Members' Theories

Lumping IDIs, JDIs and BDIs together here leads nowhere and imo is merely a strategy on your part to bolster your "Patsy did this all alone and nobody helped her to cover it up" theory.

 

What more official reports do you need than those interviews? You almost sound like the IDIs who claim that the fiber evidence against Patsy "doesn't exist" because the official lab reports haven't been made public.

A person who PLAYS victim is not delusional. A person who plays victim in such a situation wants to conceal something.
Just like Patsy wanted to conceal something when she faked to be crying and watched the police officer through splayed fingers to see if her performance was convicing.

 

Post ... the ... transcript ... of ... the ... interview. Not ... just ... your ... recollection ... of ... it.

 

Those Pesky Fibers

Haven't .... you ... read ... the ...transcript ... yet?

Time to catch up on case info, Paradox!!

Starting from 0053:

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-John-Interview-Complete.htm

 

Stop stalling and post the relevant material, not the whole friggin case load.

 

I lump you all together under the rubric wrong.

 

Fiber evidence implicating John Ramsey

I'm not stalling - on the contrary, I'm trying to push you to read crucial case info, which is why I posted the link to the relevant material you had asked about.

So again: read on the fiber evidence against John Ramsey HERE:

Starting from # 0053 in the following transcript:

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2...ew-Complete.htm

 

I don't need to be pushed by you, how arrogant. You just can't find the material that you misunderstand and aren't willing to admit it.

Link ... don't ... work.

 

Fiber evidence against John Ramsey

I'm not pulling anything out of thin air. I'm going by the interview transcripts.

Hope ...this ... works (starting with # 0053):

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-John-Interview-Complete.htm

 

Paradox, even if we are beneath your superior intelligence because we don't see it the way you do, a little kindness goes a long way in this forum. Thank you.

Here is the 2000 Atlanta LE transcript section on the fibers from John's clothing found in JonBenet's underwear:

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-John-Interview-Complete.htm

In the next part of the transcript the topic has changed.

 

I was going to say that I was enjoying the conversation between rash and Paradox, and then it got all snarky again. When Paradox can keep from being condescending, the discussion is really quite interesting to read. Even though they disagree almost completely, each has something to add to the conversation that is valid.

 

Where ... does ... it ... say ... FIBERS FROM THE SHIRT JOHN WAS WEARING 12/25/'96 were ... found ... in ... the ... crotch ... of ... JB's ... underpants?


It doesn't!

That was an interview, an interogation of John, a card played in the game, not a forensic report. Where's the forensic report?

 

Just because someone disagrees with me does not make them inferior to me in intelligence, nor do I see them that way for said reason. I don't hold the roll of the genetic dice against a person. But I do judge character faults.

 

The blow to a child's head, would not have to be as forceful...as one to an adults head...in order to split the skull. A child's skull is alot thinner. A child can crack their skull from falling a couple of feet from a bike. I found a website on this, that I posted on another board. Do you want me to see if I can find it?

 

John's shirt fibers

Patsy's forensic report on her jacket fibers found in incriminating locations can't be accessed publicly either.
Just because we can't read the primary source ourselves does not imply that the source we do have (the interview) is unreliable.

The interview was conducted by a lawyer (Levin). While the police are allowed to lie to suspects in interviews, lawyers are not.
Aside from that, do you think Levin, Kane & Co would have dared to pull a scam on John Ramsey in the presence of his lawyer?
There is nothing in this interview which indicates they were lying to John. On the contrary, Levin even tries to help John to exonerate himself by asking if he had thrown his black shirt down the laudry chute (i. e. maybe Patsy used it and the fibers were transferred that way). John says he doesn't remember, and later goes ballistic, telling Levin he is trying to "disgrace his relationship with his daughter".

 

Ames, I'd be interested to read about this too.
For even children can crack each other's skulls, given the circumstances. A former colleague of mine, when she was a kid, got a skillet banged on her head by her brother during a fierce sibling fight, and it broke her skull. She said it was a wonder that she survived, she was in a coma for quite some time and to this day suffers from chronic splitting headaches as a long-term result of her severe skull injury.

 

Then it cannot be said that fibers from John's shirt were found IN THE CROTCH OF THE PANTIES and then be able to derive some kind of sexual guilt on John's part.

 

I totally agree. I don't mind heated discussion. On the contrary, disagreement inspires good argument.

 

If you're arguing that because we can't see the actual police file evidence reports, nothing we see in LE interviews is worthy of consideration in our AMATEUR case discussion, then that road goes both ways. We have NEVER seen the evidence reports of Patsy's fibers in the garrote, none of the experts' written opinions on the ransom note analyses, only REPORTS FROM AUTHORS, reporters, Thomas' book, Ramsey lawyers, transcripts of LE interviews, etc., that Patsy COULD NOT BE ELIMINATED as author of the note.

So that argument doesn't support your conclusions, either, Paradox.

I have yet to see ANYONE claim that Patsy ever read the book The Prime of Miss Jean Brody, saw the movie or play, or in any way was familiar with it other than using a monologue from it her dramatic interpretations in high school and in beauty pageants. You can find books full of "monologues" all day, you know I'm sure.

That means that your entire theory is based on no more than the same as the rest of us: your personal experience and knowledge based on what YOU have seen and heard from the same sources as the rest of us.

And to answer what you keep dodging about the fibers from John's shirt in the panties:

I think we all know that this in and of itself would not be sufficient evidence to convict John of anything. But in the COLLECTIVE evidence which LEADS BACK TO THE RAMSEYS, it's worth considering. Since the molestation IS a factor, that night and BEFORE that night, John is NATURALLY a suspect. It IS his shirt!

 

We ALL have feet of clay, Paradox. Don't judge too harshly, or you will be so judged as well.