Addressing Louisadelmar's Pro-Ramsey Spin Attacking Stacy Dittrich's Article

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Jayelles, Jul 25, 2008.

  1. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Louisadelmar aka Tipper has started a thread at Sycamore to give STacy Dittrich" "a primer" in the Ramsey case re an article that she has written.

    Whilst deriding Stacey Dittrich's article in some pretty strong and downright nasty terms, Tipper has alas demonstrated a somewhat warped of accuracy in her own observations. She uses the usual RST semantic tricks and that, I'm afraid, is a red rag to a bull for me. I detest the semantic games.

    So folks, I am copying the article - complete with Tipper/Louisa's catty comments in red here and we can address them.

    I'm heading off on a short trip right now, but I'm sure some of you intelligent ladies will have no difficulty spotting the spin and correcting it in the meantime:-
    Factual Evidence in JonBenét Ramsey Case Forgotten

    by Stacy Dittrich

    I have been commentating on the JonBenét Ramsey case over the past week on radio and television stations from coast to coast, and there seems to be quite a misunderstanding regarding the "new" evidence that was presented in the case. The misunderstanding? That the evidence is new or even reliable.

    Perhaps this was Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's last-ditch effort to rid herself of the case once and for all. Since Lacy (pictured right) took office, it has been very apparent that this case was something she wanted no part of but conceded the parents needed to be looked at. Last week, Lacy issued a public letter exonerating John Ramsey of all suspicion in the murder investigation involving his daughter, JonBenét. Bad move, Mary.

    The DA's logic when issuing this exoneration was that a newly developed form of DNA testing resulted in several skin cells on JonBenét's long johns matching a sample taken from her underwear at the time of the murder. Now, instead of having unknown DNA on one piece of the victim's clothing, the same DNA is on two.

    Apparently, Lacy thought this was enough to disregard every other piece of evidence in the case. Imagine spilling out a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle on a table in front of you. Find two red pieces and match them together. Throw out the other 498 pieces and tell yourself, "I don't need to finish this, I know what it is, it's a picture of an apple!" When, in fact, the picture was a large, red, barn with horses out front. Mary Lacy is clearly not proficient in puzzle solving.

    First, we must question how reliable the DNA testing that was recently performed is. It was done through a private lab and is fairly new. The FBI DNA database, CODIS, is compiled of DNA from local, state, and federal labs. As Atlanta District Attorney Eleanor Dixon pointed out, it is unknown if this could even be admissible in court. It was sufficiently admissible to get an innocent boy released from a life sentence.
    Next, we have the initial DNA sample taken from the underwear at the time of JonBenét's murder. It was described by the Boulder DA's office as a significant blood sample. Not so, says forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee. The amount of the sample was so minute on the brand new underwear JonBenét was wearing, that it could have possibly come from the manufacturer itself. Did you take DNA samples from everyone at the manufacturing company, Mary? Both Elvis and I believe, Lonesomepolecat have addressed this.

    The following is where I take the biggest issue. As we all know, the initial investigation into the murder was comparable to a street carnival. No sense of order or evidence preservation commenced in this "panic." Once the body of JonBenét was located by her father (pictured right), the body was handed off and touched by approximately three or four people before it was secured and evidence preserved. John and Patsy had two couples and their minister in the home by the time police arrived.

    I'm curious. Did each and every one of these people submit DNA samples? Patsy admittedly pulled up JonBenét 's long johns prior to the arrival of law enforcement. Yes, she pulled them up the night before when she changed JonBenet into the longjohns. Did this woman attend the Steve Thomas School of Misleading Phraseology?

    The DNA found in JonBenét's underwear only consisted of 9 DNA "markers." The FBI once used 13 to make comparisons. According to DNA expert Brent Turvy, 9 markers is enough nowadays. But comparing this small amount of markers to the new "spot DNA" is really pushing it. Actually he said he'd seen less than 9 be sufficient but 9 out of 13 does it for me.

    As Mr. Turvy stated, "DNA alone is not going to tell you who committed the crime in a case like this." Are you listening, Mary Lacy? Has the District Attorney ever heard the term "totality of the evidence?"

