CBS docudrama "The Case for JonBenet Ramsey

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by RiverRat, Aug 17, 2016.

  1. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    You apparently know more about the habits and capabilities of whatever variety of spider spun this alleged web than not only me but the expert cited in the material I linked to that you chose simply to ignore with: “Case closed, no intruder!” Again:

    "The original web had never been photographed or committed to a report, a huge error that would become extraordinarily controversial in months to come" (Thomas 2000a:108, citation from Internet poster Margoo.).

    "In December both Sergeant Wickman and Detective Mike Everett had seen at least three strands of a spiderweb reaching from the brick window well upward to the covering grate. No one had photographed it" (Thomas 2000a:219, citation from Internet poster Margoo.).]"


    It’s been years since I’ve read Mr. Thomas’s* book, but I assume the above citations from his book are accurate, a concession from an investigator who strenuously agrees with you. Please note, that not only does Mr. Thomas state (again, if the citation is accurate) that no photograph was taken of this original web, but that perhaps as little as “three strands” were observed; perhaps the spider was occupied in the web’s reconstruction when first noticed by the police. For you to exclude the possibility of an intruder through the basement window (which wasn’t alarmed even if the alarm had been activated) based on this dubious and flimsy piece of evidence only tells me that all that is “closed” in this case is your mind, one entirely prejudiced against the Ramseys.

    *BTW, in the possessive case only (with a very few exceptions (by convention) such as "Jesus") plural words ending in an "s" do not take another “s” after the apostrophe: thus, “Thomas’s” and not “Thomas.’” “Thomas” is singular.
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2016
  2. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    Just something made up? That’s seems a serious charge to level against former Boulder DA Mary Lacy. For you to assert such, I assume you have some evidence.

    Nevertheless, perhaps there is some explanation for it besides proving the presence of a male intruder that fateful night. It throws something (but not entirely) of a monkey wrench in my theory as well as I strongly agree that the ransom note was written by a woman. I suppose it is possible that there were two intruders, one male and one female; or, in the event of such a sinister collaboration, more likely a woman wrote the note off site and the male brought it with him to leave behind after dispatching the girl. I’ve never considered this before, a murderer and an accomplice. If so, I rather suspect that woman was the driving force who left the actual dirty work to her man.
  3. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    When I was last here in 2006, I pointed out a flaw in Cherokee’s analysis. I believe she had (at least then) stated that towards the first part of the note the writer made deliberate English errors to leave the impression that he or she was foreign (to English) and/or less well educated than he or she was in fact. Then Chero observed that the mistakes ceased toward the ending of the note as the writer (Patsy, of course, from Chero's POV) reverted to habit in haste and under pressure. However, she had failed to note that three times towards the end of the note the writer directly addresses JR as “John” as in: “Don’t try to grow a brain John [sic],” omitting the necessary comma each time before “John.” The fact that this was the case in all there instances tells me that this was not a singular case of a hasty mistake, the sort I or anyone can make. (I note to my chagrin that there is at least one in my first note on this thread that is too late to edit: “White’s” for “Whites’.”)

    Therefore, in accordance with Chero’s much admired linguistic analysis of the ransom note, we have a social butterfly capable of fashioning on an impromptu basis such an elaborate strangulation device and knot and a journalism major who seemed unaware that direct address requires a comma. Curious. People here make it very difficult to allow for even the possibility for PR to have been innocent.

    BTW, someone here then named Delmar England typed a copy of the ransom note and inserted the missing commas in the three instances of direct address even though they don’t appear in the original handwritten note. He later explained that he didn’t have a copy of the handwritten note in front of him when he typed it. Presumably, he copied it from a transcription by someone erudite who had inserted the commas out of habit, unconsciously correcting another’s errors. That is the power of habit.
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2016
  4. heymom

    heymom Member

    You can go on and on ad nauseum about punctuation mistakes in the ransom novel and spiderwebs in the window well. You will be talking to yourself at this point.

    After following this case since it started, the current information satisfies me fairly well, both as to what happened and why it was never prosecuted. It's not a happy conclusion, since we will never have an actual prosecution of any of the responsible parties, but it ties up a lot of loose ends that we have wondered about and struggled to understand from the beginning.

    There is a lot of evidence that we will never see, unfortunately. Chief Kolar saw it all, every last bit, and he came to the same conclusion that the CBS show did, although I do wonder if he thought there was intent. Certainly the GJ believed there was, because they charged both John and Patsy with obstruction and covering up a 1st degree murder, not an accidental homicide.

