Refresher Course

The Ramseys would win "The Best Liar's Award" ... no contest!

Wonderful post Deja! You're the best!

 

Deja

>>"What bothers me, however, is the tendency on all sides to pour it on indiscriminately, good evidence, inconclusive evidence and just plain meaningless evidence (such as the prints not on the note, Burke saying JonBenet was awake, Patsy's splayed fingers, John's "cordiality," the "stun gun," the DNA, etc.)."

>DocG, from a prosecutorial perspective, none of the evidence in this case is useless as you state.

I didn't say it was useless, though some does seem to be. I just said that it wasn't helpful to pour it all on in the hope that the more there is the more convincing the case will be. I think we're better off focusing in on certain weak spots where the evidence is really strong. Of course, that's easier said than done.

>For example, the pineapple fact is not only crucial in fixing a time of death, it also reveals that at some point on the night of her murder, JB was alive, alert and pro-active in the goings-on in the Ramsey household.

The pineapple may very well be good evidence indeed. It does seem pretty clear that JonBenet did ingest some pineapple at some point that day or evening, though exactly when may NOT be clear. But you can't accuse two people of involvement in the death of their daughter on the basis of their claim that they know nothing about her eating any pineapple that day. You CAN of course argue that there's no way an intruder would have been able to get her to eat the stuff. So that does seem to weaken the Ramsey defense, yes. But it's just not the sort of evidence you can take to court. And there's lots of similar evidence. All of it looks important if you are already convinced of their guilt and is too easily dismissed by those on the other side of the force.

>As you stated, there is no reason for the adult Ramseys to lie about all of this, but clearly they did. One has to ask why, unless one understands that the Ramseys were in an intellectual/emotional intent to deny anything that might lead to possible culpability. That, from a forensic psych perspective, speaks volumes with regard to intent.

Here we touch on a point where I tend to see things very differently from everyone else. Because I do NOT see any wisdom in continually referring to "the Ramseys" as though they were joined at the hip. If the pineapple evidence is significant at all, it could be because of what it tells us about the difference between these two. If she'd been up that night and they fed her pineapple, there'd be no reason to lie about it, for sure. Pineapple isn't poison, so what's the problem? BUT if one of them fed her the pineapple without the other knowing about it, THEN we'd be getting the picture that we're getting. The one who fed her must be lying -- because he can't let it be known that he was the last person with her before she died. The other, on the other hand, could be telling the truth. Now I don't mind that others disagree with me on this point. Everyone is entited to his opinion, and I could be wrong. What bothers me is the reluctance on the part of just about everyone else writing about this case to even CONSIDER such a possibility. If you are willing to think along such lines and see where it takes you, then you might get somewhere. If you immediately dismiss it because you just can't accept that they MIGHT not be in on it together, then you're right back where you started: "The Ramseys" had no reason to lie -- but "they" lied anyhow. Now, hmmmmm, WHY would that be?

There are a great many aspects of this case which work like that for me. If you consider all the evidence in terms of what "the Ramseys" might have thought or done -- and you are being honest with yourself -- then you find yourself going 'round in circles. Once you separate them out into two individuals who might well have had different motives, then it seems to me you can break out of that trap.

>As to cordiality, splayed fingers, yada yada, all of that kind of evidence goes to proving state of mind/mood/intent of both Ramseys that morning.

No, it can't prove anything. It can SUGGEST certain things. But we have to be very careful here, because we all see what we either want or expect to see and one person's suspicious behavior is another persons reasonable behavior.

>Certainly none of their highly publicized behaviors are typical of victimized parents although some room may be made for individuality here. Nevertheless, documenting and examining behaviors creates profiles that are extremely persuasive at trial.

Anything goes in a trial. The prosecutor will use every weapon he can, as will the defense. But that's because trials, in the US at least, are adversarial. WE on the other hand are presumably in search of the truth of what actually happened. At least we ought to be, no? And we need to recognize that what works with a jury may not be the same as what reveals the truth.

>I also disagree with your support of fiber transference defenses. JB was not wearing a ligature around her neck when alive and participatory in normal family activities and therefore any argument that PR's sweater fibers could have been transferred to that particular piece of strong evidence in this fashion is nonsensical. Add to that that PR did not wear that particular sweater in the days before the crime and the theory becomes even more nonsensical. PR's sweater fibers were found entwined, not just merely scattered on top of, that piece of evidence, as well as on the blanket, THE duct tape and paint tote that both Ramseys testified were left in the basement nowhere near PR upstairs.

I'd really like to know how many of those fibers were found entwined in the knot. If we're talking about one, two or three microscopic bits, then it's easy to see how they could have been transferred via the victim herself. If we're talking a large number of larger fibers, then that might be harder to explain. It would also be interesting to know just how sheddy that sweater is. But the bottom line on this is that Patsy was in close contact with her daughter while she was wearing the sweater and the transfer could have been via JonBenet. John's fibers are much harder to explain, but of course no one on either side wants to dwell on that, for reasons that will always escape me.

