JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Henry Flower]

"in fact it is becoming more common nation wide - to blame the easiest suspect, and look no further."

Yes, because what could be easier for a small police force like Boulder than going after the politically well-connected CEO of a billion dollar company who could afford the best lawyers to defend him and his family?

Sure, they took the easy option.

Apologies if I missed the irony of what may have been intended as an actual joke.

[louisa]

Hi Henry!

A sensible comment.



Hi Abby,

Yes we can get bogged down with the boring politics of the case.


Back to another fascinating peculiarity......I am copying and pasting Police Chief Beckner's answer to a question that was always at the back of my mind.....

Question: "JBR was dressed when found, as far as I know. Does this mean the killer sexually molested her with the paintbrush handle and then dressed her back into her underwear and leggings before placing her body in the wine cellar?"

Beckner: "Yes".

Question: "Wow. That is interesting. I guess there wasn't a time problem for the killer".

Beckner: "The killer also took the time to find a pad and sharpie pen, write a 2.5 page ransom note, fashion a garrote and choke her with it, then wrap her in a blanket with one of her favorite nightgowns and place her in a storage room in the basement. He/she/they then neatly put the pad and pen away and escaped without leaving much evidence."


Here's the link with the interview, mainly for Wickerman's benefit so he won't accuse me of making it up.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10346-Mark-Beckner%92s-Q-amp-A-February-21-22-2015

[Abby Normal]

Hi Henry!

A sensible comment.



Hi Abby,

Yes we can get bogged down with the boring politics of the case.


Back to another fascinating peculiarity......I am copying and pasting Police Chief Beckner's answer to a question that was always at the back of my mind.....

Question: "JBR was dressed when found, as far as I know. Does this mean the killer sexually molested her with the paintbrush handle and then dressed her back into her underwear and leggings before placing her body in the wine cellar?"

Beckner: "Yes".

Question: "Wow. That is interesting. I guess there wasn't a time problem for the killer".

Beckner: "The killer also took the time to find a pad and sharpie pen, write a 2.5 page ransom note, fashion a garrote and choke her with it, then wrap her in a blanket with one of her favorite nightgowns and place her in a storage room in the basement. He/she/they then neatly put the pad and pen away and escaped without leaving much evidence."


Here's the link with the interview, mainly for Wickerman's benefit so he won't accuse me of making it up.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ary-21-22-2015

Yeah I saw that. I also read somewhere that her body had been wiped down with an unknown fluid. Was that in the autopsy report?

Now does this mean her whole body? Was she actually Totally stripped and redressed then?

[louisa]

Yeah I saw that. I also read somewhere that her body had been wiped down with an unknown fluid. Was that in the autopsy report?

Now does this mean her whole body? Was she actually Totally stripped and redressed then?

It's another mystery, Abby.

She was put to bed wearing a red turtleneck top and white longjohns and found wearing the white top with silver sequins (the one she had been wearing to the party earlier that day). The red top was found damp and balled up on the side of the basin in JB's bathroom.

Fluid (at first thought to be semen but later found to be blood) was wiped over her thighs.

One of the theories (Steve Thomas's) is that JB had wet herself soon after going to bed and Patsy (who was about to go to bed herself) flew into a rage and pushed JB against a hard surface. Patsy had had a long day already, getting up early on Christmas Day with the children then getting them all ready and going to the party. The next day they would be flying to their summer home in Charlevoix, Michigan to meet John's grown-up children and then onto Florida for a cruise on the Disney ship. Patsy was not looking forward to doing any of this. They had to be at the airport at around 5am.

In her statement Patsy said she woke up, came down the spiral staircase and found the note, then went up to JB's room and found it empty.

She later changed it to one where she said she checked JB's room and found it empty, THEN went downstairs and found the note.

She was wearing exactly the same clothes that day as she had worn to the party the day before, full make up in place. Almost as if she hadn't gone to bed at all!

Anyway - the blood smears - when Patsy found the JB had wet herself she flew into a rage - she was at the end of her tether - and roughly cleaned JB up, abraising the skin and leaving smearing.

As to whether or not JB was stripped completely and then re-dressed - we'll probably never know because the only person who could answer that question is no longer alive. John will stay shtum until the end of his days.

[Wickerman]

Where did I say "I think I read it somewhere?"

