CBS docudrama "The Case for JonBenet Ramsey

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

  1. otg

    otg Member

    (snipped)
    Maybe 199 simply view it as an exercise in futility to point out that felt-tipped pens don't leave an indentation in the papers below it like a ball-point pen.
     
  2. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    Your point about what motive the ransom note writer might have in taking paper from the middle of the pad is interesting. The first four pages of Patsy's pad, the one the ransom note writer used, were covered in lists and doodles (according to Steve Thomas) so that might provide a sufficient reason right there. If Patsy wrote the note, she might have wanted to conceal the provenance of the paper, but (again according to Thomas), she volunteered that it looked like the ransom note came from one of their pads when she was shown a Xeroxed copy of the note. Detectives saw no resemblance between the paper of the pads and the Xerox so they found that comment noteworthy.

    Thomas says that they suspected that there was another practice note before the practice note, judging by bleed-through. The police probably checked all the pages, but a lack of bleed-through after the last page of the ransom note wouldn't necessarily point to an intruder. Patsy could have removed the pages just before she started writing.​
     
  3. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    Ah! I wasn’t aware of that. That consideration, unfortunately, means my theory of the crime (an intruder framing the Ramseys) cannot be supported or disproved by such evidence. Thank you very much. Notwithstanding the sarcasm, that, as well as the reply by the poster immediately following your post, is exactly the sort of information and exchange I was hoping to get here and not surly comments that are little more than nightclub heckling. It is most appreciated. Truth is what matters, not this person or that person being right. Ego has nothing to do with justice, the purported purpose of this forum.
     
  4. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    Thank you for that most constructive reply. It is most appreciated. Please see my response to the poster who left the reply immediately preceding yours.

    Firstly, it’s been years since I read Mr. Thomas’s book. I wasn’t aware that several pages on top of the notepad contained lists and doodles. I agree that that reason alone might provide an answer why the ransom note writer took pages below them, either flipping the first pages to the first unused sheet and writing the note or tearing them out beforehand. The latter possibility, however, presumes that the writer knew in advance exactly how many sheets he or she would need which seems unlikely, especially in light of the presence of the false start (“practice note”). If the writer ripped out more pages than he or she ultimately needed, then there would have been evidence of one or more torn out unused sheets. Therefore, the flipping the pad open towards the middle and writing the note while the pages were still attached seems the more likely possibility if the note was written at the house. Why destroy any unused ripped out sheets but leave the false start?

    You wrote:

    “Thomas says that they suspected that there was another practice note before the practice note, judging by bleed-through." [Emphasis added]

    By “bleed-through,” do you mean what I termed leaving indentations in pages below those that have been written upon? If so, then I’m confused. The last poster observed that the note was written in a felt-tipped pen and thus would not leave indentations, which seems right to me (as I conceded). You are saying the poster is wrong?

    On a final point, if I had been Patsy writing the note I would have destroyed the false start, tearing it up and flushing it. It strongly reinforces the impression that the note was written then and there at the Ramseys’ house. This is a cardinal reason why I have suspected an attempted frame up.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
  5. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    Bleedthrough is ink that seeps through the paper and can leave ink on the page underneath. It's common in felt pens.

    The nine pages preceding the false start were torn out and not recovered. The page immediately before the false start left some bleedthrough on it. With nine pages missing, there could have been quite a few practice notes, three of three-page length. The false start was left in the pad. Simply overlooked, I dare say. Maybe the RN writer was rushed at the end.

    I don't see why the missing pages couldn't have left the house along with cord and duct tape, perhaps in Patsy's purse. (I seem to recall her having a rather large one on her arm.)

    Thomas' book is good to read and I recommend that you read it again.
     
  6. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    Thank you. Please bear with me as this is critical to my thought processes.

    You wrote:

    “The page immediately before the false start left some bleedthrough on it.” [Emphasis added]

    Before the false start?