    So go on yapping about spiders and unknown women who wrote a 3-page ransom note on Patsy's pad with Patsy's pen in Patsy's handwriting with Patsy's phraseology. I no longer have time for this nonsense.

    RIP JonBenet, you deserved better than this.
  5. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    To that most gracious Parthian shot, all I can say is to iterate:

    "People here make it very difficult to allow for even the possibility for PR to have been innocent." Perhaps Mrs. Ramsey deserved better as well.
  6. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    People here have studied the case since day 1.
    People here agree with the indictment.
    People here believe the indictment should have been signed by Alex Hunter and the case prosecuted.

    You are on the wrong board if you are in hopes we will convert to your line of thinking. No one here believes for a nanosecond that there was one intruder...much less 2...That dog won't hunt.
  7. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    @Moab - You wrote:

    "People here have studied the case since day 1.
    People here agree with the indictment.
    People here believe the indictment should have been signed by Alex Hunter and the case prosecuted.

    "You are on the wrong board if you are in hopes we will convert to your line of thinking. No one here believes for a nanosecond that there was one intruder...much less 2...That dog won't hunt."

    I don’t believe there were two intruders. I was just openly musing upon the implications of the DNA from the same man found on two separate articles of clothing of the victim’s. Perhaps there is some explanation for that. I’ve always thought that this crime, the note and motivation, has all the hallmarks of a woman about it. What is the consensus here, please, concerning the DNA that led Ms. Lacy to conclude that the family should be exonerated? Why is it apparently dismissed?

    Mr. Ramsey strikes me as a very conventional man of his generation and background, a high tech executive who still wore a suit and tie; ex military. His religious convictions strike me as genuine. Yes, I can still see him covering up for his son (but not his wife). However, I have difficulty in believing he would allow an innocent person to pay for a crime he knows that that person did not commit. I read that he was, for at least awhile, fixated on some man from the area, whose name I cannot now recall, who was allegedly a pedophile.

    BTW, I just discovered that Mr. England passed away in 2010. I offer my belated condolences. Who was he? What was his field of endeavor?
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2016
  8. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    So Mary Lacy said that. I was wondering exactly where it came from. I never saw the evidence that she offered that there was indeed matching dna, just that she said so. If you can show me something different, please do.

    It wouldn't surprise me for her to make up something. The DA in a county I used to live in said dna cleared the suspect in a triple homicide where two children and their mother were murdered. It just wasn't so, sorry.
  9. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    I’m uncertain what your point is. You are implying that the DNA from the same male found on the child’s panties and PJs is fabricated which caused then DA Mary Lacy to exonerate the family in favor of the intruder theory? I’ve never heard anyone make such an assertion before. This documentary simply ignores the fact that the DNA was found on separate articles of JB’s clothing and then points out that it is common for trace DNA to be found on even newly unpackaged articles of clothing. Thus, they seem to engage in a straw man argument. It is difficult to discern why these experts did that.
  10. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    Likewise, I am unsure what your point is.

    But I will say this. Maybe the documentary ignored what has been said about foreign matching dna being found is because .... well, it wasn't.
  11. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    From my first note on this thread, #69:

    "Mary Lacy exonerated the Ramseys because there was trace DNA evidence from the same male on two separate articles of clothing. This documentary tries to dismiss this DNA consideration by pointing out that even newly unwrapped articles of clothing can have trace DNA on it, probably from a factory worker. But the same factory worker handled the same two articles of clothing? Were they even made in the same factory or country? I’m skeptical as was Ms. Lacy."

    What is your source for denying that such exists? As I said, I've never heard that before.
  12. heymom

    heymom Member

    What is your source for saying the dna was from the same male? I have never read this. Don't quote your own statement or Mary Lacy please.
  13. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    Since no one from your side seems willing or able to make your case, I suppose I’ll have to do it for you:

    “The results of the DNA test ultimately showed that genetic material recovered from JonBenét’s long johns matched the unknown male profile previously identified from blood found in her underwear, prompting Lacy to formally clear the Ramseys in a June 2008 apology letter to the family.

    “But when current Boulder DA Stan Garnett was elected in 2009 and took over the case, Coombes says he became aware of a mishandling of the DNA testing, that 'They had deviated and dropped down to four markers as opposed to the standard [13]' usually used in forensic analysis.