    Let's take a look at that evidence, shall we? I'll put it together in a simple timeline:

    December 25, 1996 10:00 p.m. - John Ramsey is the last person in the family to see JonBenét alive. She was "on her bed." No. Patsy was the last to see her. Where does this woman get her information?

    December 26, 1996 05:52 a.m. - Patsy Ramsey wakes up, walks downstairs and finds a ransom note claiming to have kidnapped her daughter. The note claims she is being watched and not to call the police or JonBenét would be killed. Without hesitation, Patsy calls the police. Again, No. Patsy did several things before calling 911.

    06:10 a.m. - The first officers from the Boulder Police Department arrive on scene. One of the first priorities in a missing child investigation is to search the house. They do not search the house at this point. Instead, they wait on a promised 10:00AM phone call from the kidnappers as stated in the ridiculous ransom note. They do, however, check the exterior of the residence and find it is completely locked, no signs of forced entry, and there are no footprints in the thin layer of snow and frost that covers the Ramsey lawn. An incredible feat for any experienced criminal to pull off. So much for the RDI claim that the 'no footprints' claim is no longer believed by anyone.__________________
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 26, 2008
  2. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    01:00 p.m. - Officers in the home inform John Ramsey they are going to get a search warrant, and request that he check the inside of the home for JonBenét, and to see if any of JonBenéts clothing, toys, or items are missing. What does John do? He immediately heads to the basement, followed by his friends Fleet White and John Fernie. No. No warrant claim, no asking about missing clothes etc, no Fernie.

    (Apparently, JonBenét's bedroom slipped his mind. It also must have slipped the officers' minds to escort him to every room since it was becoming increasingly clear he or someone present was a "person of interest.")

    01:03 p.m. - Fleet White comes screaming up the stairs for someone to call an ambulance while he goes to the back office to get on the phone (???). Female detective Linda Arndt ran to the basement door and sees John Ramsey running up the stairs holding the body of JonBenét. (No mention of what John Fernie was doing.) John Fernie was upstairs. If this woman knew anything about the case she would know that.

    John had found JonBenét in an obscure room off the basement underneath two blankets. In a monstrous house with a gazillion rooms in it I'd say that's damn good luck, John! (Now there's a guy that should play the lottery.) Not two blankets. House with a 'gazillion rooms? We're not talking Buckingham Palace here.

    Oh, did I mention he pulled off the tape that was covering her mouth? (evidence contamination #3,456) The autopsy report showed that JonBenét's pelvic area was most likely wiped off with a wash cloth as well. Did he do that too? (evidence contamination #3,457) What? She thinks he wiped off her pelvic area when he found her?

    01:03 p.m. - John Ramsey lays JonBenét on the floor where she is moved by Det. Arndt and Patsy pulls up her long johns (contaminatecontaminatecontaminate). Patsy pulls up her longjohns Are we all discussing the same case?

    Det. Arndt notes green garland wrapped in JonBenéts hair is most likely from the garland decoration wrapped around the staircase where the note was found. Funny, Patsy must have missed the shambled decorations on her way down to make pancakes—or write a ransom note. There were no 'shambled decorations'

    Ah, the ransom note. Another key factor in the investigation. Granted, I'm not a profiler, but I've talked to enough barbaric child molesters to know that they wouldn't know what the word "attache'" means—let alone how to spell it. So one of the requirements to be a pedophile is a small vocabulary? Or maybe its bad spelling.

    I find it "off the beaten" path that a highly organized group of kidnappers seeking money would resort to low-grade child rape and murder. Or, on the flip side, a low-grade child rapist who has the "kahunas" to perform the rape and murder inside the home taking a high and probable risk of getting caught. Could she possibly mean 'cojones?'

    Most would be "out of their element" and transport the body to an outside location where they wouldn't be bothered. Most of whom wouldn't bother locking doors on their way out. Which leads me to my most prized theory:

    JonBenét's body was hidden inside an obscure room underneath blankets where a "suspect" would assume she wouldn't be found. But, his plan fell through. Assuming law enforcement would be out of the home searching for the victim, would allow him plenty of time to grab his "stash" and go dump it somewhere. But when officers indicated they would search the house, the panicked "suspect" ran to his "stash" first. A likely scenario? Maybe.