    You also wrote:

    “Bleedthrough is ink that seeps through the paper and can leave ink on the page underneath. It's common in felt pens.” [Emphasis added]

    Therefore, you are suggesting that there is no doubt that the note was written while the pages were still attached to the pad? (if so, why would the false start apparently be at the end instead of the beginning of the pages used for the note? I’m confused on this point.) If so, that renders my theory of the crime untenable. Please respond, and I’ll then have one or more final points to inquire of you before conceding defeat as to at least my personal intruder theory, although I suppose Mr. Smit’s intruder theory is still viable, though it seems unlikely to me.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
  7. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    @ fr brown

    I reread your note #102. You wrote:

    "Thomas says that they suspected that there was another practice note before the practice note, judging by bleed-through. The police probably checked all the pages, but a lack of bleed-through after the last page of the ransom note wouldn't necessarily point to an intruder. Patsy could have removed the pages just before she started writing." [Emphasis added]

    This leads me to believe that it is not certain that the note was written on pages still attached to the pad.

    In your most recent note, #105, you wrote:

    “I don't see why the missing pages couldn't have left the house along with cord and duct tape, perhaps in Patsy's purse. (I seem to recall her having a rather large one on her arm.)”

    Or, as exactly with my theory as stated ten years ago here, the intruder could have lifted a number of pages (and the pen) from Patsy’s pad—not knowing exactly how much he or she would require beforehand— during the holiday party or some other time and brought back with him or her only the pages needed, the ransom note and the false start (as part of the act, to reinforce the perception that the note was written then and there). Therefore, I ask you again, is there any proof that the note was written on pages still attached to the pad?

    On a peripheral issue, I totally don’t understand what you mean that the missing pages could have left the house in Patsy’s purse along with the cord and tape. When did she have the opportunity to do that? You mean before the police arrived?

    Anyway, unless you can provide evidence that the note and false start were written on pages still attached to the pad, then your last answer actually reinforces my theory.
     
  8. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    Because some of what I wrote wasn't completely clear, I'm going to make a last comment.

    It's my understanding that the "false start" page was still attached to the pad. The nine pages before it were torn out, as were the three pages after it, ie, the ransom note.​
     
  9. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    How did the pages remain pristine without the slightest crease during all of that moving around, including leaving the house and returning to the house?
     
  10. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    4 people in the home that night
    4 people supposedly went to bed and to sleep
    3 woke up

    Where is the "frame up"?
     
  11. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    This is for Daniel

    I was a late comer to this crime and knew very little about the evidence when it was big in the news those many years ago. Having read a little in the newspaper, at the time, I figured the parents were involved because of their behavior. My first real consideration of the crime was when I happened across a documentary on TV, which advanced Lou Smits intruder theory. Not knowing much about the evidence, I believed he made a good case. At any rate, it raised my attention, so I began reading everything I could find about the case.

    In order to not be close minded, I developed 4 or 5 theories about the case and I listed them in order of probability. BDI is my number one theory because it is the simplest explanation for the evidence, confusing crime scene and parent behavior. The number one piece of evidence to this writer, because of my occupation, is the pineapple. I knew JBR had eaten a cube or two of that pineapple only minutes before the head injury. Since Burke's fingers were all over that evidence, I concluded both children were up together after parents would have us believe all were nestled snugly in bed.

    My other theories, listed in order of probability, are:

    2. PDI and had something on JR whereby he had to go along.
    3 JAR hired a college friend, or drifter, to silence JBR.
    4. A Ramsey friend, or acquaintance, did it for revenge, jealousy, etc., and tried to pin it on the family.

    You may be surprised to read that I give some credence to your theory of revenge and frame up. Please note, however, that it is the least likely, IMHO. I'll present the reasons.

    1. If this theory is correct, John, Patsy, or both, know who did it. The perp would have to have some very embarrassing info on JR or PR to keep them from fingering him or her. What is more, this person would have been known to be in the inner circle and would, immediately, come under suspicion as did all acquaintances. Because of this, it would be very stupid to set up a big crime scene just to make the parents look guilty. As a suspect, you would increase the odds of leaving incriminating evidence behind. You would be considered insane to leave your writing on a ransom note since you, as were all of the inner circle, be asked for a handwriting sample. If you wanted to frame the parents, simply wear gloves, kill the child, and get out. Parents are number one suspects and, with no evidence at the scene, will remain #1.

    2. It would be especially cruel for a one time perpetrator to kill a child just to get at the parents. Simply kill the one who you're wanting to hurt.

    3. I've never been able to say that I'm 100% sure PR wrote the letter, but I'm pretty close to that. Very few people would write the letter q like an 8 and PR did. The frequent use of exclamation points. The exaggerated indentation. The use of "and hence". Now, you will no doubt answer that a perp, wanting to frame the family, might use some of PR's writing mannerisms. This implies, however, that the perp was very close to PR.

