The Truth about Judge Julie Carnes' Decision.Stun Gun/Rope/Bag/Door/Lights/Knots/Bat

[Tricia]

In this thread you will read the truth about the civil case in which Judge Julie Carnes ruled that an "intruder" killed JonBenet Ramsey.

Please keep in mind that the Ramsey's civil attorney, Lin Wood, gave a one sided presentation of the case. He showed the judge only what he wanted her to see and also misrepresented the facts in my opinion.

If you would like to read the whole decision please do so here:
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10.htm

Feel free to take this to other forums as long as you take the whole post and tell where the post came from.

Now the truth about "The Stun Gun."

[Tricia]

Rebuttal to Judge Julie Carnes’ Decision
Wolfe vs. Ramsey

THE STUN GUN



From Judge Carnes’ Decision:

“Dr. Michael Doberson, a forensic pathologist who examined the Boulder Coroner's autopsy report and autopsy photos, and who concluded that the injuries to "the right side of the face as well as on the lower left back are patterned injuries most consistent with the application of a stun gun." (Report of Michael Doberson, M.D., Ph.D. at 5(A) attach. as Ex. 3 to Defs.' Ex. Vol. I, Part A. ) Defendants' evidence that a stun gun was used, then, stands unrebutted. In other words, plaintiff has failed to produce evidence that creates a material dispute of fact on this point or that offers an alternative explanation for the origin of these marks, other than a stun gun. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the undisputed facts indicate that a stun gun was used in the commission of the murder.

In addition, the Court notes that defendants have provided compelling testimony from homicide detective Andrew Louis Smit, who is widely regarded as an expert investigator, in support of the intruder theory. (SMF 168; PSMF 168.) Detective Smit has reviewed the evidence and prepared a comprehensive CD presentation that summarizes this evidence and offers the inferences that can be logically drawn from that evidence. From a review of this evidence, Detective Smit believes that JonBenet was subdued by a stun gun, taken from her bedroom by an unknown intruder, and then sexually assaulted, tortured and murdered by this intruder in the basement of the defendants' home in Boulder, Colorado.”


The Truth

Dr. Michael Doberson, the expert the Ramsey’s rely on for their stun gun theory, has stated he can’t be sure a stun gun was used without exhuming the body.


From The Boulder Daily Camera - January 13, 1998.

"They came over and showed me some pictures from the (Ramsey) autopsy and asked for my opinion, whether they could be stun gun injuries," Dobersen recalled. "I told them that they could be; that was a possibility. But there were a lot of things they could do to narrow down the possibilities of what it could be."
Dobersen told Boulder investigators to do what The New Yorker reports they eventually did - measure the distance between the wounds and compare that to stun guns.
"Besides", he added, "the only definitive way to tell if electrocution was involved in JonBenet's death is to re-examine her body and look for very characteristic changes in skin tissue."
"You really can't tell from a photo," Dobersen said.

From the Ramsey’s own book, Death of Innocence (HB), p. 194:

“Back in April 11, Lou Smit, Trip DeMuth, and Steve Ainsworth had gone to John Meyer, the Boulder county coroner, with a single question. "could the marks on JonBenet's body have come from a stun gun?"

The investigators felt they had discovered a significant clue, and Meyer evidently agreed that the small red marks he observed on JonBenet's body could have come from such a weapon.

Following this conversation, Smit had spoken to Peter Mang and Sue Kitchen of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation about a stun gun causing the same marks. Could a stun gun leave the red welts found on our daughter? Both Mang and Kitchen believed it was possible. In turn, they suggested that Lou pursue the issue with Araphahoe County Coroner Mike Doberson. In the past, Dobersen had dealt with a crime involving a stun gun. His experience was first-hand and practical, and he should be able to offer some insight.

During Lou's talk with Doberson, the autopsy photos were studied from every possible angle. After a careful examination, Dr. Dobersen believed that the marks in the pictures did appear to have come from a stun gun. However, Doberson wasn't ready to make a definite public statement unless the body was exhumed. Because the exhumation didn't occur, Smit couldn't obtain the conclusive statement he was seeking. However, the evidence was mounting.”


FACT: Doberson said he wasn’t ready to make a definite public statement unless the body was exhumed. The next logical step would be exhumation; yet, the Ramseys absolutely refused to do this. Here is why, according to the Ramseys, they refuse to exhume JBR.