    The time of death is also a questioning factor. The autopsy showed rigor mortis in lower extremities and joints only, an effect that occurs five to eight hours after death. This would put JonBenét's death around the early morning hours. Rigor was leaving not arriving at the time of the autopsy

    Did Patsy Ramsey walk in on something? Giving all the benefit of the doubt, I contacted my most favorite and respected coroner's assistant. Since the body was in the basement, the cooler temperatures easily could have delayed the process. Still, it's another question. The basement was warm not cold. Frightening that people just make assumptions and run with them.

    The end result is that there are entirely too many unanswered questions in this case to exonerate anybody, especially John Ramsey. Whether his own hand was a factor or someone else's, I truly believe he has knowledge of what happened to his daughter.

    If my child were brutally murdered, I couldn't comprehend flipping through the yellow pages four days later in search of a defense attorney. Actions and emotions are some of the largest factors of evidence in any investigation; something Mary Lacy clearly missed. Both Walsh and Reichert make the point that familys react differently. Nobody was "flipping through the yellow pages four days later in search of a defense attorney."

    Oh, and the fact that the autopsy showed JonBenét had previous sexual trauma PRIOR to the night of her death is a clue. To exonerate a suspect in which the majority of evidence points to him is premature at best, and completely irresponsible at worst. Yes, there is always the possibility of an "intruder." But at this point, all of the options should have stayed open. No, the autopsy didn't show that and erosion doesn't necessarily mean 'over time'. It means a wearing away of... Think of a skinned knee.
  3. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    I'll leave the correcting up to others, but it looks suspiciously skankish to me.
  4. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    :wood: I'll have a whack at it!

    She SAID she did several things. And doesn't it strike anyone funny that she came down, made coffee, found the note, got hysterical, called the cops and had her face fully made up before they arrived in less than 1/2 and hour?

    It was a palatial place. People were known to get lost there.

    Jayelles is right: that is spin. I seriously doubt that the kind of people Stacy Dittrich is talking about have high-end, fancy-schmancy educations.

    yeah, they didn't WAIT that long!

    It DAMN well did! Not her fault if tipper can't read!

    Nooooo, that would be an abrasion. Everyone who actually talks about the erosion says "over time."
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Oh, thanks for bringing this here, Jayelles. I haven't seen it before. So glad to see someone with the credentials writing about this.

    As for tipper, I'm not going to worry with the Scamsey logic she favors. I'm just glad she found the article and copied it, as it's no longer at that link nor can I find it at that site.
    She got THAT right.
  6. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    That is a question that is central in Lacy's second biggest faux pas in her capacity as the ONLY LE agency investigating this murder...heh. Having someone released on such evidence brought forth in an appeal is not the same as having it admitted in a trial. Many of us have asked if this new technology has been admitted in a trial yet, but I haven't seen any answers.
  7. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    The "two blankets" were part of the original confusion in the case for most of us. JonBenet had one blanket which was wrapped around her. The gown nearby might have been part of the confusion, or the blanket John retrieved upstairs to put over JonBenet could have been. No big deal.

    There were 15 rooms in the home, I recently read. How many of US live in homes with 15 rooms?

    It is curious that John picked the basement. Why would he? No evidence the "kidnappers" had taken her down there. Why would THEY? No one IN THE HOME awaiting the kidnappers' call knew the kidnappers had written the note on Patsy's pad, did they? No one knew the kidnappers had hung around, practicing the note, rummaging through John's desk for his pay receipts, crawling around under beds, opening bathroom drawers, watching videos in JAR's room, eating pineapple with JonBenet, running up and down and up and down the staircases. Who in that house that morning knew that the "kidnappers" had spent so much time in the home BASHING, MOLESTING AND STRANGLING the "thought to be kidnapped" child IN THE BASEMENT while the family slept. Who knew that WHEN JOHN WAS TOLD TO LOOK FOR EVIDENCE IN THE HOUSE? They were all just sitting around waiting for that call from the kidnappers.

    So...why DID John run to the basement, when NO ONE knew the "kidnappers" had even gone downstairs? All anyone knew at that point was they left a note and they took the child. IN AND OUT. Who would have been thinking, Oh, they took a side trip to the basement! When all the doors leading out were on the ground floor?

