Statistics
We looked inside some of the posts by jbrunsolved and here's what we found interesting.
Average Info
Notes Per Post
0
Likes Per Post
0
Reblog Per Post
0
Reply Per Post
0
Time Between Posts
13 hours ago
Number of Posts By Type
Text
17
Last Seen Tumblr Blogs
Fun Fact
Average visit duration of Tumblr.com is 10 mins and 25 secs.
Text
Michael Kane, the new prosecutor running the GJ, issued an injunction against Smit. It demanded the surrender of all his evidence and sought court permission to permanently erase it. Kane also told Smit that his request to give evidence to the GJ would be denied. Smit turned to former D.A. Bob Russell for advice. Russell said, "The evidence was too strong that the Ramseys didn't do this. To see that anyone was really trying to get the Ramseys indicted--when I had already seen the evidence to show that they probably didn't do it--really bothered me, even though I've been a prosecutor all my life."
Russell turned to lifelong professional opponent Greg Walta. Walta stated, "I was stunned. I frankly had never seen anything like it. A prosecutor's job is to make sure the GJ hears all the evidence, not just some of the evidence. And a prosecutor's job is to protect evidence, not destroy it. So I was stunned, and I was determined to fight it. The two men….now forged an alliance to make sure that Smit's evidence was heard. They won a victory…Smit was not only allowed to testify, but also to keep his evidence and use it as he saw fit.
0 notes
Text
Some forensic experts state that digestion time can vary highly from 30 minutes to a few hours to several hours. If JonBenet had eaten some of the food in the afternoon of Christmas Day, which she might well have done without her parents being aware, the longer the transit time for digestion would support John And Patsy's statement that they put their daughter right to be after arriving home that night.
0 notes
Text
spiral staircase After the killer grabs JonBenet, and assuming he used the spiral stairs to come down, it presents a challenge. The person would have to go down the stairs in the dark, unable to hold on to the railing. In the meantime, he'd have to keep JonBenet quiet and controlled. And THEN jump over the steps with the note on them to get to the landing.
If it were true that he went down the spiral stairs, and if it were true he was KIDNAPPING her, once he reached the landing of the spiral stairs, there are two exit points…the glass doors of the butler kitchen on his left or the glass kitchen door directly facing him. He forfeits that, and instead of running outside, he cuts through the kitchen to get to the basement stairs. He can get to the basement door if he went through the butler's kitchen, but then he'd be stuck on the wrong side of the basement door because the basement door opens outward. My theory is that the killer went down the front stairs. The spiral staircase wasn't even used except to put the note on the steps. The Ramsey note whether one believes it is Patsy or an intruder makes no sense. It makes no sense for an intruder since he always planned to kill her. That's why he brought the cord and tape. It makes no sense that it would be Patsy because if they are staging a kidnapping, they don't hide the body in a room and then invite the cops to find it. The body would've been removed.
0 notes
Text
The ransom note:
Whether one believes it is Patsy who wrote it or an intruder, the note makes no sense.
The intruder:
It makes no sense for an intruder to write the ransom note since he (IMHO) always planned to kill her and not kidnap her. That's why he brought the cord (to strangle her) and the tape (to keep her quiet?). The question is, why didn't he leave the body out in the open? And why did he write the note? Did he really sit there and write the note after the killing? Doubtful. If he wrote the note BEFORE the killing and really planned to kidnap her, then why didn't he carry out his plan? And if he planned on kidnapping her, why did he need to bring the tape and cord? There is just no need to tie JonBenet up while she is still in the bed or tape her mouth. For that, they just run into her room, grab her, and run to the waiting car. Of note: There is no doubt that the note came from Patsy's notepad.
I propose that Ramsey's Did It theory is the most absurd of them all. Shot out to the BDI theory because it takes the award for the most outrageous and least likely theory of them all.
If Patsy Did It
The idea is that she wrote the ransom note to take the heat off of them and make law enforcement look elsewhere. How would it work if they hid the body and then called the cops to come and find the body? Their plan was destined to fail because the cops would find the body and point the finger directly at them. That's what happened. The Ramseys would have taken the body out of the house. What this was was a murder made to look like a kidnapping by "staging" a ransom note. JonBenet's head wound was not accidental. But hypothetically, if that were the case (like Burke hit her in the BDI theory or Patsy injured her). They would attempt to save her. They wouldn't choose to save Burke because 1. Why on earth would they choose one child over the other? 2. Because they cannot predict if JonBenet could survive the head injury. Apparently, with the Ramseys Did It theory, they were sure JonBenet was going to die, and they said, "What the heck? Let's go garrotte her in the basement. So the "accident' turns to murder.
