JonBenét Ramsey Part II (case, criminal, defendant, evidence)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jameson, I'm truly happy that you recognized you were being trolled on the other thread (Jon Benet #2).
No, those are posters who simply don't agree with your point of view, Wudge. Let's not shut the discussion down about this unsolved crime just because you've done more research than they have. And someone does not need to have read about this crime from the day it happened to post their opinion.
ST: I want to make it clear to you that you are not the only people that we’re looking at in this thing. Despite what you may know and hear to the contrary. But outside the politics and outside of everything else that goes on that is decided by pay grades far above mine, Tom, and myself, and Ron, and Linda, and Jane, and Melissa, and Tom Wickerman will work this to the end, and I’m sort of beating a dead horse here, but I hope that we can reach that point. And if it takes your offer of passing ten polygraphs, if we can get pass that burden, we’ll certain do that. But I think today was a good start. OK. Now, I’m going to shut up.
PR: Well I, I mean I realize that you have to look at us, you know. And that’s fine. But just, I have the (inaudible) the exclusion to find out who did this. Because we did not, we’re not involved in this. And I just don’t want you to..
ST: I got to tell you what’s, and let me just give you a little opinion on my part. It’s been hard. Today we made great strides because we’ve got information direct from the source that we’ve never had before. I’ve had to fly to Atlanta and talk and your mom several times to check on everything from a blanket to a key to this and that. So I think that’s why this has moved very slowly.
PR: Well, we want to get together, you know.
ST: I know, I know.
PR: And all that’s water under the dam and let’s start new. But I want to go together here. We got to, there’s somebody out there and I don’t want him to do it again, and heaven forbid, you know, if they are not found.
TT: Patsy, one of the things that I will ask is if you would ever like to speak with us again, obviously, can’t just call and come in and talk to me. Talk to Pat, and I’m available 24 hours a day. And anytime you would like to talk, get a hold off him, he can get a hold of Pete, and the door is always open. We’re always here to listen to you…
PR: I mean, I think you’re probably understand why we were a little gun shy, you know. And on the advice of these gentlemen, you know. We got to be a team here, all of us.
TT: OK. And if you come up with anything at all, we’d like to hear about it.
PR: Certainly will do.
ST: Not to cut if off, but I want to get John in. He’s been waiting al afternoon. So for the tape, I’m going to close,
[b] Steve really wanted polygraphs - but those with higher pay grades - - and more experience in homicide investigations and prosecutions disagreed. Care to guess why? Because they already knew about the lack of any history of mental illness, violence, family problems. They already knew about the foreign DNA and hair. They already knew a lot of things and did not want to deal with a polygraph that would clear the parents and put pressure on them to drop the BORG position.
We've been over this, posted my thoughts on many occassions. Could I be wrong, absolutely.
You've never fully explained the evidence you are relying on to support your position, much less explained how it could possibly survive and trump the DNA evidence that was used by Boulder's D.A. office in 2008 to remove every single member of the Ramseys from under the umbrella of suspicion. Moreover, it's perfectly clear that you are afraid to do so.
Nor have you explained when you first came to hold your "a Ramsey did it" posture (such as a year like 1996 or 1997, etc., or such as that your position was formed pre-2008 or post 2008) and the particular evidence that came to light, which you have come to rely on as highly reliable inculpatory evidence.
Nor have you ever said when you first started to follow this case in depth. This case is nearly nineteen years old. It's not a case where a Johnny-come-lately could possibly hope to intelligently assess both sides of the evidence via crime forum posts or in a short period of time.
I absolutely know that both Jameson and I have closely followed this case from its very beginning and closely assessed the quality of any alleged inculpatory evidence that might point to any member of the Ramsey family. And there is absolutely nothing in the way of highly reliable inculpatory evidence that would allow a totally informed and intelligent person to hold that the hurdle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has been achieved via any combination of alleged inculpatory evidence.
TT: Okay. Did you have lunch that day?
PR: I’m sure we did.
TT: Okay. Do you have any idea about, what did you have for lunch.
PR I don’t remember.
TT: About how long was John gone when he went out to check the plane?
PR: Oh, probably a couple of hours.
TT: So he left about noon, afternoon sometime. Gone till two, 3:00 in the afternoon?
