Posted on 06/24/2006 7:35:36 AM PDT by Brytani
According to Fox News, Patsy Ramsey, mother of Jonbenet Ramsey has passed away from ovarian cancer.
It also presumes that Patsy could wildly wield some sort of club, miss her husband and crush her daughter's skull in a fit of fury and then later be rational enough to conspire with the man she just caught molesting her daughter so as to plan a cover-up. That's a pretty wild swing from out-of-control mom to calculating co-conspirator in a very short time. I'm not sure I can buy that.
That was a very interesting article.
Thanks.
We need a flow chart here, and the first branch would be any evidence of 'staging' of the body, crime scene, inconsistant statements, etc. Once its established that there was a staging, IE changing of pajamas, washing of the red turtleneck (still wet in the sink?) - then it falls into the catagory of inside, as opposed to an intruder. Why would her PJs be changed and washed, when they were first described as red turtleneck pajamas, then turned out to be blue and white? Why would an outside intruder have handwriting that matches the ransome note on the family photo album? Why was BR claimed to have been asleep, when there is evidence he was present during the 911 call?
Here's audio of the call, and some discussion of the audio:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?s=4456641777d7cd89492b4aec94f922dc&t=3744
I'm not telling. And you cant make me.
Cute....
And how else would you expect me to reply to what is THE DUMBEST question I have seen posed on FreeRepublic in the 5 years I've been here?
You STATED something as a fact...I asked you for evidence.
No, I didn't. I was giving a likely profile of this killer based on the evidence that was available. Obviously too subtle for you. I'll t y p e m o r e s l o w l y.
Here's some interesting reading that answers a few questions I had:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/nebula/9337/unexplained.html
Partial Excerpt:
We now know that when the police officers arrived Patsy Ramsey was wearing the same clothing that she wore to a Christmas Dinner at the White's home the night before. She answered the door in response to the police completely dressed including face makeup. This appears to indicate that she was fully dressed and made up when she started down the stairs that morning to make coffee and found the "ransom note".
-----
I also discovered that the turtle neck was a shirt, not PJs, so no one knows for sure if there were any marks on her neck the night before.
Something else interesting is the hang-up 911 call days before the murder. This timeline seems to parallel the vaginal injury discussed here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-22887
From the autopsy report:
"Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflamation. The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion."
Epithelial erosion is an abrasion created over time that, due to repetition, gradually removes the top layer of skin (called mucosa when referring to the vagina's interior), thus revealing the chronic injury (inflicted 1 to 3 days prior to the murder) at the same 7:00 position as is the acute injury (inflicted the same day as the murder).
------
Wasn't there a psychic who claimed impressions of a family member molesting JB a couple days before her death?
You don't know that Hunter asked them to indict. No report was issued. A Grand Jury is not convened for the sole purpose of issuing an indictment. If he had asked for an indictment and not gotten one, it would result in a "no-bill" and a report would be issued. The report might be sealed, but there would be evidence that a report was issued. No report was issued.
The GJ is convened in the public interest to determine, first of all, whether a crime has been committed. If a GJ investigation found that the death of JonBenet was caused by a 9-almost-10-year-old, there would be no indictment issued, as a person that age in CO in 1996 could not be charged with a crime; therefore, no crime would have been committed.
If a GJ investigation cannot determine who might be responsible for the child's death, i.e., there is not enough probable cause to indict one person or there is enough probable cause to indict two or more people, it is up to the prosecutor who convened the special GJ to guide them in the legalities.
At that point, a prosecutor is looking only at whether or not the case is prosecutable. Hunter's discretion entered into it at that point. From his POV, there was enough reasonable doubt at that point in time, to make any case charged an exercise in futility, because of the possibility of double jeopardy in the future. Do you charge someone now and risk letting a killer go free *forever* or do you wait and develop further evidence before charging and taking it to trial?
We don't know how he instructed the GJ, as no report was issued.
A lot of samples of Patsy's handwriting have been made public through the years - handwritten Christmas card notes, photo captions from an album, phone messages in Charlevoix, more that I'm not even thinking of right now.
They're all online somewhere (not necessarily all together) if you look around for them.