0 notes
Text
fiber evidence
Fibers were found in her pubic area, but they were never sourced to anyone. "The police reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBenét’s “labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers did not match any clothes belonging to John or Patsy. The police were stumped.” - PMPT
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is our belief based on forensic evidence that there are hairs that are associated, that the source is the collared black shirt that you sent us that are found in your daughter’s underpants, and I wondered if you – A. Bullshit. I don’t believe that. I don’t buy it. If you are trying to disgrace my relationship with my daughter – Q. Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to disgrace – A. Well, I don’t believe it. I think you are. That’s disgusting. disgrace – A. Well, I don’t believe it. I think you are. That’s disgusting. MR. WOOD: I think you – MR. LEVIN: I am not. MR. WOOD: Yes, you are. MR. LEVIN: And the follow-up question would be – MR. WOOD: Posing the question in light of what I said to you yesterday is nothing more than an attempt to make a record that unfairly, unjustly, and in a disgusting fashion points what you might consider to be some finger of blame at this man regarding his daughter, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for doing it, Bruce. You knew we weren’t going to answer the question. Why don’t you just give us the report, and we’ll put it out there for someone to look at and tell us what it says and see how fair and accurate you have been. MR. LEVIN: This is a murder investigation, and I am trying to get an explanation, which can be an innocent explanation. MR. WOOD: It could be, but you pose your question as if it’s not not. That’s what’s unfair. Why don’t you let us see the report so we can know exactly what’s going on, exactly what other fibers were found in that area so that you don’t unfairly cast an aspersion through innuendo or suggestion toward this man and his daughter.
The only place both Red and black fibers were found was on the duct tape. The Red fibers found in the following items may not have come from Patsy's sweater or jacket at all NECK LIGATURE Red fibers consistent with Patsy's checkered jacket but no black fibers found. BLANKET Red fibers consistent with Patsy's checkered jacket but no black fibers found. JONBENET'S CLOTHING Red fibers consistent with Patsy's checkered jacket but no black fibers found. PAINT TRAY Red fibers consistent with Patsy's checkered jacket but no black fibers found. DUCT TAPE red and black fibers consistent with Patsy's checkered jacket were found on the tape. (2 black fibers,2 red fibers) Patsy's red SWEATER did not match anything at the crime scene. Steve Thomas Deposition with Lin Wood. Q. The red fibers, we're talking about the red fibers off the duct tape, right, the ones that Mr. Hoffman asked you about? A. Yes. Q. That were consistent or a likely match with Patsy Ramsey's jacket? A. Yes. Q. That was the red and black and gray jacket that she was wearing? A. I've always heard it referred to as a red and black jacket, yes. Q. There were no black fibers that were found on the duct tape that were said to be consistent with the fibers on Patsy Ramsey's red and black jacket, were there? A. It's my understanding that the four fibers were red in color.
0 notes
Text
From Linda Arndt's deposition (she was discussing leaks within the BPD that she believed damaged her reputation):
18 Q. All right. And the other one you mentioned
19 was Steve Thomas. Can you specify in a similar way
20 what you attribute to him?
21 A. He spoke to Annie Bardok at Vanity Fair.
22 He's a leak.
23 Q. And how do you know he was a leak?
24 A. I had friends talk to me and say Bardok was
25 snooping around asking information about me, so I met
1 with her. And I said, if you want to ask anything, ask
2 me. And I told her that everything she was planning to
3 write, the only thing she had accurate about me was
4 that I was at the Ramsey home on December 26th of 1996.
5 Q. When did you meet with Annie Bardok?
6 A. Early July. She was in Boulder.
7 Q. Of what year?
8 A. '97.
9 Q. And did she contact you or did you contact
10 her?
11 A. She - I went right to her hotel, heard she
12 was asking questions about me.
13 Q. So you initiated the contact with Annie
14 Bardok?
15 A. I told her - yeah. But I'm not done with
16 Steve Thomas, to answer your question.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. Are you ready for the -
19 Q. Why don't you go ahead with the other and
20 we'll come back.
21 A. Okay. With respect to Bardok?
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. She said she had a deep throat and he was
24 deep in the investigative team with the Boulder Police
25 Department. And I know from the person who told me
That Bardok was snooping around about me...(so she contacts Bardach)....
A. It went that I asked her, "Why are you
10 asking questions about me to other people." She said,
11 "Tell me about the Ramsey case." And I said, "I can't
12 do that. You know that." "Well, I'm going to write
13 this big article." "Well, what are you going to write
14 about me." And she listed whatever she listed, and I
15 don't remember whatever - I said, "You don't have
16 anything right except I was there at the Ramsey home on
17 December 26th."
Another interesting section from her deposition:
A. Within the first week there were individuals at the Boulder Police Department that were talking about the book they were going to make from this case. There were egos involved, that the interest of certain individuals was more paramount than the investigation of a little girl's murder.
Q. These are members of the police department?
A. Yes. People were not necessarily chosen to do things for their, based on their merit or talent but based on their relationships with other people in the department.
Q. When you refer to people, are you referring to members of the Boulder Police Department?
A. Members of the Boulder Police Department on the investigative team on the Ramsey case.
Q. Well, I mean, let's take some people wanted to write books. How does that relate to your reputation?
A. Those are the - some of those individuals are the ones who were leaking information.
Q. And that affected your reputation?
A. They were the ones who put out some pretty awful, wrong, false statements.
Q. Who are you accusing of that?
A. Steve Thomas
WHYD: In early February, 2012, when Ann Louise Bardach learned that official case records refuted some of her reporting about the homicide of JonBenet Ramsey, she reponded by stating that she did not remember a lot about the story because she hadn't kept up with it. She added that, for her, "This is just another murder case and I've covered many murder cases and I know for a lot of people this [Ramsey case] is their whole life. I don't have a dog in this fight."