From the ABC program 20/20 transcript March 17, 2000:
BARBARA WALTERS: Why wasn't the body exhumed?
JOHN RAMSEY: (PAUSE) Don't know why the police didn't consider that. Uh, we were asked… when this theory first surfaced about a stun gun that if the body were exhumed… it could be proved conclusively but it had to be done fairly quickly. This was… within months of when we'd just buried JonBenet. And I, as her father, could not bring myself to do that. I had laid my child to rest. She was at peace. And that was, ah, that decision I couldn't make.
BARBARA WALTERS: Even though it might have cleared you?
JOHN RAMSEY: It wasn't… that was not the priority. The priority was my child was at rest.

From the 48 hours interview with Erin Moriarty. Oct. 4th 2002 CBS:
Erin Moriarty: “Wouldn’t that have been or the best way to know or coming the closest to knowing is if you could have exhumed the body and line up a stun gun and see it matches those injuries?”
Lou Smit: “Sure, I believe that would have been the most accurate way to do it.”
Erin Moriarty: ( Voice over) Lou Smit admits that in the months following JonBenet’s death, investigators considered going to court to have her body exhumed but decided against it.
John Ramsey: “We buried our child, she was in peace, that was just a horrid thought.”
Erin Moriarty: “But, John that might have been the one way to know for sure, that could have resolved the whole issue, because if a stun gun was used, then it was not the parents.”
John Ramsey: “Certainly, and we’ve got people who told us, who know what they are doing, that with 95 percent medical certainty that a stun gun was used. No question.
Erin Moriarty: “But you would have known with 100 percent, with certainty, if you had exhumed the body, as tough as that would have been”.
John Ramsey: “That’s my child you’re talking about, not a body, it’s different.”

Also from Death of Innocence (p. 195)

(07-12-1997) "Smit had narrowed down the potential weapon to an Air Taser stun gun, which could have left the exact marks photographed on JonBenet."


FACT:

From Smit’s Appearance on Larry King Live – 5-28-01

05-28-2001 Smit on LKL: "I am not positive that it is an Air Taser stun gun."

05-28-2001 Smit on LKL: "Meaning that the Air Taser stun gun is as close as we've been able to find to the marks on JonBenet.


Experts who do not agree it was a Stun Gun:
Dr. Werner Spitz. Nationally known pathologist who has worked on other famous cases including the assassination of JFK.
From the 48 Hours Oct. 2002 interview:
Erin Moriarty (voice over) “Instead, Spitz believes the large dark mark on JonBenet’s face was left by a snap on a piece of clothing.
Dr. Spitz: “You know like the snaps they have on blue jeans for instance. If you look at this one below the ear, this thing here. if you look at it closely with a magnifying glass you will see within this brownish mark is a boat shaped structure which is missing with any of the other injuries.”

Dr. Cyril Wecht:
"The stun gun theory has been around for some time. I know for a fact that this was submitted to various experts in stun guns and manufacturers, criminalists, forensic pathologists, law enforcement people, they all rejected it."
"I also know for a fact that Mr. Smit, pursuant to his own request, presented this to one of the top-flight forensic scientists, who along with another top-flight forensic scientist of a different subspecialty, rejected it."

(Court TV - The Crier Report - 05/01/01)



Air Taser, the maker of the stun gun Smit is convinced was used in the JonBenet Ramsey case, says Smit’s theory is wrong.

From Boulder’s The Daily Camera, May 2, 2001 (Christopher Anderson)
“Air Taser representative Stephen Tuttle said he was contacted by an investigator early on in the case and provided Smit with the same model to conduct his experiments.
"I am bewildered. I don't know what to think about the theory," Tuttle said. "It defies the logic of what the weapon does."
Tuttle conceded that two marks are close to the width of the contacts of an Air Taser, but said that's where the similarities end.
"We have never seen those types of marks when you touch somebody with a stun gun," he said. "We are talking hundreds of people that have been touched with these devices. I can't replicate those marks."
Tuttle said it is uncommon for the stun gun to leave only two marks on the skin. The body moves away from the stun gun, causing multiple, erratic marks.
"How you can keep this thing perfectly still, not once, but twice on a squirming child? It doesn't make any sense," he said. "I hope that doesn't throw water on somebody's investigation."
He also said the Air Taser does not render people unconscious.
Nebraska Dr. Robert Stratbucker, who has conducted several experiments on stun guns and is considered a courtroom expert, said he takes "considerable issue" with Smit's stun gun theory.
Stratbucker said it is "pure nonsense" that the stun gun would leave a blue mark in between red marks on the skin as Smit claimed.
"I have not seen ever, ever any blue marks, and I don't know what the cause of any blue mark could be," he said.