PR: Um, yeah.
TT: Okay. And were there, there kids over to the house that whole time playing with John, excuse me, JonBenet and Burke?
PR: Uh, a better part of that day I would say.
TT: Okay. And who all, who all was over to the house that day.
PR: Um, Evan and Ky Colby and um, these new little kids from up the street.
TT: Okay.
PR: I don’t know their names.
TT: Are they uh, a little girl and little boy or two little girls, two little boys?
PR: Uh, I know there were two little girls. One girl was kind of foreign looking sort of like she might be adopted or something and the other little girl was uh, I can almost remember her name? Seems like it starts with an M or I don’t remember.
TT: Okay.
PR: There were just a lot of, they were inside, outside.
TT: Okay.
PR: Playing with those, a bunch of the boys had gotten those cars, you know, the remote control and they were all out playing with those.
TT: Okay. Did uh, did Burke and JonBenet play together during that time? Did the little girls and little boys mix up at all?
PR: Yeah.
TT: Play together.
PR: Yeah they were all, yeah, a lot of them were in Burke’s room playing that Nintendo and she was, I remember coming up there and checking on them and they were, the boys were mostly sitting around playing the Nintendo and she was, had this little jewelry making kit right there in the, in the doorway of Burke’s room there making . . .
TT: Okay.
PR: . . .so I made a couple with her.
[b] The house was busy Christmas day. Patsy was in the basement wrapping gifts, on the third floor packing her own suitcase, on the second floor packing the kids' stuff for the next day and the cruise following. At some point she colored her hair - don't know where she did that but it takes a while. The kids had the run of the house, in and out at will.
Lunch? She says yes, but doesn't remember what they might have had and in no police report is there any evidence of food after breakfast - no dirty dishes mentioned or boxes from take out pizza. If her house is like mine, Christmas, everyone very busy - - it may be the kids munched on cheese and fruit, no actual "lunch". I wouldn't be surprised.
The bowl the pineapple was in had both Patsy and Burke's prints on it. Patsy emptied the dishwasher and her prints make sense. So my educated guess is that Burke took the bowl out and got out the pineapple. The spoon had only Burke's prints on it. When I dry dishes I hold the silverware in my right hand and dry each utensil one by one, dragging the towel from top to bottom and still holding it by the towel when I put it in the drawer. So if Patsy dried that spoon, her prints may well NOT be on it. On the other hand, Burke's prints are the only ones on the spoon - - makes sense he took it from the drawer and put it in the bowl.
I would love to know if there was any DNA on the spoon - - did Burke have a bite or just get it out for his sister - - who then ignored the spoon and took chunks out of the bowl using her fingers.
Either way, it is clear to me that JonBenet had access to the fruit on Christmas day before they went to the Whites - sometime between 5 and 6.
The timing is right - it wasn't eaten moments before her death because it would not have been past her stomach and into her intestines if it was eaten that close.
ST: Patsy, when you came downstairs on the morning of the 26th and discovered the note laid out as you described on the uh, uh one of the steps, do you recall, at that point, and can you recount for me, at what point you touched the note? Were you the one that, did you grab it and run upstairs with it or were you the one that moved it to the floor? Give me an idea of what points that morning you handled the note.
PR: That was a lot in one question.
ST: Okay. When you came down the stairs the first time did you touch the note that time?
PR: I don’t recall dong that but…
ST: Okay.
PR: …I may have.
ST: Do you recall uh, did the note go back upstairs with you when you went up to check JonBenet’s room?
PR: I don’t remember exactly, but I don’t think so. I think I just, you know, pounced up the stairs as fast as I could. I don’t, I don’t think I took it with me.
ST: Do you recall moving the note from the stairs to it’s eventual position where John read it on the floor?
PR: I, I don’t recall moving it. No.
ST: Do you ever recall touching the note?
PR: Um, not specifically, but I may have. I mean there, later on that morning there were, the note was on the coffee table and I remember, in the TV room, and we were talking about did anybody recognize the handwriting, so I may have touched it then…
ST: Okay.
PR: …but I just can’t remember.
ST: So certainly your fingerprints may very well be on the note and, and, and explained that way?
PR: Right. I, I, mean I may have touched it you know.
