Forensic evidence

Absolutely!!!!!!

Now, WHY were Patsy's fibers all over the JonBenet's body and the room where she was found?

One of two answers:

1. She killed JonBenet.
2. She staged the scene for the killer.

If the answer is #1, then why was she never tried for JonBenet's death? The DA had the fibers and had a high probablility that she wrote the note.

IMO the answer is #2

Now, the question becomes:

Who would she stage the scene for?

1. John Ramsey
2. Burke Ramsey
3. Santa Claus
4. John Mark Karr

Again the answer is #2

 

Or two of two answers: Patsy was both the killer and the stager of the scene.

 

Yes it is. Sorry. Sitting room = living room. If we're being posh, we call it the lounge When we bought our house, it was described by the real estate person as the "drawing room". It hasn't been the drawing room since...

 

If so rashomon, then please answer this question:

If the answer is #1 & #2, then why was she never tried for JonBenet's death? The DA had the fibers and had a high probablility that she wrote the note.

 

The answer is because Hunter never intended to prosecute a Ramsey. Any Ramsey. He knew he couldn't get a conviction even WITH the fibers and experts saying Patsy wrote the ransom note because any decent defense team would immediately question the cross-contamination of the crime scene, bring opposing experts who would say there was no 100% guarantee Patsy wrote the note because the writing was disguised, and expose a host of other prosecutorial problems. All a defense team had to do was bring in an iota of reasonable doubt, and it was all over. Look at OJ. If he could be declared not guilty, Patsy would have walked easily.

I am not PDI or BDI. All I know is, Patsy wrote the ransom note, and that the truth of what happened to JonBenet was covered up by her parents and by their wealthy and powerful connections in the state of Colorado. That cover-up continues to this day.

 

But even if the BPD had the fibers and the note, it could not be conclusively proven that it was Patsy who e. g. delivered the deadly head blow. For example, none of her fingerprints were found on a possible weapon - the flashlight had been wiped clean.
Nor could the head blow be tied to any other Ramsey, and therefore it was impossible to determine which of them was originally responsible for JB's death.
So even if it was Patsy who tied the cord around JB's neck, one could argue that she thought JB was already dead, and this again would leave her 'only' as the stager of the scene.
But all this doesn't exclude her as the killer.

Just today I read in a newspaper article here in Germany that a child murder trial ended in acquittal for both parents because the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt which parent (both were suspects) had inflicted the deadly injury to the two-year-old.

 

Excellent post, Rashomon! Well said.

 

This is exactly the reason the Ramsey case never went to trial. Except in the Ramsey case, there were THREE people who could have inflicted the deadly injury.

Neither Hunter or Kane ever had enough evidence to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt which of the three struck the fatal blow.

 

My memory is that both a blanket from the upstairs and a sweatshirt were lain over JonBenet's body. John put one over her, then the other was a sweatshirt...Avanlanche?...placed there by...I'm thinking it was Arndt, but I may be wrong about that. Maybe John grabbed the sweatshirt to lay on her, then went and got the blanket...? Sorry, it's been a long haul.

In Colorado, the law is that the DA must know who did what in a murder and charge according to the evidence that proves this beyond a reasonable doubt. I've heard is laid out and seen the actual law referenced, but would have to research it again to find that now. The usual talking heads on CTV have discussed it before. As well as we recently had Bill Wise on Schiller's last documentary stating the same: he said even if you believe there was no intruder and that the people in the house committed the murder, it wasn't possible to prove which one was the killer. You can't bring in two or three people and charge them and then say, one of them hit her in the head, one of them strangled her with the garrote, one of them sexually assaulted her...but we don't know which one on any count.

But I think you can go a long way to proving a lot if you do a decent investigation and SUBPOENA PHONE RECORDS IMMEDIATELY, arrest the parents who REFUSE to talk to LE, which Smit HIMSELF said he would have done, don't hand every piece of evidence over to the suspects' attorneys from January sixth on, don't tip the investigator's hands repeatedly by "exchanging" information with the prime suspects, and for god's sake, don't send in Pam Paugh to scour the crime scene herself and remove evidence.

Hunter deliberately blocked the investigation and deliberately conspired with Haddon's firm to tank the case, IMO. Even Hunter isn't that dumb. He knew what he was doing and he did it from the first day, when he refused to subpoena phone records, the clothes the family was wearing, and allowed Pam Paugh to go through the house and removed potential evidence.

Unconscionable. Obstruction of justice in a child murder. What a devil.