Well, when Abby challenged you on your claim of JonBenet's "large pants" (panties), you wrote:
"Yes, I agree, the autopsy report doesn't say the pants were oversized but I've read somewhere that they were."

I have asked you for specific sources a few times to which you once replied:
"You are asking where I got all my information. Well I didn't make it up but took it from various books and from the internet."

I'm not talking about sourcing everything you say Louisa, it's the little controversial endnotes you occasionally throw in that need verification. That was one example, the claim that JB's panties were "large" for her age.

Something else, you have ferociously maintained that Patsy wrote the ransom note, then as an endnote you claim Patsy changed the way she wrote from that day on, and no longer forms her letters that way.
That's an outrageous claim to make, and you must have known it is something that deserves verification.

We all know Patsy's writing was nothing stronger than a remote similarity at best. No-one asserted that she must have written that note. Yet you keep insisting she did "no doubt about it", according to you, yet analysts have concluded Patsy rates a "4.5", where a rating of "0" means certainty and a "5" means eliminated.
Clearly, any similarity is nothing stronger than "remote".

So when you add that little endnote "she does not write like that anymore", you must know such a claim requires to be substantiated.

You have left numerous examples of these kind of unsourced controversial remarks.

Something else, you wrote:
"Linda Arndt says that she was confused about why the Ramseys would not speak to her. They later refused a formal interview, and refused to take polygraph tests."

The chronology of events demonstrates this is another untruth which coincidentally I posted on that just yesterday.
I wrote:
"12-27-96 Arndt Interviewed Ramseys. The Ramseys were interviewed by Linda Arndt."
And I provided the source.

You might appreciate why I have not responded to many of your claims, some are just too controversial to take seriously.

[Wickerman]

Yeah I saw that. I also read somewhere that her body had been wiped down with an unknown fluid. Was that in the autopsy report?

Now does this mean her whole body? Was she actually Totally stripped and redressed then?

I thought I posted a report that mentioned JB's inner thighs (left & right) had been wiped down because traces of semen or seminal fluid were evident on the skin, or words to that effect?
Is that what you are referring to?

[Abby Normal]

I thought I posted a report that mentioned JB's inner thighs (left & right) had been wiped down because traces of semen or seminal fluid were evident on the skin, or words to that effect?
Is that what you are referring to?

No. Ive never read or heard anything about traces of seminal fluid. Im talking about just some kind of fluid used to wipe her body. I'll see if I can find it.

[louisa]

No semen was found on JB's body.

I'll see if I can find the details.

[Wickerman]

Ok Abby, my mistake, this is probably what I thought I had posted earlier.

"Evidence not Found

1 - No Semen on Body, Panties or Clothing. Vaginal, oral and anal swabs were obtained from JBR's body, but "according to examinations conducted by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, no semen was located on the body, panties, or clothing of JonBenet Ramsey (Byfield 1997:4).

2 - No Seminal Fluid. "No seminal fluid has been discovered either" (Nagel 1997)

3 - No Semen on Thighs. "Since the autopsy, the police had thought there was semen on JonBenet's upper thighs. Then, on January 15, the CBI came back with the analysis. The substance thought to be semen was in fact smeared blood. There was no semen. JonBenet's body had been wiped clean, leaving a residue that was visible under the fluorescent light at the autopsy" (Schiller 1999:132, according to Internet poster Mikie).

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682463/DNA%20Evidence

Not forgetting this about the fingernails...

Male DNA Under Fingernails

Findings. "The coroner took nail clippings from JonBenet. Male DNA was found under JonBenet's right hand fingernail that does not match that of any Ramsey. (SMF P 174; PSMF P 174.) Defendants also assert that male DNA was found under JonBenet's left hand fingernail, which also does not match that of any Ramsey. (SMF P 173.)" (Carnes 2003:22). This is consistent with Internet poster Margoo's screen capture showing a "mix" of DNA only 3 of the 13 DNA samples submitted: #7 Bloodstains from panties; #14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey.

[louisa]

Well, when Abby challenged you on your claim of JonBenet's "large pants" (panties), you wrote:
"Yes, I agree, the autopsy report doesn't say the pants were oversized but I've read somewhere that they were."