    These are but a few of the things I believe makes this theory highly unlikely. I shall address your dna discussion in my next post.
     
  12. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    Daniel,

    You ask how likely is it that male DNA, belonging to the same person, could be found on two separate items of clothing. First of all, I believe it could be challenged, on the number of markers used, as to whether or not it really does belong to the same person. For the sake of fairness, however, l'll assume it does belong to the same person. How significant is this finding?

    It has significance, but only if there is other corroborating evidence placing that person to the crime scene. As Dr. Henry Lee demonstrated on the CBS documentary, touch DNA is found everywhere. You most likely have some strangers DNA on your clothing. When DNA was being harvested from bodily fluid, that was a huge piece of evidence since the fluid indicated the owner was, at some point, in close proximity to the victim. Semen or blood almost made it a slam dunk case.

    Touch DNA, however, is a whole different ballgame because people leave their skin cells, saliva (sneezing, coughing) all over the place. If you find touch DNA on a victim, you still need other evidence before the touch DNA becomes important. This is common sense and we didn't need Dr. Henry Lee to demonstrate this, but it was a very poignant part of the documentary because some hardheads want to believe the touch DNA is slam dunk ala Mary Lacy. It is not.

    I proposed a theory, a number of years ago, even before the Mary Lacy exoneration fiasco. I proposed the following scenario could explain the DNA under JBR's fingernails and panties. It could also explain the waistband of the long johns. JBR received a bicycle for Christmas. That bicycle was in a store before being bought. At the store, children play on the bicycles all the time. Sneezy, runny-nose children, without a doubt, grabbed the handgrips of that bicycle with their sweaty hands. There would be foreign touch DNA all over those bicycle grips. JBR gets on her new bike and, presto, she grips the handlebars thereby transferring foreign touch DNA to her hands. She goes to the bathroom and does the usual stuff which could have left that foreign DNA on her panties and any article of clothing she pulled up and down. The foreign DNA, under the fingernails, was very degraded. This could have been caused by hand washing. If you can get hold of a flu virus by touching a phone that a fellow employee handled before you, then, rest assured you can pick up someone's touch DNA in the same manner.

    As Dr. Henry Lee stated. This touch DNA means nothing at this point in time.
     
  13. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    Thank you for your final comment.

    I think I’m pretty good (as an amateur) with linguistic analysis myself. For example, although I know nothing about you I’ll take a stab at profiling. You are highly educated, either formally (higher education) or informally (like myself, you’ve been a voracious reader since childhood) or both. You are older, a baby boomer (like myself) as exhibited by your usage of a word such as “provenance,” not a word younger, even erudite people would likely be familiar with or at least likely to use. I assume your pseudonym is a reference to Chesterton’s Fr. Brown mysteries. Like myself, you enjoy escapist literature (perhaps a proclivity toward mental refuge since childhood due to some unhappiness (like myself with terrible school bullying due to a then undiagnosed, relatively mild (though still noticeable) case of Tourette’s Syndrome)).

    Again as with myself, you are likely Catholic or were raised such as evidenced by your interest in Chesterton. Like the unfortunately late Mr. Delmar England, whom I encountered here ten years ago, you tend to be defensive and don’t appreciate being corrected or even questioned. All in all, it’s a pity that you seem unwilling to further engage in constructive dialogue in the interest of truth as such seems irrevocably settled in your mind. I have therefore been recently posting on Topix regarding this subject where at least all points of view are elicited, albeit not always appreciated.

    One of the dictionary definitions of “false start” is “an unsatisfactory beginning.” I first encountered the term in Robert Graves’s I, Claudius regarding a letter Claudius’s sister was writing to her lover. I prefer it to the term “practice note” in this instance because I believe the former term describes the uncompleted note whereas the latter doesn’t. “False start” is also used on the comprehensive JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia website. Therefore, I don’t appreciate your use of sarcastic quotes for the term which I assume is directed at my usage of it in place of “practice note.”

    Since in your final comment you seem uncertain that the false start was found still attached to the pad, I can draw no definite conclusions and am still fuzzy on your bleed-through point. However, I appreciate your efforts to educate me on such matters, and I pride myself on always being educable regarding such matters as opposed to being doctrinaire, a regretful tendency here, I'm afraid.

    You might be surprised that as a result of my recent correspondence on Topix, I have begun to waiver on my personal IDI theory, though I suppose the more conventional one formulated by Mr. Smit (that the intruder broke in while the family was at dinner and wrote the note then and there) is still tenable. However, I find it farfetched. The “preaching to the choir” philosophy exhibited on this forum is unfortunate as there is a lot of useful information and a great many educated people on this case present.

    I shall answer others who have recently replied to my comments this weekend when I have more time. The last poster’s input I found particularly helpful and am thankful for it. I wish you well.


    .
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2016
  14. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    This is admittedly a good point. Someone on Topix also noted this consideration. If my IDI theory is correct, all I can suggest is that the intruder took great pains to keep them so.

    Thank you.
     
  15. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    Thank you for your detailed analysis and sharing your thought processes. It is most appreciated. I can’t buy that if my IDI theory of the crime is correct, the Ramseys would know the killer and keep quiet out of rank speculation of some sort of blackmail, as such seems farfetched. However, your implied question of: “Why leave a ransom note at all if the idea was to frame the Ramseys?” has merit. Someone on Topix was asked this and I found his answer to be rather fanciful as well. Maybe someone here who believes in the IDI theory (if such a poster exists) has a better explanation.
     
  16. Daniel XVI

    Daniel XVI Member

    As I stated in my initial post on this thread, unless I missed it in this documentary Dr. Lee merely demonstrated that trace DNA on even newly unwrapped clothing is not uncommon. (Which, BTW, leads me to wonder if such can survive washing. Do you or anyone know? I assume Patsy would have washed JB’s new clothing before allowing her to wear them.) He seemed (at least from what I heard) to ignore the same male DNA on two separate articles of JB’s clothing which caused Ms. Lacy’s unorthodox exoneration of the family. Your theory to account for this seems fanciful, but I suppose not impossible. I would like the Boulder DA’s office to test DNA from any man who might have known of JB’s bonus amount either firsthand or through another and was familiar with the Ramseys' house.

    Thank you again. Your input is most appreciated.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2016
  17. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    You're very welcome and thank you for your kind response. I suppose it is possible that someone, hell-bent on revenge, could be unknown to P or JR. My belief, that an intruder would have been known by P or JR, is based upon their behavior and the physical evidence. For some reason, P and JR were trying to distance themselves from those charged with the task of investigating this crime. As the retired FBI agent said in the CBS docudrama: "The Ramsey's did not want this thing solved." I have always believed that the Rams, if they were not covering for themselves or a family member, were covering for the perp. For whatever reason, if it was an intruder, they didn't want this thing solved.

    Secondly. The perp displayed familiarity with the family.

    Thirdly. Pineapple. The pineapple will always be the big thorn in the Ramsey's side. JBR knew her killer. She was comfortable enough, with her killer, that she ate pineapple shortly before being assaulted by that killer. The only other explanation is that JBR woke up and went downstairs by herself, grabbed a cube of pineapple and then went back to bed. Shortly, thereafter, was assaulted by an intruder. Possible? I suppose, but you can see why I place this theory down on the list.
     
  18. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    To this viewer, Dr. Lee demonstrated that touch DNA is easily transferrable. Common sense. You touch a telephone that John Doe just handled. John Doe has been exposed to the flu virus and has not yet come down with symptoms. John transferred some of that virus on to the telephone. You, now, have flu virus on your hands. If you shake hands with Betty Doe, shortly thereafter, you may transfer that flu virus to her.
    This is why proper hand washing is so important.

    What can be done with microbes, can certainly be done with skin cells.

    I could be wrong, but I believe the panties, found on the victim, had just been removed from a package.
     
  19. Niner

    Niner Active Member

    Hello all!

    I see "old" members coming back! And yes, where is Koldkase?? and Elle??

    I'm surprised there is no thread for the lawsuit Wood has filed??!!

    I see that not all people believe that BDI... strange...

    Anyway - I believe there is a thread over at Tricia's WS forum. So I'll mosey on over there!

    :hiya:
     
  20. heymom

    heymom Member

    We have some Ramsey defenders hanging on to the last gasp!

    It is more active at WS, for sure. I have been here a lot more than there through the years, but this forum does seem to be quieting down overall.

    I miss KK and Elle, and everyone else! :'(
     
  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