    I think old Johnny knew exactly why he was going to that basement.
  8. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    She's right here. Even the RST admit it wasn't any "foreign faction". And any pedophile going to all this trouble would have taken her out of the home to a secluded location, not roamed around the home waiting to run into the family while murdering their child.

    But this won't wash. Even a stupid person would know that you write a kidnapping note and a child is missing, LE and family don't just run out the doors and leave the house empty and unwatched.

    Seems this woman hasn't studied this case much at all, really.
  9. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    She's missing some things in this, but she didn't work it backwards.

    The body was coming out of rigor when autopsied, but the head and arms go in and out of rigor first, if memory serves. The time between full rigor is something like 24 to 48 hrs, but I could have those numbers a bit mixed up, have to check again. From full rigor the reverse is the same process starting with head and arms.

    While I'm just guestimating because I don't want to look up all this again, my point is this: the TOD indicated by rigor at autopsy, while not given by the medical examiner who said he couldn't determine TOD, being around midnight or early morning hours is not inconsistent with the digestive indications from the pineapple in the intestine. Things that contribute to rigor setting in and breaking down: ambient temperature; condition of victim; COD; etc. In the cellar room it was LIKELY cooler than the rest of the basement because it didn't have any heating ducts in it and this was ground level, plus the "wine room" door was shut for hours and it was winter. Then the body laid on the floor of a warm home until after 9 pm that night. Also, bodies are refridgerated at the morgue.

    So it's not that easy. But considering the known elements of time involved in this murder, plus the pineapple in the digestive system, it's strange that the medical examiner wouldn't commit to even a range for TOD. My theory is that either Dr. Meyers didn't want to give away TOD because he wasn't prepared to go up against the Ramsey lawyers in court, or he really didn't feel he could be reasonably sure and the implications were too great to put his opinion on the legal autopsy report. The former would mean he was too intimidated to do his job. The latter would mean he was intimidated to do his job.
  10. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    And what you said, Punisher!
  11. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    Boy, do I agree with this! Of course the coroner couldn't commit to a TOD! He spent a total of 10 minutes with JBR when he arrived at the R home, just long enough to pronounce her dead, which I am quite sure anyone could have done by that time.
    He neglected the 2 basic procedures that any coroner should do on first examination of the body- a core body temperature via liver stab and a sample of the vitreous fluid of the eyeball to test potassium levels. Both of these take MINUTES and combined with the stage of rigor and the level of digestion of the stomach contents would give a very accurate TOD. While TOD is subject to variables in all cases where it is unknown, these 4 procedures would have been sufficient.
    Yes, the R lawyers had already gotten to the coroner's office (via the DA's office I am sure) and so that's why he wouldn't commit to a TOD. He probably omitted those basic steps just so that he could say he was unable to estimate a TOD.
  12. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Try this link, KK. It works.
  13. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Here we go, I'll tackle this little by little as time permits. For anyone who isn't familiar with Louisadelmar/Tipper, she has posted on the forums for years and is very good at producing references - I will give her that. However, although terribly sweet on the forums, what she says in private and what she says publicly aren't always the same thing and she did show her true colours recently at Crimelibrary.

    I lost respect for Tipper when she made a post at Websleuths claiming that she had no axe to grind and that she was unbiased. In fact, she defends the Ramseys to the hilt to the point of lacking reason and so she is either wearing a pair of blinkers which she is unaware of or she is playing a rather devious game. Either way, I would place her in the top ten RST members of all time :)

    Now to her attack on this journalist:-


    Tipper conveniently doesn't cite the case in question so that we can look at it, but it should be pointed out that an incomplete set of markers may be enough to get someone off the hook but still not be enough to incriminate them. That has been stated all along in the Ramsey case. If there are markers in the incomplete sample which do NOT match a person - it will be exculpatory. However, if all of the markers in the incomplete sample match the suspect, it wouldn't be enough on its own to incriminate them because it might be that the missing markers were NOT a match.

    In fact, I have been studying some rather interesting articles from the New Scientist and other equally respectable sources today about "familial checking" of DNA. Quite a few cold cases have been solved recently because although a perp is NOT on the DNA database, a relative is - a relative with whom they share common DNA markers. The relative is NOT a match, but close enough to suggest that they are related to the person who owns the DNA. This scenario alone tells us that an incomplete sample of DNA will not be enough to incriminate someone in the absence of other evidence because relatives can share a significant percentage of their DNA profile. What if that was all that existed in a partial sample? They wouldn't be able to tell which family member "did it"!