Link
0 notes
Text
The flashlight was not the murder weapon although Boulder Police would like you to think it was. That's because it fits better with their story that the Ramseys were the killers
They are also lying about there being onlt one flashlight found and that is the one that was photographed on the kitchen counter top and that actually did belong to the Ramseys. That flashlight was not collected during the execution of the search warrants and was 'lost' for some time. It was eventually turned up in a police lost property bin.
There was a second flashlight found (item 20JRB) and that was sent to CBI and that was the one that was supposedly wiped clean by someone because no fingerprints were found on it. Neither John nor Patsy recognised that flashlight when they were shown photographs of it. Police have never revealed where that flashlight was found.
Boulder Police ie Beckner knows all about this and there is photographic proof that there were 2 flashlights. Boulder Police are lying about the flashlight.
For a deep dive into the 'lost' but 'not lost' flashlight saga read here:
"And now, here we are in 2017 and there can be no denying by any rational person the existence of two separate flashlights - two entirely different flashlights – a metal flashlight, found in an unknown location in the house, collected during the execution of the search warrants, labelled ‘item 20JRB’ and tested by CBI for fingerprints and a flashlight police said was rubber-coated (but possibly wasn’t), found on the kitchen counter, collected up after the search warrants had been completed and dumped in a Boulder Police lost property bin for 12 months before being found again and considered for a long time by Boulder Police to be the likely murder weapon.
The question that needs to be asked now is - how did the metal flashlight (20JRB) get into the Ramsey house the night of the murder? It is very unlikely to have belonged to the Ramseys. It has been established that a flashlight that belonged the Ramseys had been taken from its place of storage - the drawer below the counter - on the night of the murder and had been left there where it appeared in crime scene photos taken the next morning. That was the only Ramsey flashlight under consideration. If it had ever dawned on Boulder Police after January 1998 that the ‘item 20JRB’ flashlight might have belonged to the Ramseys, they never got around to questioning them about it. Kind of seems like they realised it wasn't theirs.
Is it possible that an intruder brought the metal flashlight into the house and used it to make his way up to JonBenet’s bedroom then forgot about it leaving it behind as he exited the house in a panic after the murder? I think this is a possibility that needs to be seriously considered.
Photograph 1 - the kitchen counter flashlight that was said by an investigator to be 15 inches long. In other words, if it is indeed a Maglite, it has to be a 4D Maglite, not a 3D one that was taken in as evidence.This image is first the public saw of the kitchen counter flashlight when a black and white version of it was published in James Kolar's 2012 book 'Foreign Faction'. It is impossible to tell from the photo whether it was, as police once claimed 'rubber coated'.
In the documentary screened by CBS on September 18, 2016, “The case of JonBenet” Part Two by Jim Clemente and Laura Richards photos of a flashlight not previously ever seen publicly were shown, thus giving the public their first opportunity of viewing that particular flashlight (Photographs 2, 3 and 4).
The series of photos that were shown on the documentary were those of a flashlight that was all discoloured by fingerprint testing chemicals. It was CBI who did that testing and who would have taken those photos. The CBI ruler beside the flashlight gives an indication of the length of the flashlight Patsy and John had been shown photos from this collection of during their interviews in June 1998 where John said “it’s dirty, mine was hardly used”, while Patsy said it looked “kind of dirty” and also “smudgy or gray” but said John’s was “pretty slick black”, upon which it was explained to her that it looked that way because it had been processed for fingerprint detection. Logic dictates that the flashlight they were being questioned about at that point must have been ‘item 20JRB’ that had been taken in as evidence and been sent to CBI where it had been dusted for fingerprints and photographed beside a CBI ruler.
From a comparison with the metric ruler alongside the 20JRB flashlight at the CBI lab (Photograph 2) it can be estimated that this flashlight was approximately 12.5 inches in length, which is the size of a 3D Maglite. So the CBI flashlight is considerably shorter than the kitchen counter flashlight.
Photographs 2 and 3 - these are images of flashlight '20JRB', collected as evidence by James Byfield, December 27 1996, an image that was first seen by the public in a 2016 Clemente and Richards' television documentary. The ruler shows metric measure, from this the flashlight can be seen to be approximately 12 and 1/2 inches long.
Photograph 4 - This is an image of the head of flashlight '20JRB'. The head appears to be about 5.8cm in diameter
0 notes
Text
theory musings
The killer planned this for Christmas Day. That is not a coincidence. According to reports, there were a few windows and doors open so he could have gained entrance another way and not necessarily through that window. However, in photographs, the brush i.e. grass and weeds) underneath the metal grate was folded over. As if someone took the grate off and the grass got pinched when they put it back.
My theory is that the pineapple is relevant because it was found in JonBenet's digestive tract. But other than that I don't believe the pineapple applies to the crime.
The killer brought the cord and the used piece of tape. The cord was to strangle her and to tie her wrists. The tape wasn't to keep her quiet. It wouldn't be that effective in keeping her quiet anyway. And if her hands were free, she could reach up and remove it herself.
The killer approached her room where she was sleeping. There was no need to strangle her or tie her up at this point if he planned to KIDNAP her. He could pick her up, run down the stairs, and out the door in 5 minutes. I do not believe in the stun gun theory.
