped when the Ramseys handed over one month a year later. But what about those the few months BEFORE AND AFTER? That certainly would have cleared up if that ONE CELL PHONE WAS ACTIVE AFTER DEC.

Oh my god, it makes me furious!!! Those phone records could have solved this case! How does Team Ramsey know that the intruder didn't FIND THAT LOST PHONE?! Either way, NO EXCUSE! ARRRRGH!! :steamed:

 

Question about the crime scene photos

Hi all. Don't want to take this thread off base. Just a quick question about those photos..? Those numbered photos, what are the sequence of the ones that we know about? Is there a #1? And then on to 2, 3, 4, 5.. I'd like to see the series in order of the ones that were numbered, as well as all the 'crime scene photo' stamped one... but especially those that were numbered in some kind of order.. is there a thread here discussing the sequence of those photos? Thanks.....

 

I agree..

.. I agree too.. I believe Hunter knew from the get-go very soon after this child died (and probably before she was found) that 'something' had happened and agreed to bury this case.

 

I think that Hunter got the word from Day 1- what was it now.."treat these people like VICTIMS, not like suspects". Remember the December cell phone records? NO calls made? Who doesn't use a cell phone for a month? Hunter also refused to order the school nurse records and her pediatrician's records to be turned over to LE. Can you imagine? A dead child- and LE can't see her medical records! That alone should scream parental involvement.

 

What I want to know is - how far did this go up? Who ordered Hunter to do these things, or was it his idea from the start? How far up the chain do we have to look?

We'll never know who John Ramsey called that night/early morning, will we? If we only had the phone records, we'd know.

 

Two words......Lockheed Martin.

God Bless the USA.

 

LE didn't know there was any blood associated with this case in the beginning. Her head wound didn't even bleed. At autopsy Meyer found both, the head wound and cleaned up smeared blood on her legs. Also on her panties. In questioning Patsy I think they were trying to find the location of where she bled. That would have been helpful in their investigation so they would know where in the house to go back and possibly find the death scene. IIRC they still don't know where exactly she was killed. I read they think it might have been in the basement on the carpet just outside the room since she had those carpet fibers on her face and duct tape. Also her urine was found there. In this particular questioning of Patsy i think they were trying to locate the spot she bled, HENCE, where she actually died. Jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong 'cuz I'm fighting a killer sinus infection and medication is making me foggy. All this questioning of the nosebleeds in her bed has got me stumped but I guess they actually thought her mother would have wanted to be helpful in clearing that up. If only they knew then what they know now.

 

It is a puzzle. The blood accumulating under her scalp was probably represented by the "tan" mucous on her cheek and in her nose. Not much more than that seeped out. But on her thighs and pubic area- that's requires a bit more explaining. If she was alive and standing, she could have been in the bathroom, where evidence would have been easily cleaned up from the floor or tub- but then why not just wash her? Then there would be no blood and no fibers, so we know that didn't happen that way. AND if her urine was rage-inducing accident
If she was lying down, she was likely dead, dying, or unconscious. If it was trickles of blood, a relatively small amount, then it is possible that none dripped onto whatever she was lying on (floor, blanket, etc). If it was more than that, there would have to be something else that got bloodied that hasn't been found. More evidence removed by Aunt P?

 

During questioning of Patsy about this, the interrogators used the word "stain". It's only later that one of them--DeMuth?--asks about the nosebleeds in relation to the stain. So that leads me to question if the "stain" was more like the "tan-colored mucous" found on her face. Remember it also dripped onto her upper sleeve of her shirt, Thomas wrote.

If the "stain" in fact contained blood, and it was in fact JB's blood, which surely they tested for that, then how did it get there? That's what the question asked of Patsy is probing for: when was JB "bleeding" on her pillowcase?

In a normal situation, it could be the loss of a tooth at her age. Did Dr. Meyers say more about her teeth than "normal" or whatever? Were there any missing?

No nosebleeds, Patsy said. But JonBenet "picked" her nose until it bled? I DON'T THINK SO, YOU LYING MOTHER OF A MURDERED CHILD:

So how is that blood found on that pillowcase? Children don't just bleed here and there for no reason.

Of course, there are two reasons which could be related to her death and the findings at autopsy: blood from being molested; blood from the head injury. If EITHER of these is the source, then at least part of what happened to JonBenet on Dec. 25th happened in her room, on her pillow, likely on her bed.

That's the question here. Wonder if LAZY ever thought to find the answers to THAT DNA EVIDENCE?

 

Didn't JR say he went into her room that morning and checked her bed, under the bed and the bathroom? I think that was in the interviews and in DOI. If he saw blood in the bed I would think he would have had Patsy change the sheets, if he was involved in the coverup. Wait a minute. Didn't LHP say the sheets were changed? But nobody knows exactly when that happened. The fact that Patsy said she didn't see any blood there just makes me think there was originally blood there and she knew it and was pointing that out. Maybe those sheets were changed Christmas night because of blood, not urine?But then again she would have had to place the pajama top back on the bed and put everything the way it shows in the crime scene photo. I dunno. I'm just throwing ideas out here while I'm trying to watch the football game.:eye:

 

Yeah, the sheets were said to have been changed. Let me look that up again.

Okay, here is a long passage, already quoted here, but just to clarify the "washing the sheets" issue:

There is also extensive questioning about the "blanket" on the bed, mentioning specifically that the bedclothes at the foot of the bed do not look as if the "blanket" had been torn out from the rest of the bedclothes. Patsy agrees. Then goes into her "amnesia" act, because that blanket they're fishing about ended up wrapped "papoose-like" around the body of JonBenet in the basement.

 

In this section about the pillowcase and sheets, I also found this. Notice Haney is pointing out MARKERS in JB's drawer. In other drawers, as well.

Is this the marker used on JB's hand to draw the heart? Did LE test that?

And notice that Patsy had other writing pads like the one the ransom note was written on in her dressing area:

 

So we have bloodstains from JonBenet on the pillow; a "marker" in the underwear drawer; too large Bloomies on the child which can't be explained, no matter how many times Patsy changed her story; and the "missing blanket".

 

WHAT?!!!!!

What the heck? Did I miss something? HA! Obviously, I missed A LOT! Is there an explanation for this?

I mean, LE would HAVE to have known this if JB wore A DRESS to the Whites. There were PICTURES, after all. Maybe Patsy got confused and was talking about the Christmas party on the 23rd? JB had on a velvet dress then, right?

 

Elle, do you remember where you got the LHP info? Was it in Thomas's book? You've jogged my memory, but only slightly. What I'm after is if LHP said when she last changed the sheets? Patsy said LHP's last workday before the murder was that Money, the 23rd kid's Christmas party. But of course, Patsy didn't remember if LHP changed the sheets and made it sound like LHP worked DOWNSTAIRS all day for the party.

Anyone but me notice how Patsy did that constantly in these interviews? Anytime the detectives were trying to NAIL SOMETHING IMPORTANT DOWN, Patsy always found a way to obscure ANY timeline or issue.

She's good for it!

 

Patsy probably said "vest". It rhymes with "dress" and I am guesing the transcriber heard it wrong. LE didn't make a big deal of it so it was probably "vest".That's my guess anyway for what it's worth.