I have asked you for specific sources a few times to which you once replied:
"You are asking where I got all my information. Well I didn't make it up but took it from various books and from the internet."

Still calling me a liar? Silly man. You're going to end up making yourself look very foolish aren't you? Well if you insist......

Here's the link to the oversized panties, which I stated in a later post that it was something I read, which it is. Where did I say that it was a gospel fact the panties were oversized?

Here it is....

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682456/Clothing

You have left numerous examples of these kind of unsourced controversial remarks.

I can give links to most of my statements, which is more than I can say about yours.

A lot of what I say about this case is supposition - MY OWN THEORIES. Exactly as yours are. How can I give sources and links to my own thoughts? Tell me.

I do not post lies but when I say I have read something somewhere then I have read something somewhere. I can usually prove it too, when pushed.

Only the Ramseys were present that night so neither of us know what truly happened.

I'll get to your other points in a minute. I'm off to have my tea.

[Wickerman]

Paula Woodward, in her recent book, We Have Your Daughter, explained the misconception that the Ramsey's "Lawyerd up".

Quote:
"BPD officials thought the Ramsey's had demonstrated guilt by hiring attorneys, especially because they'd hired separate attorneys.

But, the Ramsey's did not take the initiative to hire attorneys.
Mike Bynum, John Ramsey's business attorney and friend who hired attorneys for the family, has said he did so without specific permission from the family."
[Bynum no longer practiced criminal law]
"It is a common misconception that people are guilty if they hire attorneys", he said, adding, however, "if you're innocent it's all the more reason to hire an attorney".

"Also, with regard to the concern that the Ramsey's had hired separate attorneys: according to Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct as passed by the Colorado Bar Association, since both John and Patsy Ramsey were possible suspects, they had to be represented by separate attorneys."


I have quoted this directly from the book because it explains some concerns that have been expressed here on Casebook. And, I think it demonstrates how suspicions can evolve from readers who do not know the legal rules.
No criminal attorney in Colorado would be allowed to represent the Ramsey's jointly.

[louisa]

Something else, you have ferociously maintained that Patsy wrote the ransom note, then as an endnote you claim Patsy changed the way she wrote from that day on, and no longer forms her letters that way.
That's an outrageous claim to make, and you must have known it is something that deserves verification.

We all know Patsy's writing was nothing stronger than a remote similarity at best. No-one asserted that she must have written that note. Yet you keep insisting she did "no doubt about it", according to you, yet analysts have concluded Patsy rates a "4.5", where a rating of "0" means certainty and a "5" means eliminated.
Clearly, any similarity is nothing stronger than "remote".

I am going to give you a taste of your own medicine now.

Where have you read that "Patsy's handwriting was nothing stronger than a remote similarity at best" - where is the link for that statement?

So when you add that little endnote "she does not write like that anymore", you must know such a claim requires to be substantiated.

An excerpt from the Steve Thomas book: (which, correct me if I am wrong, but you have never read?)

"In the decade prior to the homicide Patsy freely interchanged the manuscript "a" and the cursive "a", but in the months prior to December 1996 she exhibited a marked preference for the manuscript "a". The ransom note contained such a manuscript "a" 109 times and the cursive version only 5 times. After the Ramseys were given a copy of the ransom note the document examiner found only a single manuscript "a" in her writing whilst the cursive "a" now appeared 1,404 times!

Not only did certain letters change but her entire writing style seemed to have been transformed after the homicide. There were new ways of indenting, spelling and writing out long numbers that contrasted with her earlier examples and she was the only suspect who altered her usual preferences when supplying writing samples to the police."

You have left numerous examples of these kind of unsourced controversial remarks.

You might appreciate why I have not responded to many of your claims, some are just too controversial to take seriously.

I have left numerous facts and figures that all add up and I can give links to them, as you have already seen.

However, you are wasting my time with your nit-picking and you're showing yourself to be ignorant of the case by not knowing all this stuff already. You have to keep asking me because you have never heard of it before!

There was far more than just a "remote similarity" between Patsy's handwriting and the ransom note. Personally yes I am convinced she wrote the note and I'll going on saying this until a miracle happens and I am proved wrong.