I do not believe the killer ever planned to KIDNAP her. There was no way the kidnapping could have gone wrong because everyone was sleeping. in the time it took to get to the basement, he could've been out the door where he had a waiting car. Except there wasn't a car because that wasn't his plan. The killer PURPOSELY chose to forfeit the money because they weren't interested in that.
So to me, the ransom note is a red herring. There is no question that the note was written on the pad FROM the home. The killer could have written it at the house since there was time to kill. I would not doubt that this killer had broken in many times before. May have even slept in the basement.
The Ramseys were too intelligent to write a bizarre note saying the kidnappers HAVE HER DAUGHTER and then they hide her in the wine room closet. Doesn't compute.
The things people say that incriminate Patsy amount to nothing if one analyzes it. That's why Steve Thomas couldn't arrest her. The DA's office told them (BPD) to more or less go back to the drawing board and come back when they have concrete evidence. I think the person was stalking her from the alley.
ETA: the intruder was never going to kidnap her. If he were going to, then he would. (run out of this door) or the glass door near the kitchen. Imho, the intruder took JonBenet down the front staircase to the basement. The front stairs are closer to the basement. There is no way the intruder went down the spiral staircase carrying JonBenet. It would be a feat to try to keep JonBenet quiet and contained while the person navigates the stairs, carrying JonBenet in the dark with no hands on the banister.
0 notes
Text
HUNTER AFFIDAVIT
AFFIDAVIT of ALEXANDER HUNTER - October 12th, 2000
State of Colorado County of Colorado
Personally appeared before the undersigned officer duly authorized by law to administer oaths, ALEXANDER M. HUNTER, who being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
1. My name is Alexander M. Hunter. I am over 21 years of age and I am cmpetant to make and give this Affidavit, and do so from personal knowledge.
2. I am an attorney duly licensed in the State of Colorado. Since January 9th, 1973, I have been the elected District Attorney for the 20th Judicial District, County of Boulder, State of Colorado.
3. On or about December 26th, 1996, JonBenét Ramsey, a six year old minor child, was murdered in her home in Boulder, Colorado.
4. Since the date of her death, I have been continuously involved in the investigation of JonBenét's homicide.
5. As part of the investigation into the murder of JonBenét Ramsey, questions about any possible involvement by her brother, Burke Ramsey, who was 9 years of age at the time of his sister's murder and who was one of the individuals present in the house at the time of her murder, were raised and investigated as part of standard investigative practices and procedures.
6. From December 26th, 1996, to the date of this affidavit, no evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from that of witness to suspect.
7. In May of 1999, I was made aware that tabloid newspapers had indicated that Burke Ramsey was a suspect in the murder of JonBenét Ramsey or was believed to be her killer. As a result of these articles, I was contacted by media representatives and I instructed my office to release a press statement which publicly and officially stated that Burke Ramsey was not a suspect in connection with the murder of his sister and that stated in part, "...almost a year ago (Boulder) Police Chief Mark Beckner stated during a news conference that Burke (Ramsey) was not a suspect and that we are not looking at him as a possible suspect." The information in the May 1999 press release was true and correct.
8. From December 26th, 1996, to the present date, I have never engaged n plea bargain negotiations, talks or discussions with anyone in connection with the investigation into the murder of JonBenét Ramsey based in whole or in part on the premise that Burke Ramsey killed his sister. From December 26th, 1996, to the present date, no member of my office has ever engaged in plea bargain negotiations, talks or discussions with anyone in connection with the investigation into the murder of JonBenét Ramsey based in whole or in part on the premise that Burke Ramsey killed his sister.
9. I am aware that this Affidavit may be used by counsel for Burke ramsey in connection with libel litigation brought on his behalf in various jurisdictions.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT This 12th day of October, 2000
signed by Alexander M. Hunter notarized by Susan Ingraham
link
0 notes
Text
possible theory
The killer planned this for Christmas Day. That is not a coincidence. According to reports, there were a few windows and doors open so he could have gained entrance another way and not necessarily through that window. However, in photographs, the brush i.e. grass and weeds) underneath the metal grate was folded over. As if someone took the grate off and the grass got pinched when they put it back.
My theory is that the pineapple is relevant because it was found in JonBenet's digestive tract. But other than that I don't believe the pineapple applies to the crime.
The killer brought the cord and the used piece of tape. The cord was to strangle her and to tie her wrists. The tape wasn't to keep her quiet. It wouldn't be that effective in keeping her quiet anyway. And if her hands were free, she could reach up and remove it herself.
The killer approached her room where she was sleeping. There was no need to strangle her or tie her up at this point if he planned to KIDNAP her. He could pick her up, run down the stairs, and out the door in 5 minutes. I do not believe in the stun gun theory.
I do not believe the killer ever planned to KIDNAP her. There was no way the kidnapping could have gone wrong because everyone was sleeping. in the time it took to get to the basement, he could've been out the door where he had a waiting car. Except there wasn't a car because that wasn't his plan. The killer PURPOSELY chose to forfeit the money because they weren't interested in that.
So to me, the ransom note is a red herring. There is no question that the note was written on the pad FROM the home. The killer could have written it at the house since there was time to kill. I would not doubt that this killer had broken in many times before. May have even slept in the basement.