During a May 2, 2003, phone conversation between Steve Tuttle, spokesperson for Air Taiser, and a representative of Forums for Justice.com, Mr. Tuttle stated the following.

“We are still as perplexed to this day as to why any investigator would think a stun gun, a Taser stun gun, was used in the JonBenet Ramsey case.

Several things would make a Taser gun extremely difficult to use as in the scenario presented by the investigator:

*Our company has never encountered those kinds of marks on humans. Humans instinctually respond to pain and move during stun applications.

*A stun gun is very LOUD.

*The technology at the time of the crime would only allow the user to keep a person at bay with the stun power of seven watts, not incapacitate him or stun him into unconsciousness. The person would still be able to scream, squirm, kick and yell.

*If a stun gun were used, in order to leave the type of marks made by the electrodes on a person, there would also have to be significant indentations in the skin, caused by the front of the stun gun. The electrodes do not protrude that much. To get marginal effect from the seven watt device, the user would have to aggressively drive in the stun gun on a pressure point , which would leave large indentations that would show up on a deceased person. They would be very noticeable. Once again this wouldn't stun the person into unconsciousness nor would it immobilize them. It would, however, cause a great deal of pain - so much so the person would be screaming.

*Taser contacted the police when they first heard their stun gun was being used to support a theory that a child was immobilized with the stun gun, leaving the marks that can be seen in the autopsy photos. Taser expressed, emphatically, that the theory of the stun gun is perplexing, as it doesn't make sense.”

[Tricia]

Rebuttal to Judge Julie Carnes’ Decision
Wolfe vs. Ramsey

BROWN BAG AND ROPE



From Judge Carnes’ Decision:

“Specifically, a rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom on the second floor; defendants have indicated that neither of these items belonged to them. (SMF 181; PSMF 181.) Regardless of its ownership, there is no explanation why a bag containing a rope would be in the guest bedroom. Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the vacuuming of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body (SMF 181; PSMF 181), thereby suggesting that either the bag had been near JonBenet or that someone who had touched the bag had also touched JonBenet. 35”


The Truth

There is no evidence that any of JonBenet’s injuries were caused by the rope that was found inside the brown paper bag, and Judge Carnes’ decision does not mention that the rope found in the bag does not match the cord attached to the garrote. In fact, the ligature found around JonBenet’s neck was described as a white cord material. The only connection one can logically make from the fact there were “small pieces of the material on this brown sack found in the vacuuming of JonBenet’s bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body” is that JonBenet was at some unknown time in contact with the brown sack or someone who has access to the brown sack (but not necessarily the rope inside the brown sack), since no reference to fibers from the rope inside the brown sack being found on JB is made. The evidence photos prove the rope found inside the brown bag does NOT match the ligature around JonBenet’s neck. One can then also say there is no proven connection between the rope in the brown sack and the murder of JonBenet.

Rope supposedly found in brown bag in the Ramsey guest is pictured with the "Fox News" logo and a ruler. Look at the rope in the picture around JonBenet’s legs. Below the two pictures is a close up of of the picture with the rope around JonBenet’s legs. Could this be where the rope in the bag came from? One of JonBenet’s photo shoots?

[Tricia]

Here is another picture of a rope used by the Ramseys for an event. It looks like the same rope used in the photo shoot that matches the rope shown on Fox News. The rope that Fox News said was the rope presented to the judge.

Thank you to Why_Nutt for the pictures.

[Tricia]

Here is a close up of a picture from the Ramsey house where you can see the rope that matches the one in the Fox News picture. It's hanging in the hall of the Ramsey home

[Tricia]

Look again at the rope in the photo shoot and the rope Fox News says was presented to the judge.

[Tricia]

Now look at the actual garrote from the crime scene.

[Tricia]

The brown fibers that came from vacuuming JonBenets bed were found only on her bed and in the body bag. The logical conclusion is the small pieces were in JonBenet’s bed and transferred from there to her body and into the body bag.

It is impossible to know how the “small pieces of the material on this brown sack” made their way onto JonBenet’s bed. We have no way of knowing how long the sack had been in the guest room. We have no way of knowing if JonBenet brought the sack into her bedroom and placed it in her bed. We have no way of knowing if a playmate of JonBenet’s brought the sack onto her bed. The list of ways this could have happened is endless.