Here's a link that contains a lot of info. I think you'll see that most of the experts say that Patsy could not be ruled out as the author of the ransom note. All other people who submitted examples WERE ruled out though.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682496/Patsy%20Ramsey%20as%20RN%20Author

By the way Patsy's sister Pam Paugh stated to the police that Priscilla White had (at some point in the past)copied stuff from Patsy's calendar, or daybook (I'm going from memory now but I can find the link if you wish) and that it would be easy for somebody to emulate Patsy's writing. (words to that effect)

Which surely means that Patsy's sister recognized the ransom note as being penned by Patsy?

[louisa]

Paula Woodward, in her recent book, We Have Your Daughter, explained the misconception that the Ramsey's "Lawyerd up".

Quote:
"BPD officials thought the Ramsey's had demonstrated guilt by hiring attorneys, especially because they'd hired separate attorneys.

But, the Ramsey's did not take the initiative to hire attorneys.
Mike Bynum, John Ramsey's business attorney and friend who hired attorneys for the family, has said he did so without specific permission from the family."
[Bynum no longer practiced criminal law]
"It is a common misconception that people are guilty if they hire attorneys", he said, adding, however, "if you're innocent it's all the more reason to hire an attorney".

"Also, with regard to the concern that the Ramsey's had hired separate attorneys: according to Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct as passed by the Colorado Bar Association, since both John and Patsy Ramsey were possible suspects, they had to be represented by separate attorneys."


I have quoted this directly from the book because it explains some concerns that have been expressed here on Casebook. And, I think it demonstrates how suspicions can evolve from readers who do not know the legal rules.
No criminal attorney in Colorado would be allowed to represent the Ramsey's jointly.

Can you give me a link please because I have had look on the Colorado Bar Association's website and cannot find any such ruling. I am prepared to accept that I could be wrong though. (After all, I was wrong about something back in 1957).

Maybe I need SpecSavers.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/54ezn4/why_did_the_ramseys_have_separate_lawyers/

I think that John wanted each of them to have separate lawyers because he could envisage a possible conflict of interest in the future, i.e. if Patsy cracked whilst being interviewed or cross examined and told a story of John's involvement (whether it be true or false) then John's lawyers would be able to distance their client from her.

"Mike Bynum, John Ramsey's business attorney and friend who hired attorneys for the family, has said he did so without specific permission from the family"

Believe that and you will believe anything. There is no way a lawyer would make a move without the instructions of his client.

[Wickerman]

Still calling me a liar? Silly man. You're going to end up making yourself look very foolish aren't you? Well if you insist......

Here's the link to the oversized panties, which I stated in a later post that it was something I read, which it is. Where did I say that it was a gospel fact the panties were oversized?

Here it is....

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682456/Clothing

Correct, now let me remind you of what you originally wrote:

Yes, I agree, the autopsy report doesn't say the pants were oversized but I've read somewhere that they were. The only reason I can think of that JB would have worn oversized pants is because she normally wore a pads during the night as she used to wet and soil herself frequently. That in itself could be one of the symptoms of anxiety.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=394514&postcount=468

To which I responded:

Or maybe she didn't.
Or, maybe all these little bits & pieces you insert in to otherwise legitimate evidence are just fabrications to bend the evidence towards supporting your theory?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=394518&postcount=470

Now you have no doubt read for yourself why JonBenet had larger panties on:

"The larger size panties had originally been purchased by Patsy Ramsey as a gift for a niece, Jenny Davis, described by Patsy as being 11-12 years old at the time"

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682456/Clothing#PantiesWereOversized

Like I said, "Or maybe she didn't".
At no point have I ever called you a liar, I did ignore your first challenge, and now you make it a second time.

Wouldn't it have been easier to have familiarized yourself with the evidence first?

[louisa]

Or, maybe all these little bits & pieces you insert in to otherwise legitimate evidence are just fabrications to bend the evidence towards supporting your theory?

At no point have I ever called you a liar

You're tripping yourself up now Wickerman. Hardly surprising when you are continually shooting yourself in the foot.


You have spent quite a lot of time trying to discredit one tiny bit of information that I posted, even after I admitted, at the time of posting, that it was just something I had read.

You challenged me and called me a liar - so I obligingly found the link on the internet, just to shut you up. But it seems that even that wasn't enough and you are still bleating on about it.


I would rather continue with a sensible discussion about this interesting case if you will allow it?