The Ramseys were too intelligent to write a bizarre note saying the kidnappers HAVE HER DAUGHTER and then they hide her in the wine room closet. Doesn't compute.
The things people say that incriminate Patsy amount to nothing if one analyzes it. That's why Steve Thomas couldn't arrest her. The DA's office told them (BPD) to more or less go back to the drawing board and come back when they have concrete evidence.
0 notes
Text
Oct. 17, 1999 - In a murder case with 590 witness interviews, at least 1,058 pieces of evidence and the eyes of the world focused upon it, the JonBenet Ramsey grand jurors faced one critical choice, legal experts say.
It was penmanship vs. panties.
The most damaging information against any one suspect was the handwriting analysis that concluded JonBenet's mother, Patsy Ramsey, may have written the ransom note found in the family's Boulder home.
But the most powerful evidence pointing to a killer outside the Ramsey family was a stain of body fluid inside the dead girl's panties. The stain carried DNA that police can't link to anyone.
That single piece of unexplained genetic material - combined with other evidence raising the possibility that an intruder murdered the 6-year-old girl - may have convinced Boulder County prosecutors they didn't have sufficient evidence to file charges, criminal-law experts who closely followed the case said.
"You've got a perfect recipe here for an acquittal souffle,'' said Scott Robinson, a top local criminal-defense lawyer. "I don't think Clarence Darrow himself could have kept a jury out more than a half-hour with the Ramsey case as we know it.''
Lawyers say there's one big caveat with all of their Ramsey analysis: Public knowledge of the crime is limited.
Much supposed evidence in the murder has been leaked by anonymous sources; there's no independent way to verify if the leaked information is true, or subject to different interpretations, until the case goes to trial.
It also is unknown whether law enforcement has other major evidence, uncovered in a $2 million, 34-month investigation, that still hasn't been disclosed to the public.
This makes interpreting the JonBene�t Ramsey murder probe like playing chess without knowing if you have all the pieces - or all the rules.
Still, several leading local lawyers were willing last week to analyze the case, assuming for this article that the evidence they're discussing has been portrayed accurately by the sources who leaked information to the news media.
The consensus was that much evidence tilted against Patsy Ramsey, but there was enough other information to raise reasonable doubt against a conviction.
Of the four lawyers interviewed - all of whom closely tracked the case for the news media - none expressed confidence that they personally could win a murder conviction based on the evidence disclosed so far.
"You wind up feeling that it looks like someone in the Ramsey house had something to do with it, but you can't figure out who,'' said Christopher Mueller, who teaches evidence law at the University of Colorado Law School. "If the evidence is what the newspapers say it is, I don't think it's a winnable case.''
John and Patsy Ramsey have said they believe their daughter was murdered by an unidentified intruder, but that Boulder police officials have focused recklessly on the Ramsey family.
After veteran homicide detective Lou Smit quit the case last fall and proclaimed the family was innocent, John Ramsey publicly released a letter in September 1998 saying Boulder police officials "decided they had solved this case on the very first day by reaching the incredible conclusion that because the parents were in the house, they must have done it . . . You have wasted almost two years trying to prove your original theory.
"Meanwhile, my family knows a vicious child killer still walks your streets.''
On Friday, Smit said, "I think the evidence points at an intruder, but I am not commenting on any evidence in this.''
The 1998 Ramsey letter highlighted one of the most significant pieces of evidence in the family's defense. Addressing JonBene�t's killer, Ramsey wrote, "We have been told that the authorities have your DNA.''
Law-enforcement sources confirmed the girl was found with "foreign'' DNA in her panties and under her fingernails. The DNA reportedly did not match genetic material collected from dozens of Ramsey family members and friends.
The scramble to trace that genetic material may have been why the grand jury temporarily halted work this past summer, lawyers said. In May, police started collecting more DNA samples from people who may have touched JonBene�t in the days before her murder.
Law-enforcement sources said the extra genetic material was collected to eliminate as many potential suspects as possible.
Other evidence pointing toward some outside intruder includes an unidentified pubic hair found on the blanket wrapping JonBene�t's body; a Hi-Tec hiking-boot print discovered near the body that hasn't been matched to any family or friends; a broken window in the basement where JonBene�t's body was found; and an unidentified palm print on a door by the girl's body.
Though there can be alternate explanations for all this evidence - the unknown DNA could be picked up by a first-grader who plays hard or swaps clothes with other kids, the hair could be from a maid, the boot and palm prints could have been left long ago by a house repairman, the window reportedly was broken earlier by John Ramsey when he locked himself out of the house - they all can be combined to form an effective defense for any accused Ramsey family member.
"You certainly can line up this evidence to say that an outsider did it,'' said Mueller, the CU law professor who has taught lawyers for 25 years. "As long as you can't figure out where the DNA came from, you've got some very important evidence for the defense.''
Frank Jamison, a 28-year University of Denver Law School professor who teaches evidence law, said the unidentified DNA is a major challenge for murder investigators.
"They've been put in the position right now of trying to clear everyone else in the world. It's hard going,'' Jamison said.
One other important factor in the Ramsey's favor: There is no evidence of any child abuse in the family. Many friends and former nannies have lauded the Ramseys as good parents. And John Ramsey's two children from his first marriage, John Andrew Ramsey and Melinda Ramsey-Long, have publicly praised their father's parenting skills.
However, there is much crime information that points to the Ramsey family, lawyers said.
JonBene�t's body was found inside a house with "very, very little evidence of a break-in,'' Jamison said.
Can a random intruder really sneak into a locked house, capture a 45-pound girl, possibly sexually molest her, split her skull with an 8.5-inch crack, strangle her with a garrote made from a paintbrush that was stored inside the house, wipe off her vagina, find a notepad and pen, write a practice ransom note, write a final three-page ransom note and then escape - all without ever waking John Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey or JonBene�t's r older brother Burke? It's true that the layout of the Ramseys' nearly 7,000square-foot house may have made screams hard to hear. The parents' bedroom was on the third floor, bedrooms for JonBene�t and Burke were on opposite ends of the second floor, and the girl's body was found in the basement.
At the same time, though, the 25-room house is so large it's hard to imagine a first-time visitor successfully navigating so many rooms, hallways and stairways in the middle of the night, while carrying a 6year-old girl, without incident.
If the murder looks like an inside job, then key evidence points to Patsy Ramsey, attorneys said.
The most damaging physical evidence against the mother is the rambling ransom note.
Handwriting experts at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation ruled out John Ramsey as the note's author, but they couldn't do the same for Patsy. After comparing one Patsy handwriting sample to the ransom note, Chet Ubowski of CBI concluded, "This handwriting showed indications that the writer was Patsy Ramsey.''
Still, handwriting analysis can make for dicey testimony in court. In the Oklahoma City bomb trial of Terry Nichols, U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch scaled back prosecution attempts to include much handwriting analysis after defense lawyers called it "junk science.''
Prosecutors "ought to think twice about whether you're going to offer these conclusions'' about handwriting in court, the judge said, adding that there is "no academy of training for these people.''
Other physical evidence pointing to the Ramsey mother includes fiber found on the duct tape that covered the dead girl's mouth. The fiber matched a sweater Patsy wore Christmas night - the day before her daughter's body was found, law-enforcement sources said. She turned the sweater over to police more than a year later.
And the paintbrush handle used in the garrote that helped strangle JonBene�t came from Patsy's art set.
The fibers could have been picked up when John Ramsey found his daughter's lifeless body, ripped the tape off her mouth in an attempt to revive her, and then dropped the adhesive onto the floor, where the stray fiber may have become attached. A random intruder also could have chanced upon Patsy's art set and taken the paintbrush.
But one outside attorney, former Denver prosecutor Craig Silverman, focused on the mother's psyche at the time.
"Whoever did this crime was clearly disturbed,'' Silverman said. "(Patsy) was recovering from cancer, had the pressures of a family vacation, the pressures of a family Christmas, the pressure of turning 40 in a few days.'' Noting that the ransom note, paintbrush and sweater fiber evidence also pointed to the mother, Silverman said, "None of these things alone are smoking guns, but it's the totality of it.''
Of the four JonBene�t legal experts questioned, Silverman was the most hawkish about chances of prosecution. Asked if he thought he could win a conviction, Silverman said: "I don't know. I think it would be a close case. It would depend on how good a witness John and Patsy would be.'' Jamison, the DU law professor, said, "I think it would be almost an impossibility to win.''
Mueller, the CU law professor, said, "I don't think anyone would win a prosecution of the case.'' And Robinson, the defense lawyer who described the facts presented so far on the Ramsey case as an "acquittal souffle,'' said the case may never close.
Though Boulder police officers have been denounced widely for poor crime-scene management - they let John Ramsey search his home alone for his daughter, let him move the body from the basement room, let family friends clean the kitchen and possibly scour away evidence, and failed to immediately separate the parents for interviews to check for contradictions - the investigatory mistakes may not have made much of a difference, Robinson said.
"I am critical of what the police did,'' Robinson said, "but when you've got that DNA stain and the untraced pubic hair, I'm hardpressed to see how the failure to secure the crime scene did it in.''
0 notes
Text
FIBERS
From Perfect Murder, Perfect Town:
"Meanwhile the duct tape was sent to the FBI, which had a large database for matching purposes. Special Agent Douglas Deedrick, an FBI hair and fiber specialist who had testified in the 0. J. Simpson criminal case, notified the Boulder PD that he had found what seemed to be red and black microscopic fiber traces on the duct tape. The four fibers would have to be analyzed further to determine what kind they were. Shortly afterward the FBI began a chemical analysis of the adhesive on the duct tape. Eventually they hoped to be able to locate the manufacturer and possibly even find out the approximate date of fabrication. They told the police they might even be able to trace the tape to where it had been bought." Q (Wood). There were no black fibers that were found on the duct tape that were said to be consistent with the fibers on Patsy Ramsey's red and black jacket, were there?
A (Thomas). It's my understanding that the four fibers were red in color. PMPT Page 240sb
Ms. RAMSEY: I don't know. And I don't…
Mr. RAMSEY: Again, what we heard was that there were--there were some microscopic fibers which were consistent with a sweater of Patsy's found on the duct tape. There was also a lot of other fibers found on the duct tape. GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, CO-HOST: The JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, this time from the investigator's eyes. Today on BURDEN OF PROOF: former Boulder Detective Steve Thomas, who is author of a controversial book about the murder.
Steve Thomas also mentioned (in a 2000 documentary interview):
VAN SUSTEREN: What about the fact that the body was moved? Did that make it virtually impossible to get clues from the body?
THOMAS: Well, let me give you an example, and that's an excellent point. As you know, on the adhesive side of the duct tape, which was removed from the victim's mouth, there were four fibers that were later determined to be microscopically and chemically consistent with four fibers from a piece of clothing that Patsy Ramsey was wearing, and had that piece of tape been removed at autopsy, and the integrity of it maintained, that would have made, I feel, a very compelling argument. But because that tape was removed, and dropped on the floor, a transference argument could certainly be potentially made by any defense in this case, and that's just one example of how a compromised crime scene may, if not irreparably, have damage the subsequent investigation.
Two black shirts (John) One pair of black pants (Patsy) Red and black checkered sweater (Patsy) Red short sleeved shirt (Patsy) Red turtleneck shirt (Patsy)
************************************************************************
"Trujillo advised me that lab technicians had identified eight different types of fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape that covered Jon Benet's mouth. They included red acrylic, gray acrylic and red polyester fibers that were microscopically and chemically consistent to each other, as well as to fibers taken from Patsy Ramsey's Essentials jacket." - Kolar
Ok let's get this straight - Patsy was wearing a red sweater, the fibers from which matched nothing at the crime scene - Patsy was also wearing a red and black checked jacket, the fibers from which were consistent with the red and black fibers found on the duct tape. The red fibers from Patsy's red and black checked jacket also matched the red fibers that were found on the garotte and on JonBenet's clothing. There were however no corresponding black fibers on the garotte or JonBenet's clothing that were consistent with the black fibers from Patsy's red and black checked jacket.
This is what Whitson says about the red fibers. Injustice, pg. 29.
Patsy Ramsey was wearing a red sweater on Christmas night and on the day JonBenet was reported missing. Red fibers, believed to be from Patsy's sweater, were found on the duct tape placed over JonBenet's mouth. Detectives from the Boulder Police Department believe this fiber evidence indicated Patsy was involved with JonBenet's murder. Is there a reasonable explanation for the red fibers on the duct tape?
John Ramsey removed the duct tape from JonBenet when John found her in the storage room. At that time, John did not know if JonBenet was dead or alive. John threw the duct tape on the blanket covering JonBenet. The friend who accompanied John Ramsey to the basement, picked-up the duct tape from the blanket and discarded it on the blanket a second time. Patsy had worn the same red sweater into JonBenet's bedroom where the blanket was usually located. Simply stated, there is a good chance the red fibers found on the duct tape were merely transferred from the blanket to the duct tape after it was thrown on the blanket twice. It cannot be proven the red fibers from Patsy's sweater were transferred to the duct tape when the duct tape was placed on JonBenet's mouth. Furthermore, no fibers consistent with Patsy's sweater were found in JonBenet's underwear. Lin Wood asked Steve Thomas about this fiber evidence during his deposition.
Q. Well, the Boulder Police Department didn't ask John and Patsy Ramsey for the articles of clothing they had worn on the 25th of December, 1996, until almost a year later, true? A. For a long time, that was a mistake, yes. Q. You had already concluded that Patsy Ramsey had committed the crime before you even asked the Ramseys for the clothes they had worn that night, true? A. It was my belief that evidence that I'm talking about led to Patsy Ramsey. So yes, she was the best suspect before we wound up collecting their clothes. .. That is my belief that she was involved. Q. And the timing is correct, right? A. Prior to the retrieval of the clothing, yes. .. Q Did you ever find the roll of duct tape because the duct tape was tom on both ends, wasn't it? A. We neverfound the roll of duct tape to source the duct tape that was covering the victim's mouth. Q. And did you ever find cord in the house? One end of the cord was, as I understand it, was cut. The other end was sealed for the garrote; is that right? . . . Did you ever find any cord in the house from which the garrote or the rope that tied her hands together was from? Did you ever find that? A. No. As far as I know, the cord used on the victim was never sourced to anything in the house.
More than a year after JonBenét Ramsey was murdered, her parents have turned over to Boulder police the clothing they were wearing the night before their 6-year-old daughter was found dead in their home. Two months after police finally made the request, they received two shirts, a pair of pants and a sweater this week from John and Patsy Ramsey, according to sources. Authorities sought the clothing to compare with fibers found in the case, sources said. Marilyn Robinson The Denver Post, January 29, 1998 (PMPT)
"Another police report indicates some pieces of clothing belonging to Patsy and John were turned over to the police on January 28, 1997, approximately four weeks after their daughter's murder: John - two black shirts; Patsy - black pants and a red and black sweater. (BPD Report #1-1430.) WHYD, Woodward
The red fibers from Patsy's jacket are only CONSISTENT with fibers found tied into the knot of the neck ligature, in the paint tray, and on the blanket.