The "a" in the ranson note seems very distinctive. I don't know too many people who write it that way. One would think that someone central to the case who writes such a distinctive "a" would have to be presumed the author - unless someone was trying to frame that person.
Wow! Great post. Hopefully, the killer is now roasting in Hell.
Didn't Detective Steve Thomas's book debunk a lot of the evidence that favored the Ramsays' stories? They did sue him for libel and his publisher settled to make the Ramsays go away, but I never heard that he recanted anything he wrote about them.
"Come down from whatever y0u were on"...?
No, YOU grow up. That was totally irrational to the discussion.
And no, a 9yr old could not have fashioned that intricate garrot and where was the blunt object that she was hit with. I suppose he was able to dispose of that too.
The parents answered police for two solid days! anyone in this day and age in a similar situation would be stupid NOT to hire an atty and if need be on advice of atty hire a PR firm. I don't always trust the olice to do their job effectively, yes.
Yes. Yes. No, he didn't. I should add that I didn't necessarily agree with Steve, but supported his drive and sincerity.
Yes, Patsy's "hats" on her a's were distinctive to her - especially because she would go back and add them on sometimes.
On the other hand, the salutation "Mr. Ramsey" is written exactly the way John signs his last name.
I have no way to judge which is the most reliable of all the 1000s of handwriting analyses that have been done on that note. I just have to go with my own impressions to form my own opinion. Personally, I don't give the handwriting that much weight in the overall scheme of things.
As someone who has made a living investigating crime scenes, who has spent more years than I want to remember in college and taking courses in forensics to do this, I can tell you the note, as it is, while an investigational tool is basically worthless.
Give me a note that is typewritten that can be microscopically matched to a printer/typewriter available to the perp. Give me microscopic fibers/hairs on the note that can conclusively matched to the perp. Give me fingerprints/palm prints to match. This note contained none of the above. Instead, you have people who determine that the writing may or may not belong to the person thought to have written it. An inexact science.
In fact, A&E was able to hire a handwriting analyst who conclusively ruled Patsy Ramsey out as the writer of the note.
We have "experts" who claim the note was written by her because of certain phrases and word connection that are uncommon used by Patsy Ramsey in other writings. Specifically the use of the word "hence". Yet what these experts can not or refuse to discuss, is why a notepad said to be from the home and previously used, contained no prints or biological evidence, including on the corners of the pad. Why no pen in the home could by matched to the ink used in the note. Give me science any day over someones speculation on who may have written a note.
Now let's look at the other evidence. Nine months after JonBenet was murdered another young girl, given the name of "Amy" to protect her, was sexually abused in her bedroom. Amy lived close to the Ramseys, was in the same dance class as JonBenet and the police believe these two cases are connected. The police believe in the case of Amy an intruder broke into the home and hid hours prior to the attack and waited until the family was asleep to molest Amy. A scenario now believed to be the same as the Ramsey case.
In 2003, the new DA of Boulder issued a written statement to a federal judge in Atlanta that the evidence in the Ramsey case pointed to an intruder committing the crime and vowed to investigate this scenario using old evidence previously overlooked and using investigators from the original case.
Now, from two small blood stains on JonBenets underwear, the Colorado forensic lab was able to extract a full genetic profile that matched no one in the home, including the Ramsey family. It is also known that at the time of the JonBenet murder and the rape of "Amy" 38 registered sex-offenders lived within the area of the Ramsey's. Investigators are currently trying to track down each of those sex offenders to gather a DNA sample to include or exclude them as the killer.
I would venture a educated guess that this case will finally be solved by DNA. The killer of JonBenet will eventually screw up, will eventually have his genetic profile put into CODIS where a match will be found. In fact, "cold" cases going back 20-30 years have been solved this way.
I have to look at what investigators who have been and are currently working on the Ramsey case are saying, including the DA in Boulder assigned to the case. They have ruled the Ramseys out as the murders of JonBenet. A sticky little fact that people do not want to admit.
These investigators have evidence that we know nothing about, have scientific reports that have never been released and evidence found at the scene that has never been brought out in public. Unless they have forensic information from the ransom note that has not been released (not very probable if it matched Patsy) they are not focusing on the note given the large amount of other evidence they have to work with that will conclusively show who killed her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.