In addition, in making her decision Judge Carnes relies solely on the word of the defendants that they didn’t recognize the rope and brown bag. It is impossible to substantiate their denials of ownership and because of the obvious conflict of self-interest by the defendants, there can be no reliable conclusion as to how the rope and bag got in the guest bedroom, who owned it, or what its purpose was, and no one can reasonably connect it to either an intruder or the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.


Page 337 National Enquirer Police Files book states that John Ramsey was shown a picture of the rope found in the guest room. John Ramsey states he did not recognize the rope but it could belong to his oldest son John Andrew who occasionally used the room. One wonders if John Andrew was ever questioned about the bag and rope, and, if so, what his answer was. John Andrew obviously did have belongings in the house; reference the suitcase belonging to him that was found in a room in the basement.

Was Burke ever questioned about the brown bag and rope? Could they have possibly belonged to Burke?

Nowhere in the judge’s decision does it say any fingerprints were found on the brown bag containing the rope. Therefore to try and tie this to the murder is useless.


Questions that need to be answered before one can logically tie these two items to the murder.

Did the rope match the rope used in the garrote?

Were there any injuries on JonBenet’s body consistent with the use of the rope found inside the brown bag?

Did the bag have any fingerprints on it?

When did the pieces of brown bag get in JB’s bed? What was the manner of transference of these pieces of bag?

What evidence ties this bag and rope to the commission of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

[Tricia]

Rebuttal to Judge Julie Carnes’ Decision
Wolfe vs. Ramsey

BASEMENT LIGHTS/BUTLER DOOR


From Judge Carnes’ Decision:

“Certain undisputed evidence of how defendants' house was found on the morning of December 26 is also consistent with the intruder theory of the crime. For example, the lights were on in the basement, when first searched at approximately 6:15 a.m. that day. (SMF 129; PSMF' 129.) In addition, the butler's door to the kitchen was found ajar that morning (SMF 137; PSMF 137.) Defendants note that the butler's door was only a short distance away from the spiral staircase where the Ransom Note was found and within plain view of where the pad of paper used for the Ransom Note was found.”


FACT:

Nowhere does the judge indicate the intruder used the open windows or doors. There is no evidence to suggest an intruder used the butler door, when it became ajar and why. Did one of the family members open it looking for JonBenet and then not close it all the way? The Ramseys have always talked about the confusion of the morning.


From Perfect Murder, Perfect Town (Schiller, HB Edition) p. 61:

p. 60: “John Ramsey told Officers French and Veitch that he believed the house had been locked when he went to bed.”


p. 61: “…(Reichenbach) had examined the exterior doors and windows and had seen no signs of forced entry.”


It stands to reason that Reichenbach would have made note of any open exterior doors or windows during his examination of exterior doors and windows that morning; yet, nowhere is there any mention made of an open butler door.


From Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, (Thomas, 2000)

p. 19: “The sergeant (Reichenbach) found no evidence of forced entry during a walk through of the house, then went outside… He saw no fresh shoe impressions, found no open doors or windows, nothing to indicate a breakin, but walking on the driveway and sidewalks left no visible prints.”


It is the Ramseys’ and Lou Smit’s contention that the intruder came and left through the window in the basement.

From 48 Hours, 10/4/02 (Lou Smit interview with Erin Moriarty):
Lou Smit: "It's much easier to go out that window if you stand on something. You put the suitcase in front, you step on the suitcase, and you're right out into the window well. Lift the grate - you're gone. It's that easy."
How do other windows or doors tie in to the intruder theory, if the Ramseys already know the point of entry and exit was the basement window?



FACT:

The fact that the basement light was on suggests the person involved in the crime left it on. It gives no indication as to who that person was

More from Lou Smit on the window sill

From “Who Killed the Pageant Queen?”(7/11/01) (Mills, Tracey):

LOU SMIT: And that's exactly what the photographs show me. There was a great deal of foliage which was on the front of the grate and it actually had been pinched under the leading edge of that grate. Even when you pick the grate up you can see very clearly that there was green foliage right on the plate that the grate rested on. Also, in looking into the window well, the window in the centre the one that had been opened had a great deal of disturbance in that particular area of the window. You can also see what appears to be finger marks on the window frame itself.