 

rashomon posted:

"But even if the BPD had the fibers and the note, it could not be conclusively be proven that it was Patsy who e. g. delivered the deadly head blow. For example, none of her fingerprints were found on a possible weapon - the flashlight had been wiped clean."

cherokee posted:

Excellent post, Rashomon! Well said.

WOW! and all along I thought that the autopsy said JonBenet died from asphyxiation.

 

That part of the autopsy has always been a strange joke, Spade. How do you associate asphyxiation with head trauma? Shouldn't it say, "asphyxiation associated with ligature strangulation"?

When you "associate" two things, they relate to each other in the end result--in this case 'death'. But there is no way the asphyxiation was a direct result of the head blow. They are two totally separate actions.

 

My recollection is similar, KoldKase.

However, as I have argued for years, I believe that an aggressive prosecutor COULD charge BOTH Ramseys on lesser charges ... like some sort of "conspiracy" charges ... while leaving open the "murder" charges for prosecution at a later date. Maybe DejaNu could chime in here.

If Burke's voice IS on the 911 tape, then you almost have an open and closed conspiracy to obstruct justice case against John and Phatsy. Right?

... add to that the ransom note handwriting ... the pineapple ... the duct tape fibers ... prior abuse ... and all the rest ... and you have a VERY strong case that BOTH Ramseys LIED about critical issues ... and that leads us straight to conspiracy to coverup a capital crime. Am I wrong?


If ya put a pageant queen in the ol' graybar hotel, she's liable to wanna get her phat arse OUT before her bunkmate, Bertha, permanently tarnishes her tiara ... and thus may clear up a few key details for the cops.

Likewise, a PhatCat biznizzman like John isn't gonna want to have his cellmate, Bubba and his mates, dry-bungin' him nightly ... so he's gonna reveal a detail or three as well. Pretty soon, you have a picture of sexual abuse and homocide that's pretty clear.


Bugliosi would have got to the bottom of this.


...YumYum

 

YY posted this:

"If Burke's voice IS on the 911 tape, then you almost have an open and closed conspiracy to obstruct justice case against John and Phatsy. Right?

... add to that the ransom note handwriting ... the pineapple ... the duct tape fibers ... prior abuse ... and all the rest ... and you have a VERY strong case that BOTH Ramseys LIED about critical issues ... and that leads us straight to conspiracy to coverup a capital crime. Am I wrong?"

No dimmie you aren't wrong except for the fact that it wasn't a capital crime or even a crime. It was an "accident" caused by a juvenile below the age of criminal prosecution.

 

I second the motion. :gavel:

 

Well, it's a theory, Spade, but I believe that it wasn't Burke who put that garrote on JonBenet's neck. We are talking about fibers from Patsy's jacket tied into the knot at the neck and in the "handle" knots. If you're going to argue that could have been transference all the way, then you might as well argue that it could have been an intruder.

I think it is the body of evidence that points to Patsy. The fibers are but one aspect of evidence of her involvment, IMO. The ransom note is another. Etc.

But I don't think there is any conclusive evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt if Burke or Patsy or someone else struck the head blow. Same with the garrote. Who tied it on the child? THAT'S THE KILLER, not the one who struck the head blow, though eventually that WOULD have killed her, and absent the garrote, the person who struck that blow would be responsible, unless it was Burke, who was a minor.

But I've never seen any decisive and conclusive evidence proving who was in on the garrote strangulation. John's fibers were in the vaginal area, and Patsy's fibers were all over the child and in the garrote. But Patsy easily could have said the fibers were transfer, and so could John--ONCE THEIR LAWYERS KNEW OF THE EVIDENCE AND SO DID THE RAMSEYS BEFORE QUESTIONING. Years of coaching by lawyers meant the Ramseys got very good at explaining away, denying, or evading the hard questions. The truth was the casualty.

So to say WHO DID WHAT is pure speculation. Without an aggressive DA to nail down ALL the evidence immediately, if not sooner, the killer slipped right through with Hunter's help: no comprehensive phone records; family's clothes not collected under subpoena; parents not taken to PD and questioned separately AND BEFORE they had months to SEE THE EVIDENCE RESULTS GATHERED BY LE. ETC.