    So, bottom line, the only thing that Stacy D could be legitimately criticised for here would be if DA Eleanor Dixon did NOT say what Stacy D claims she said. Either way, it doesn't seem as though she's being accredited with false information!

    Therefore, it seems as though this was simply a snide remark for the sake of it so....

    Stacy D 1 Tipper 0
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2008
  14. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Love this one:-

    Was this worthy of a comment? Not sure because Tipper doesn't elaborate on what she means. Is she saying that she, Elvis and LPC have already asked the questions that Stacy D is asking... or that they have already answered Stacy D's question?

    In either case, what IS Tipper's point? Does she think that Stacy D has no right to reiterate something that has already been addressed on the forums?

    Stacy D 2 Tipper 0
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2008
  15. sboyd

    sboyd Member

    Keep going Jayelles.
  16. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    OK, moving on.

    This comment is certainly dripping with sarcasm but is the attack merited? Let's see. I'm going to take it bit by bit.

    Here she is talking about the chaos which effectively caused most damage to the investigation.

    Is it misinformation? Is it an unreasonable statement? I would say that this is one area where most people agree.

    OK - let's analyse this for accuracy. Once John Ramsey located Jonbenet's body, who touched it?

    1) John Ramsey himself when he carried it upstairs
    2) Linda Arndt when she moved it
    3) PatsyRamsey when she threw herself upon it

    ANyone else? That's at least three - Stacy D says "approximately 3 or 4" - I'd say that was pretty accurate.

    Is this incorrect - actually yes. According to the Wiki which summarises the various timelines of when people arrived, Officer French arrived first. It would be true to say that John and Patsy had two couples (the Whites and the Fernies) and their minister (Father Rol) come over to their home via a request by telephone BEFORE the police arrived, but the police got their first. SO here we have the first inaccuracy. Is it sufficient to merit the sarcasm and attack?....

    Is this an unreasonable consideration? We know the Fernies gave DNa and we know the Whites did - but did Father Rol? (I don't know - is his name on any official list?) Is this question worthy of such a nasty attack?

    Law Enforcement arrived around 6am. We know JonBenet wasn't wearing the longjohns at the Whites so the substantiated TRUTH is that sometime between leaving the Whites and the police arriving, JonBenet was changed into the longjohns. Stacy D has made a completely accurate statement, whilst Tipper spits:-

    Which would stand up better in court? We have only Patsy Ramsey's word that she changed Jonbenet the night before and not during the night or even that morning!

    So - a better question would be "Did Tipper attend the Susan Bennett aka jameson School of Misleading Phraseology?" (It must surely be the finest in the land).

    FTR - On many, many occasions I have responded to Tipper on the forums pointing out to her how misleading HER posts have been - how she has omitted a significant part of a quote or left out an important counter argument.


    (Moab - could this be added to the smilie collection please)

    Stacy D 3 Tipper 0
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2008
  17. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland


    Thanks for editing the scores. I hadn't actually been keeping a running total - it was just a facetious "comment" on each point - but yours is a better idea.

    Also good to see that Margoo has been reading my posts about familial DNA either here or at CL where I made several posts earlier. She's started a thread about it at Sycamore - maybe some of her buds will take it more seriously now that it's coming from one of their own :D
  18. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    PR admitted in her depos to dressing JBR in the long johns after getting home that night. JR reports carrying her to her bed and taking off her shoes, and leaving PR to "take care of the rest" as she usually did. PR then says that she couldn't find the pink pajamas from the night before, so she got the long johns and pulled them on her. That much isn't in dispute. If the DNA on the long johns is skin cells, PR could easily have gotten them on her own hand at the party, all it takes is a handshake. If she hadn't washed her hands after that (and she or her kids weren't known to be especially into cleanliness) those skin cells and subsequent DNA could have been transferred to the waistband of those longjohns.
    What I'd like is to see that DNA matched against all the males of any age at the party, and also any males at the homes the Rs stopped at on the way home. There could be a very innocent explanation for that DNA and Lacy knows that very well.
  19. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    My pleasure!
  20. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Excellent! Many thanks.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice