THE TRUTH About Judge Carnes' Decision - A Documented Rebuttal

Discussion in 'Evidence Files: Ramsey murder case' started by Tricia, May 24, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Now compare the window sill on the center window that the intruder supposedly entered, to the sill from the window on the left in the panoramic view. With the exception of the leaves that blew up into the corner, the same filth exists on both sills.

    Attached Files:

  2. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    The Other Window
    And what about the other windows around the house? Below is a photo of a window on a completely different side of the house. Note the dirt on its sill, and it wasn't even in a well where dirt and debris would tend to accumulate. Again you can see the water marks left by the last rain that rolled down the windows on that side of the house.

    Attached Files:

  3. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    The Final Fantasy
    Look closely at the photo below. Lou Smit claims the suitcase was used by the intruder to exit the Ramsey home. But notice the distance between the suitcase and the window sill. This is a window that could only open part way because of an overhead obstruction. The position you see the window at in the photo is the farthest it could ever open. How could someone possibly climb from that suitcase out the window without touching any of the filth present on the window's sill? Where are the hand prints in the dirt someone would have left as they boosted themselves up through the window from the suitcase?

    Attached Files:

  4. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Several people have climbed through the window from the outside, but no photos or video has been published showing anyone climbing out the window and what contortions they had to go through. The suitcase could have only been used for exiting the house not entering, it wasn't stored there according to the Ramseys. Note that the window was not found open as shown in the photo but was opened that morning by a friend of the Ramseys.

    And what about the flashlight, what does that tell us about the window myth? The Ramsey's claim the flashlight which was found in the kitchen is not theirs--even though they owned one identical to it and a second flashlight was not found in the house. Look at the photo above and you can see the Ramsey basement was dark and cluttered. How could an intruder have made it out that window in the pitch black if he had left his flashlight in the kitchen? The basement lights were not found turned on the following morning. Yet the Ramsey team expects people to believe an intruder was able to climb out that window - using the suitcase as a step - in the total darkness - without touching the dirt on the window sill - without tripping over anything and making any loud noises...

    Attached Files:

  5. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member


    The evidence and case facts show the following:

    *Nobody left hand or foot prints in the window well like Lou Smit did when he positioned himself to go through the window.

    *Nobody disturbed the dirt on the window sill as they entered through the window, sliding their backside across the sill.

    *Nobody could possibly exit the basement by boosting themselves up from the suitcase and not disturb the dirt on the window sill.

    *Nobody could possibly navigate that basement without turning on the lights or using a portable light source.

    *The lights were not found to be on the next morning as they would have been if someone left out the window.

    *Neighbors reported seeing a light on in the house, but no person reported seeing the basement lights on.

    *The evidence is backwards. The suitcase couldn't have been used to climb in since it wouldn't have been there. And the flashlight that the intruder would have needed to find his way out was left in the kitchen.

    *The photos of the window well show the wind swirled the leaves and debris into the corners of the well. That same wind could have easily blown debris into the basement through the window that John Ramsey admits he broke months before the crime and never fixed.



    To read more of Cutter's website please go to:
  6. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    THE TRUTH about Judge Carnes' Decision - DNA/Boot/Palm Print

    Rebuttal to Judge Judy Carnes’ Decision
    Wolfe vs. Ramsey


    From the judge's decision.

    The defendants also offer other undisputed evidence that they contend clearly establishes that another male was near JonBenet at the time she was murdered. Specifically, defendants note that unidentified male DNA--which does not match that of a;ny Ramsey- -was found under JonBenet's fingernails. 36 (SMF 173-174, 177; PSMF 173, 177. ) In addition, male DNA, again not matching any Ramsey, was found in JonBenet's underwear. ( SMF 175 ; PSMF 175.)

    The Truth

    There is no way possible to determine when the DNA was placed in JonBenet's underpants. For the judge to claim that an "another male was near JonBenet at the time she was murdered" based on the fact there was male DNA in her underpants is an outrages thing for the judge to say. There is no way the DNA can be dated. How did the judge know the DNA was placed in JonBenet's underpants the night of the murder? If Judge Carnes has found a way to date DNA then she needs to let the experts in the field know because so far no one else has figured out how to do this.


    "…It is the current understanding of the family that the investigation team considers this male DNA sample to be the key piece of evidence and was, without a doubt, left behind by the killer of their child."


    The very same scientist who conducted the DNA testing in the Denver Police Department’s DNA lab contradicts the above statement.

    Rocky Mountain News, May 18, 2004, Charlie Brennan,00.html
    text version backup

    A claim by John Ramsey's campaign that investigators have the DNA of his daughter's killer goes too far, according to the forensic scientist who developed the genetic profile from that sample.

    "That's one of the possibilities, but that's not the only possibility," said the scientist, who asked that his name not be used. It's impossible to say whether the DNA belonged to an adult or a child, according to the scientist.

    "You have DNA that's male, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the killer's," the scientist said. "It could be innocent. It could be from the (undergarment's) manufacturer. It could be a lot of things. Of course it's important. But it's not more important than the rest of the investigation."

    "It is only a sample," he said. "You need a match, and that will help you get a name. And then that gives you somebody to talk to. But that person might be alibied-out, or there might be some other explanation for why it's there."

    He also said there is no way to "age" the sample, to determine whether it was left in the underwear at the time of JonBenet's murder or at some other point.

    …Another state forensics expert, who also asked not to be identified, said the significance of the DNA profile must be weighed conservatively, based on where it was found, and in what substance.

    Without knowing if a sample was left by blood, saliva, or some other material, it could be "unknown cellular material sloughed off by somebody's hand," the source said. "You're in an area that is very gray, and it can be very confusing, as to the interpretive value of it."


    Once again, the bottom line is, you can’t put the cart before the pony. Before one can say this DNA belongs to the killer of JonBenet Ramsey, there has to be other hard evidence identifying this "killer," a DNA "match" to this person, and evidence placing him in the home at the time of the murder. There is no way to determine when the DNA was deposited on JBR’s underwear. No one can say for certain that it was NOT deposited there during the manufacturing or packing and handling processes or in another innocent, totally unrelated manner.

    To say the DNA belongs to JonBenet’s killer is a blatant leap of faith, if not an out and out misrepresentation of the known facts.

    Last edited by a moderator: May 22, 2012
  7. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    The Truth About Judge Carnes’ Decision - Boot/Palm Print


    From Judge Carnes’ Decision:

    “Plaintiff, of course, argues that any evidence suggesting an intruder was staged by defendants. Even assuming that all the above evidence could have been staged, however, defendants point to other evidence for which a theory of contrivance by them seems either impossible or highly implausible. First, defendants note the existence of several recently-made unidentified shoeprints containing a "HI-TEC" brand mark were found in the basement imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor. (SMF 151-152; PSMF 151-152.) Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes and none of their shoes match the shoeprint marks. (SMF 153; PSMF 153.) Likewise, another similar partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF 155; PSMF 155.) The owner of the "HI-TEC" shoe that made the footprints at the murder scene has never been identified. (SMF 154, 155; PSMF 154, 155 n addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a palm print that does not match either of defendants' palm prints. (SMF 156; PSMF 156.) The individual to whom it belongs has never been identified. (SMF 156; PSMF 156.)

    Of course, the existence of these shoeprints and palm print is not dispositive, as they could have been made prior to the time of the murder, but they are clearly consistent with an argument that an intruder was in the basement area.â€

    The Truth

    From the Rocky Mountain News (Charlie Brennan, August 22, 2002):

    “A palm print on the door leading to that same wine cellar, long unidentified, is that of Melinda Ramsey, JonBenet's adult half-sister. She was in Georgia at the time of the murder.â€â€¦


    “…L. Lin Wood, the attorney representing the Ramseys, who now live in Atlanta, doesn't debate the palm print findings…â€

    As proof of an intruder, the Ramseys and Mr. Wood have bantered about the “unidentified†palm print. Now, according to Mr. Brennan’s article, Lin Wood doesn’t debate the finding that the palm print belongs to a Ramsey family member. Yet, Wood allows a federal judge to base part of her decision on this case using information that Wood has conceded isn’t connected to the case.

    Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain NewsAugust 22, 2002 BOULDER -

    Investigators have answered two vexing questions in the JonBenet Ramsey case that have long helped support the theory that an intruder killed her, according to sources Ramsey evidence is explained Hand, boot prints determined to be innocent occurrences close to the case. The answers, which have been known to investigators for some time but never publicly revealed, could be seen to weaken the intruder theory.

    The two clues are:

    • A mysterious Hi-Tec boot print in the mold on the floor of the Ramseys' wine cellar near JonBenet's body has been linked by investigators to Burke, her brother, who was 9 at the time. It is believed to have been left there under circumstances unrelated to JonBenet's murder.

    Burke, now 15, has repeatedly been cleared by authorities of any suspicion in the 1996 Christmas night slaying, and that has not changed.

    • A palm print on the door leading to that same wine cellar, long unidentified, is that of Melinda Ramsey, JonBenet's adult half-sister. She was in Georgia at the time of the murder.

    "They were certainly some things that had to be answered, one way or the other, and we feel satisfied that they are both answered," said a source close to the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

    L. Lin Wood, the attorney representing the Ramseys, who now live in Atlanta, doesn't debate the palm print findings. But he contends the police have not answered the Hi-Tec print mystery.

    "Burke Ramsey does not and has never owned a pair of quote, unquote, trademarked Hi-Tec sneakers that the Ramseys are aware of," Wood said. "I would think they know what shoes he has owned."

    It's interesting that Mr. Wood would claim the police have not answered the "Hi-Tec print mystery."

    Forums for Justice can only assume Ramsey attorney Lin Wood never dreamed the 2000 Atlanta interviews with law enforcement the Ramseys participated in would be made public.

    From the Atlanta interviews it is obvious that Burke Ramsey told the Grand Jury that he indeed did own a pair of Hi Tec shoes/boots.

    From the Atlanta Interviews. Mr. Levin for the United States. Mr.Wood for the Ramseys. This exchange is with Mr. Levin, Patsy Ramsey, and Lin Wood. Bold has been added.

    23 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Did you try, in
    24 your mind, and perhaps to assist your
    25 investigator, identify sources close to your
    1 family that might be the origin of the
    2 Hi-Tec shoe impression?
    3 A. I think, you know, I may have
    4 asked Susan if she had ever seen any. I
    5 mean, I didn't, I don't know what a Hi-Tec
    6 boot looks like, per se. I have tried to
    7 kind of, as I am in shoe stores, look around
    8 trying to see what, what's the significance
    9 and special about a Hi-Tec boot, and I
    10 haven't, haven't even seen any yet. But I
    11 may have asked Susan, did you know anybody
    12 that looked like they wore Hi-Tec shoe,
    13 boots, or whatever.
    14 Q. Do you recall a period of time,
    15 prior to 1996, when your son Burke purchased
    16 a pair of hiking boots that had compasses on
    17 the shoelaces? And if it helps to
    18 remember --
    19 A. I can't remember.
    20 Q. Maybe this will help your
    21 recollection. They were shoes that were
    22 purchased while he was shopping with you in
    23 Atlanta.
    24 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
    25 as a fact?
    1 MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as
    2 a fact.

    3 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Does that help
    4 refresh your recollection as to whether he
    5 owned a pair of shoes that had compasses on
    6 them?
    7 A. I just can't remember. Bought so
    8 many shoes for him.
    9 Q. And again, I will provide, I'll
    10 say, I'll say this as a fact to you, that,
    11 and maybe this will help refresh your
    12 recollection, he thought that -- the shoes
    13 were special because they had a compass on
    14 them, his only exposure for the most part to
    15 compasses had been in the plane and he kind
    16 of liked the idea of being able to point
    17 them different directions. Do you remember
    18 him doing that with the shoes?
    19 A. I can't remember the shoes. I
    20 remember he had a compass thing like a
    21 watch, but I can't remember about the shoes.
    22 Q. You don't remember him having
    23 shoes that you purchased with compasses on
    24 them?
    25 MR. WOOD: She will tell you that
    1 one more time. Go ahead and tell him, and
    2 this will be the third time.
    3 THE WITNESS: I can't remember.
    4 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Okay. Does it
    5 jog your memory to know that the shoes with
    6 compasses were made by Hi-Tec?
    7 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
    8 as a fact?
    9 MR. LEVIN: Yes. I am stating
    10 that as a fact.
    11 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't know
    12 that.
    13 Q. (By Mr. Levin) I will state this
    14 as a fact. There are two people who have
    15 provided us with information, including your
    16 son, that he owned Hi-Tec shoes prior to the
    17 murder of your daughter.
    18 MR. WOOD: You are stating that
    19 Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec
    20 shoes?
    21 MR. LEVIN: Yes.
    22 MR. WOOD: He used the phrase
    23 Hi-Tec?
    24 MR. LEVIN: Yes.
    25 MR. WOOD: When?
    1 MR. LEVIN: I can't, I can't give
    2 you the source. I can tell you that I have
    3 that information.{/B]
    4 MR. WOOD: You said Burke told
    5 you.
    6 MR. LEVIN: I can't quote it to
    7 you for reasons I am sure, as an attorney,
    8 you are aware.
    9 MR. WOOD: Just so it is clear,
    10 there is a difference between you saying that
    11 somebody said Burke told them and Burke
    12 telling you because Burke has been
    13 interviewed by you all December of 1996,
    14 January of 1997, June of 1998.
    15 Are you saying that it is within
    16 those interviews?
    17 MR. LEVIN: No.
    18 MR. WOOD: So he didn't tell you,
    19 he told somebody else you are stating as a
    20 fact because I don't think you all have
    21 talked to him other than those occasions,
    22 have you?
    23 MR. KANE: Mr. Wood, we don't
    24 want to get into grand jury information.
    25 Okay?
    1 MR. WOOD: Okay.
    2 MR. KANE: Fair enough?
    3 MR. LEVIN: I am sorry, I should
    4 have been more direct. I thought you would
    5 understand --


    To read all of the Atlanta 2000 interviews please go here.

    The mystery of the palm print is solved. It was Melinda Ramsey's palm print on the door leading to the room where JonBenet's body was found.

    The mystery of the Hi-Tec boots/shoes is solved. Burke Ramsey told the Grand Jury that he did indeed own a pair of Hi-Tec boots.

    How Lin Wood can claim the boot print and palm print still point to an intruder is beyond comprehension.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 22, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  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