My comment - Steve really REALLY didn't like the fact her prints were not on the note - - and I really can't explain why so many prints weren't there - - sound like everyone touched it, read it, discussed it. Should have been loaded with prints. But Steve REALLY wanted to find hers there. That issue almost got to be a silly subject as time went on.
The bowl the pineapple was in had both Patsy and Burke's prints on it. The spoon had only Burke's prints on it. I would love to know if there was any DNA on the spoon - - did Burke have a bite or just get it out for his sister - - who then ignored the spoon and took chunks out of the bowl using her fingers.
Either way, it is clear to me that JonBenet had access to the fruit on Christmas day before they went to the Whites - sometime between 5 and 6.
The timing is right - it wasn't eaten moments before her death because it would not have been past her stomach and into her intestines if it was eaten that close.
I'm curious as to why so much focus in this case has always been on the pineapple.
Is it:
a) because since PR didn't remember JB eating it, and PR's fingerprints were on the bowl, that somehow PR was lying? (Meaning that she was lying about other things as well.)
b) the time of death really could not be determined, and somehow the pineapple--from what I read of the autopsy report, there was a question as to whether it was even pineapple--would indicate a closer approximation?
c) some other reason
No, those are posters who simply don't agree with your point of view, Wudge. Let's not shut the discussion down about this unsolved crime just because you've done more research than they have. And someone does not need to have read about this crime from the day it happened to post their opinion.
I'm all for honest discussions where positions are intelligently explained and discussed as regards holding one of more Ramseys to be guilty after the D.A. has already exonerated them via DNA evidence. But maze bright and/or intelligent discussions should be happening in such an instance versus a robotic repeating of positions based on premises that are clearly not true.
Moreover, when irrefutable evidence is presented to a poster that clearly negates the basis upon which their belief or holding rests -- as Jameson has clearly presented -- and a poster continues on with their position as if they know nothing to the contrary, that's not a discussion.
ST: That was some of the content of the note. But these guys at Quantico, Virginia with the FBI who do this day in and day out, told me they told Tom, they said, we’re having trouble with the note. Because this is what we see in the movies, but not in real life. And whoever did this, all that was done was done and all that was made was made to make us look as something that wasn’t there. And they think that this was an accident and panic on someone’s part and that there was no initial intent to harm, but that things simply got out of hand.
Yet from what one can determine the evidence, the ransom note was written in the hours before the Ramseys even returned to their home. The writer (intruder) couldn't have felt any panic then....nothing had happened.
Quote:
ST: Patsy, will you continue to cooperate with us in the future as its appropriate, and certainly under the advice of your attorney, but at some point, if we could take you out of the bucket and of this list. This has been my life 100 hours a week, since December 28th
If he worked on the case that hard, why did he foolishly leak information about suspects to the media? I would like to believe that Thomas really did make a sincere effort with this case. Either he was a very immature man or a very unprofessional detective, though, and it really got in the way of his ability to be rational.
This is all why I went straight back to the Original Source - by which I mean, Linda Ardnt.
Yes she was totally out of her depth - but she was STILL the first detective on the scene, so I was interested in her original impressions.
She said she locked eyes with John over Jonbenet's dead body and immediately knew his guilt.
Since then a good many decent detectives have lost their jobs and reputations over this one, but that initial impression MUST be considered part of evidence.
Let alone the one million inexplicable things the Ramseys did and said afterward, INCLUDING leaving town the same day, packing their car while their baby lay cold and dead on their floor.
I'm curious as to why so much focus in this case has always been on the pineapple.
Is it:
a) because since PR didn't remember JB eating it, and PR's fingerprints were on the bowl, that somehow PR was lying? (Meaning that she was lying about other things as well.)
b) the time of death really could not be determined, and somehow the pineapple--from what I read of the autopsy report, there was a question as to whether it was even pineapple--would indicate a closer approximation?
c) some other reason
Certainly A, and I can understand any investigator looking for any lies coming from the family. But Patsy did not lie, she didn't remember lunch that day and didn't know what the kids may have eaten while she was busy getting ready for the next day. The cops knew JonBenet had not eaten the pineapple (and it really was pineapple) right before she died because it had moved beyond the stomach. It really wasn't part of the crime. But if Patsy lied, any lie would help put pressure on her and THAT is why the subject became an issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