    “'We all shed DNA all the time within our skin cells. It can be deposited anywhere at any time for various reasons, reasons that are benign,' Coombes says. 'To clear somebody just on the premise of touch DNA, especially when you have a situation where the crime scene wasn’t secure at the beginning . . . really is a stretch.'"

    Note that no one that I am aware of is making an accusation that there was no such trace DNA evidence found on the child’s panties and PJs, only skepticism based upon that the result of the DNA testing might have been tainted for reasons indicated above. Not being an expert on DNA testing I cannot offer an intelligent assessment. I’m sure, however, that Ms. Lacy could produce experts to defend the testing: the hallmark, unfortunately, of this entire case. This expert says that; that expert says this.

    That scenario in this docudrama seems perfectly plausible, this scenario in that docudrama seems equally plausible. Steve Thomas became convinced that one of the Ramseys must have been guilty so with nothing more than rank speculation he fixated on Patsy in a moment of rage (perhaps fed by fatigue) engendered by JB having wet her bed yet again, so her mother bashed her head against the bathtub while bathing her; thus, bed wetting became enshrined in the canon of the PDI legend.

    Now we have the scenario where her nine-year-old brother bashed her in the head with a flashlight in rage over her taking a piece of pineapple that the boy was eating. Take one’s pick of Ramsey family murderers and one’s pick from the subset of scenarios as to why. One’s as good as the next it seems.

    It can’t even be conclusively established if the girl died of the head injury or strangulation and which came first. Again, this expert, that expert. Of course, all the RDI advocates huffily state it was the head wound for if it were strangulation then that seriously weakens their case. If JB had been strangled first, then that strongly points to premeditated murder and it is extremely difficult to explain why any of the Ramseys had motive and malice aforethought to plan the child’s murder.
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2016
  14. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    I've been re-reading James Kolar's book. All the dna evidence is discussed there. It is recapped on pp 413 and 414.
  15. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    "There had been trace DNA samples located in the crotch and waistband of her underwear that belonged to an unidentified male. This became known as Distal Stain 00-2.

    "The new technology of Touch DNA identified trace samples in the waistband of the leggings that matched the unidentified male DNA (Distal Stain 007-2) in the underwear."

    My bad.
  16. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    Thank you. How does Chief Kolar explain this in his book since he believes the family's guilty? Does he question the test results in accordance with the article I linked to?
  17. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    The articles of clothing were worn one on top of the other. Why does DNA transfer seem so impossible to you?

    That was a rhetorical question. This is not a discussion.
  18. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    From the link I provided from the New York Post (Reply #93):

    "But when current Boulder DA Stan Garnett was elected in 2009 and took over the case, [Gordon] Coombes [who worked as an investigator in the Boulder County district attorney’s office] says he became aware of a mishandling of the DNA testing, that 'They had deviated and dropped down to four markers as opposed to the standard [13]' usually used in forensic analysis."

    Just rhetorically asking for the benefit of anyone who might read this, one wonders why Mr. Coombes apparently doesn’t consider that the trace DNA in question had been transferred from one article of clothing to the other. He apparently appeals to a substandard DNA testing technique.
  19. heymom

    heymom Member

    There was no intruder.

    There was no intruder.

    Patsy wrote the ransom letter.

    Everything else is a waste of time.
  20. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    Then what’s the purpose of this forum or at least your participation in it?

    There were no outside witnesses to this crime.

    There is no known motive, merely speculation of such. One might equally speculate on a motive by an intruder.

    There is no confession.

    Illegal entry cannot be definitively excluded.

    There is unexplained, unknown same male DNA evidence on two separate articles of the victim’s clothing.

    Handwriting analysis is among the least exact of sciences. Even so, said experts state that Patsy cannot be excluded from having written the note which is a far stretch from concluding that she did.

    The paper on which the note was written was taken from the middle of Patsy’s pad and not from the top as one might expect no matter who wrote the note if it were written then and there. (One question I have had all along and which I have never been able to get an answer to is whether the police checked the first remaining sheet of the pad after the last one of the note to see if there might be indentations on it. If not, then that would support my theory that the sheets were removed beforehand. If so, then that would seriously compromise it and weaken my belief in the intruder theory. I just wrote "Listen carefully!" on a pad and the indentation of such is clearly visible on the sheet below it.)

    Assuming the viewership statistics on this forum are correct, it has the highest lurker to member ratio I’ve ever seen. It is not uncommon to have 200 or more viewers with only one or two members online. Maybe some of the former don’t view the above considerations to be a waste of time.
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2016
  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