Could Burke have been the sole perp? I guess anything is possible. But he would have to be a genius in criminal behavior. He's been so protected, we have no idea who Burke Ramsey really is. Judith Phillips gave us a chilling story about his outburst of anger towards her that no adult seemed to feel any interest or concern to keep in check. So again, I have no idea. But I am truly and completely speculating about Burke because, while he was in the home, had a history of striking JonBenet with a golf club before, and he might have been involved in some way, I really cannot say he did it all because the evidence suggests to me that his parent(s) was up to her (their) ears in this murder.

And I do believe if Burke was involved, they'd NEVER have let him talk to LE. They didn't have to. They had every REASONABLE excuse in the world not to allow it, and no one would have said they were wrong. Why would they risk it? Nobody can guarantee what a child will say under duress. Heck, no one can say what a child will say ANYTIME.

I'm sorry, Spade, I know you say you have much more information which convinces you that you have the answer, but you haven't shown it to us, and I understand that, as well. But I can't use information I don't have to come to a conclusion I don't see supported by other information I do have.

 

koldkase posted:

"Well, it's a theory, Spade, but I believe that it wasn't Burke who put that garrote on JonBenet's neck."

It was not a garrote koldkase. One of the few things that Haney and Smit agree on is that it was a control device.

koldkase please answer this question:

Of the 3 in the house that night, who would need a control device to manipulate JonBenet's movements?

 

No one, if her head was bashed in and she was unconscious.

 

Thanks for this, KK.

I have found the " I know something you don't know" position Spade takes to be exasperating. I called him on it when he said "the phone records were held back on order of the White House", because I thought that sounded like buillsmit, but eventually Tricia weighed in and said that he does have lots of info we don't have.

Apparently Spade is a reporter or investigator of some sort and has worked the Ramsey case. I haven't been around forever so I'm not sure, and in any case, we are all anonymous here. I suppose he can't share his info because of confidentiality agreements. But I agree with KK that we can only reach conclusions based on evidence that we can attribute to a police record, autopsy report, deposition, or something in the public record.

Another thing - If in fact Burke whacked his little sister, a tragedy beyond contemplation, it in fact wasn't a crime. If the Rs went berserk to cover it up, that indeed was a crime. So no matter what, BURKE is innocent of crime under the law, and only the fine crew of adults who surrounded him and this case are prosecutable.

 

posted by wombat:

"I have found the " I know something you don't know" position Spade takes to be exasperating. I called him on it when he said "the phone records were held back on order of the White House", because I thought that sounded like buillsmit, but eventually Tricia weighed in and said that he does have lots of info we don't have.

Apparently Spade is a reporter or investigator of some sort and has worked the Ramsey case. I haven't been around forever so I'm not sure, and in any case, we are all anonymous here. I suppose he can't share his info because of confidentiality agreements. But I agree with KK that we can only reach conclusions based on evidence that we can attribute to a police record, autopsy report, deposition, or something in the public record.

Another thing - If in fact Burke whacked his little sister, a tragedy beyond contemplation, it in fact wasn't a crime. If the Rs went berserk to cover it up, that indeed was a crime. So no matter what, BURKE is innocent of crime under the law, and only the fine crew of adults who surrounded him and this case are prosecutable."

If you think my attitude is exasperating, try to empathize with me. I've been posting information on this case for 8 years. I have served as a consultant for 2 law firms involved in defending linwad's shakedown attempts. I have brought the 1997, 1998,and 2000 interviews to FFJ at no charge while sueswamp and the slimey limey pocked $40,000. for providing the National Enquirer with less information.

In return I have been accused of being a pedophile and a liar among other things. The internet forums have a long history of driving people with real case information away. I suspect it is to protect the integrity of their own ignorance. Its nice to be appreciated.

 

You're quoting Lou Smit that the garrote was a "control device"? The same Lou Smit that you call "Looney Lou"? How can you discredit the man and then quote him when it's convenient?

That ligature is no more a "control device" than Tricia is Queen Elizabeth.

Much of your BDI information has merit, but for those of us with a foot in both camps (PDI and BDI), insisting the ligature was a "control device" on the basis of Lou Smit's opinion is like quoting a baboon on stock prices. Neither one has any idea what they're talking about.

Lou Smit believes in a stun gun based on the fact he can see a blue arc line on JonBenet's face when intelligent people know that stun guns do NOT leave blue arc lines at the point of contact. Lou Smit also believes in Ramsey innocence because he had John swear to God he "didn't do it." Lou Smit believes a lot of things that are both idiotic and impossible.

So please, Spade, don't quote Lou Smit to me (or to anyone else with a brain) if you want us to believe what you're saying. It only serves to negate any point you wish to make.