Once again, there is no way of knowing exactly when the photos were taken. What is known is that Mr. Smit took photos of different sites in the Ramsey home, and he could not have done so at the time of the crime, since he was not employed by the DA’s office until three months after the crime occurred. Therefore, his photos cannot be said to be a true representation of how that window appeared on December 26, 1996. In addition, the window itself had been repaired.

If the photos are actual crime scene photos taken at the time evidence collectors were working in the Ramsey home, couldn’t one reasonably posit that John Ramsey himself left those finger marks on the window frame when he broke the window, reached in and unlocked the window, and entered the basement?


From Power Point Presentation - Larry King Live (05-28-2001)

LOU SMIT: And when we looked at photographs of the window well that leads into that window, we've also seen evidence of recent disturbance. There is also foliage under the grate that covers this window well, which would indicate that someone may have opened and shut the grate.

There is also disturbance on the windowsill of the middle window only, not the other two windows.

Larry King: Lou, if it is, though, a cover-up, couldn’t Mr. Ramsey or someone have gone out and done all those things?

Lou Smit: Sure, anything is possible. But he would have had to go out, and lift the grate, go through window well, he would have had to open the window, leaving perhaps finger marks on the window itself. There is also another window that leads into that basement where it also shows recent disturbance, as if someone may have tried to get in that window.

Larry King: No prints on the window?

Lou Smit: No prints that we know of on the window.


One must question why Mr. Smit thinks someone trying to stage the murder scene would be apt to leave prints on the window itself but the alleged intruder only left prints on the window frame.

It is also puzzling that an intruder entering through a filthy basement window did not leave any leaves or other debris in JBR’s bedroom, on the stairs leading to the first and second floors, or in the kitchen where he apparently wrote the ransom note.

The Chair Against the Train Room Door


From JonBenet, The Police Files (Gentile, Wright, 2003)

Page 314 (06-25-1998 interviews)

Lou Smit: "So you think that the chair would block the door and nobody would have gotten in there without moving it?"

John Ramsey: “Correct.”

Lou Smit: "In other words, let's say that the intruder goes into the train room, gets out, let's say, that window?”

John Ramsey: “Uh huh.

Lou Smit: "How in effect would he get that chair to block that door, if that is the case, is what I'm saying?"

John Ramsey: "I don't know... I go down, I say, "Ooh, that door is blocked." I move the chair and went in the room."

Lou Smit: So you couldn’t have gotten in without moving the chair?”

John Ramsey: "Correct... I had to move the chair."

Lou Smit: "The thing I'm trying to figure out in my mind then is, if an intruder went through the door, he'd almost have to pull the chair behind him... because that would have been his exit... so that's not very logical as far as......"

John Ramsey: "I think it is. I mean if this person is that bizarrely clever to have not left any good evidence, but left all these little funny clues around, they... are clever enough to pull the chair back when they left."


There seems to be no reasonable explanation for the chair’s presence at the entrance of the train room where an alleged intruder supposedly made both his entrance to the basement and his exit from the same window. The obvious question here is, why didn’t the intruder use the chair to reach the window to make his escape instead of perching precariously on a suitcase to do so? It would seem rather silly for an intruder to have spent hours in the Ramsey home, murder JonBenet while her parents were asleep in the house, and then suddenly become wary that someone might catch him as he made his escape from the window, so he placed the chair in front of the door.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````
Detective Lou Smit

Lou Smit was hired in March of 1997, three months after the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, by Alex Hunter to assist in the investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey. He resigned from the investigation n September 1998.