>The same could be said for JR's sweater fibers found on JB's private area. Also remember that Meyer indicated strong evidence that the body had been wiped clean which would certainly have been done during the staging portion of the crime. This would have greatly weakened any such innocent transference argument. Wiping a body clean after commission of a crime is also profound behavior in that it indicates an intentional motive to eliminate/obscure evidence, also not an "accidental" issue. Whomever staged this crime acted with knowledge and intent, and took great time and care to do so. Also not a typical response of a random intruder.

Here again we get more interesting results, I think, if we separate John and Patsy. If John was the attacker, and he'd shed some sperm, then he certainly would have had a strong motvie to wipe her down very thoroughly. Same with an intruder. Patsy, on the other hand, would have had no such motive. It was already known that she was in close contact with her daughter, so any of her fibers, DNA, etc. on the body wouldn't be evidence.

Your point about blood is well taken. Only a small amount was found, but if the body was wiped, then most of that could have been removed. So there could have been a lot more vaginal bleeding, yes.

>So, in toto, all of the evidence creates a strong case that more than one perpetrator was involved in these crimes.

Obviously I think just the opposite. See some of my reasons above. If we link them in tandem then it becomes all but impossible to explain certain things, such as the pineapple. If we separate them out, then for me at least the picture gets much clearer.

 

OK, thanks The Punisher. I've always thought that house would be hard to navigate, too, unless one were very used to it.

Only a month or so ago Susan Bennett aka jameson said she didn't read at other forums. :lier:

 

Oh what a tangled web we weave

Questions about why would JonBenet’s parents lie about the simple act of giving her pineapple before she went to bed have bothered me for some time. Reviewing a time line of events, I believe, has given me a clue to this mystery.

December 26, 1996 - John gave police and Linda Arndt his version of events on Christmas night:

An innocent explanation of that evening. What probably wasn’t expected by the Ramsey’s were the news stories that would appear a few days later.

January 4, 1997 - CNN headline: Slain 6-year-old Colorado girl was sexually molested, source says “Investigators told the girl's parents, John and Patricia Ramsey, she had been molested, according to the source who asked not to be identified.†http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/04/slain.girl/

Quickly, the supermarket tabloids began to implicate John as a pedophile, responsible for JonBenet’s molestation and death. And John had told the police that he was the last one to see JonBenet alive, that he had been alone with her in her bedroom, tucking her into bed.

Perhaps the Ramseys felt the best way to direct these tabloid accusations away from him was for John and Patsy to retell the events of Christmas night so that Patsy was the last person to see JonBenet alive.

April 30, 1997 - In his first testimony, John “corrects†the police reports about events on the night of December 25th .

In her testimony earlier that same day, Patsy‘s version of events of December 25th agree with John‘s version.

There was one small detail about the events on the night of December 25th that John and Patsy had forgotten about and the police were not yet aware of during the April 30th interview: JonBenet had eaten some pineapple before she went to bed.

It wasn’t until three months later, on August 13, 1997, that JonBenet’s autopsy report was released by the Boulder County coroner. It was then that police learned about pineapple in her system. Having locked themselves into their “she was zonked†story in their April 30th testimony, there was little the Ramseys could say when confronted with question about how the pineapple was found in JonBenet.

June 23rd, 1998 interviews:

It appears to me that John and Patsy did not so much lie about the pineapple, but rather they forgot about it. I believe they lied about events in their April 30th interview to shield John from tabloid accusations about molesting JonBenet.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when fist we practice to deceive!†Sir Walter Scott

 

They should receive a double reward for that! One for each of them!

 

Catfish

What you write makes sense. John has certainly lied, I no longer have any doubts on that score. And Patsy has backed him up on some of those lies, yes. It's possible they had second thoughts about his initial story and decided to remember it differently. And yes the pineapple might have completely slipped their minds until it was too late. Good thinking, it might have happened that way.

 

A lot of very logical ideas.
It also points to one of the big problems in this investigation that may mean it may never be solved - the Ramseys were not seperately and properly questioned.
I think you have found one of the reasons there are so many inconsistencies in the things they have said - there probably were things they forgot about (and answered one way). Then later on, they re-thought. Maybe sometimes because they honestly did remember it a different way; maybe sometimes to frame something in a better light or "get rid" of something that made them look guilty. One of the big problems is that only they know what is truth and what is fabrication (and as has been pointed out, each of them might only know that for what they personally said).

 

Well, JC, Hir can take a flying leap anyway.

Yes, I believe that Mr. Pugh got lost there one day.