In his resignation letter, Smit told D.A. Hunter he “believes the Boulder police have focused on trying to prove the parents killed their daughter rather than letting the evidence lead them,” and in fact became an advocate for the Ramseys after his resignation. (Ex-Ramsey Detective Vows to Help Family,” Rocky Mountain News, 9/29/98.)
``````````````````````````````````````````````````
Now Lou Smit is working with Boulder D.A. Mary Keenan in the JonBenet Ramsey investigation. He went in convinced, no matter what the evidence showed everyone else, that an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey.

For more Lou Smit working with the Boulder D.A. please visit our petition to appoint a special prosecutor in the JonBenet Ramsey case located here.
http://www.petitiononline.com/jbr246/petition.html

[Tricia]

Judge Julie Carne’s decision in Wolfe vs. Ramsey case.

KNOTS

Judge Carne Ruled:
JonBenét's body was bound with complicated rope slipknots and a garrote that the order described as "sophisticated bondage devices" by someone "with an expertise in bondage." No evidence suggests the Ramseys knew how to tie such knots.

The Truth.
Burke Ramsey was in the Boy Scouts of America from as early as 1993 according to the Ramsey’s book “Death of Innocence” (HB) page 97. The Ramsey’s discuss the Children’s Christmas parade in Boulder. John writes of the parade:
“Our first involvement occurred in 1993 when Patsy was still struggling with chemotherapy. Burke’s Boy Scout Troop wanted to participate, so Patsy came up with a design for a float.”


The Boy Scouts 10th Edition, 1990-1998, Table of Contents:
II. OUTDOOR ADVENTURES
2. Let's Go Camping!
3. Using Woods Tools
4. Campfires and Camping Stoves
5. Cooking in Camp
6. Ropes, Knots, and Splices
7. Let's Go Hiking!
8. Finding Your Way
9. Backpacking
10. Hit the Pedals!
11. Let's Go Swimming
12. Canoeing and Rowing
13. Understanding Nature
14. Observing Nature
15.Caring for the Earth

Also the Boy Scouts offer many books on Knot making like:
Knots and How to Tie Them, published by Boy Scouts of America Irving, TX.

John Ramsey was a Junior Office in the Navy for 3 years. Death of Innocence (HB) page 97 John writes:

“After spending 3 years as a Junior Officer in the Navy, I returned to Michigan State to finish a master’s degree in Business Administration.”

A call to any Navy Recruiting Office will tell you one of the first things new recruits learn is how to tie knots. Many knots.

John Ramsey had his own sailboat and raced. Death of Innocence (HB) page 198 Patsy writes:

“Chief Halverson and I drove down to the marina, and sure enough, John was standing on his sailboat, Miss America, getting ready for the local Wednesday race.”

One of the basic things you must learn if you want to sail is knot tying. According to The American Sailing Academy in Athens sailing fundamentals include:
• Rigging and Unrigging the Boat
• Basic Sailing Terminology
• Right-of-Way Rules
• Points of Sail
• Fig-8 Over-Board Recovery
• Crew Coordination
• Basic Knots
http://www.bluesails.com/academy2.html


Below is the Prusik knot. This knot is used in sailing and mountain climbing. Right next to it is the knot from the crime scene.

[Tricia]

This is in no way suggests that anyone in the house committed the crime. This is only to show that two people in the Ramsey family had some knowledge of knots.

In her ruling Judge Carnes' states, “JonBenét's body was bound with complicated rope slipknots and a garrote that the order described as "sophisticated bondage devices" by someone "with an expertise in bondage."

Judge Carnes quotation marks suggest someone else is saying the device is a sophisticated bondage device. Who is this “expert” that came up with this conclusion? What evidence is there to suggest that the only person who could tie this knot was someone “with an expertise in bondage”

Finally to suggest that no one in the Ramsey family “knew how to tie such knots” is not true. We don’t know what type of knots the Ramseys are able to tie.

We do know that two people, in the house the night of the murder, had experience with tying knots.

[Tricia]

Judge Julie Carnes' decision in Wolfe vs. Ramsey case.

Baseball Bat

Judge Carnes ruled: 35 Finally, items were left behind that defendants assert they did not own. (Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Summ. J. [67] at 18-19.) A baseball bat not owned by the Ramseys found on the north side of the house has fibers consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF 185;.)

The Truth:

The baseball bat is not linked to the murder. It was not shown to be used in any way during the commission of the murder. The only thing that can be proven is that a fiber from the room in which JBR was found was also on the bat. The Ramseys make no attempt to connect the bat in any way to the murder. There is no way to know how long the bat had lain in the location it was found. There are no fingerprints on the bat that are connected to the murder. There is no DNA. Even Patsy Ramsey wasn’t sure if the bat was Burke’s or not. From the police transcripts of the National Enquirer book page 229

TH:(Tom Haney): How about the bat itself, does that look--
PR: Well, I can't say for sure. Burke would probably know.
TH: Do you know how many bats he might have had? Would he have had more than one?
PR: I don't think so. I mean, I think that looks metal. Metal bats are pretty--I mean, they are not cheap. So, I can't imagine--I don't think he had more than one, if he had one.
TH: But he did have one?
PR: It seems like he had one, but I can't say if it was that one.

There is no evidence to show when or how the baseball bat got in the location it was found, and there is no useful evidence other than small fibers on the bat to suggest it was used in the crime; yet, the leap is somehow made that the bat is connected to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey as cited by Judge Carnes.
__________________