And if Boulder Police hadn't been unfairly focussed on the Ramseys they would have collected up Bill McReynolds Santa suit before he had it destroyed. If they had done that they would have IMO, found those fibers to be consistent with those found tied into the knot of the neck ligature, in the paint tray, and on the blanket. And since there were ONLY red fibers found and NO BLACK fibers found on those items anyone with half a brain can see that the red fibers are far more likely to have come from an all red Santa suit and not from Patsy's half red, half black checked jacket
excerpt from Bob Whitson's book Injustice:
""Patsy Ramsey was wearing a red sweater on Christmas night and on the day JonBenet was reported missing. Red fibers, believed to be from Patsy's sweater, were found on the duct tape placed over JonBenet's mouth. Detectives from the Boulder Police Department believe this fiber evidence indicated Patsy was involved with JonBenet's murder. Is there a reasonable explanation for the red fibers on the duct tape?
John Ramsey removed the duct tape from JonBenet when John found her in the storage room. At that time, John did not know if JonBenet was dead or alive. John threw the duct tape on the blanket covering JonBenet. The friend who accompanied John Ramsey to the basement, picked-up the duct tape from the blanket and discarded it on the blanket a second time. Patsy had worn the same red sweater into JonBenet's bedroom where the blanket was usually located. Simply stated, there is a good chance the red fibers found on the duct tape were merely transferred from the blanket to the duct tape after it was thrown on the blanket twice. It cannot be proven the red fibers from Patsy's sweater were transferred to the duct tape when the duct tape was placed on JonBenet's mouth. Furthermore, no fibers consistent with Patsy's sweater were found in JonBenet's underwear. Lin Wood asked Steve Thomas about this fiber evidence during his deposition."
14 Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Well, you know
15 what, I'm just confusing the issue. I'm
16 going to drop that line of questioning and
17 just ask you, did you have occasion to
18 actually see the CBI report that indicated
19 that there was a likely match for Patsy's
20 blazer with the acrylic fiber found on the
21 duct tape?
22 A. Not that I recall. Detective
23 Trujillo, who was in charge of all the
24 evidence and forensic testing in this case,
25 he and Wickman verbally offered that to the
1 rest of the detective team.
2 Q. All right. So you never
3 personally saw a report with that result or
4 that conclusion?
************************************************************************
10 Q. Were you aware of the fact that
11 Priscilla White owned an identical jacket,
12 that in fact Patsy Ramsey bought her jacket
13 because she liked Priscilla White's so much?
14 A. Until you told me that right now,
15 no.
16 Q. So I assume that no request, that
17 you're aware of, was ever made for the Whites
18 to give articles of clothing with respect to
19 this investigation?
20 A. They may have been asked to give
21 clothing; I'm unaware of that.
22 Q. There were no black fibers that
23 were found on the duct tape that were said
24 to be consistent with the fibers on Patsy
25 Ramsey's red and black jacket, were there?
1 A. It's my understanding that the
2 four fibers were red in color.
"The police reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBenét’s labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers did not match any clothes belonging to John or Patsy. The police were stumped." - PMPT
************************************************************************
Patsy was wearing a sweater made of red WOOL and a checked jacket that was composed of mainly red and black ACRYLIC fibers
There were red and black ACRYLIC fibers on the duct tape. And possibly in the paint tray
There were red ACRYLIC fibers on the garotte, wrist ligatures and JonBenet’s clothing
There were NO red WOOL fibers found on any crime scene items or on JonBenet’s clothing
Anything different you read (and there is plenty of that) is wrong. Some of it has even been stated or implied by Boulder Police to make Patsy look guilty
Patsy was wearing a sweater made of red WOOL and a checked jacket that was composed of mainly red and black ACRYLIC fibers
Patsy's checkered jacket - Red and black acrylic fibers Patsy's sweater (Red) - Wool.
Duct Tape - Red and black acrylic fibers
Garrotte - Red acrylic fibers
Wrist Ligatures - Red acrylic fibers
Clothing - Red acrylic fibers
There were NO red WOOL fibers found on any crime scene items or on JonBenet’s clothing
0 notes
Text
1997 Interview with John Ramsey
1998 Interview with John Ramsey
John Ramsey Interview 08/29/2000 in Atlanta, Georgia
Patsy Ramsey Interview with Boulder Police 04/30/1997
Patsy Ramsey Interview with Boulder Police 06/23/1998
Patsy Ramsey Interview 08/28/2000 in Atlanta, Georgia
0 notes
Text
The long johns, the bathroom,
June 1998 interviews:
21 TOM HANEY: On Christmas day were you in that
22 bathroom at all?
23 PATSY RAMSEY: Very likely, but I can't say
24 for sure.
25 TOM HANEY: Had you been in there that day,
0458
1 would you have done something with them?
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I got, you know -- that
3 night I got -- I know I got the long Johns for her out
4 of that bathroom.
5 TOM HANEY: Right, out of one of the draws in
6 there.
7 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
From the April, 1997 transcripts w/ Trujillo:
PR: And he laid her down and I got her undressed and put her, I left her shirt on her and uh, went in the bathroom and tried to find some pajama pants and all I could find was some, like long underwear pants. . .
TT: Um hum.
PR: . . .and put those on.
x
1 A. No. 2 Q. Do you recall any occasions where 3 JonBenet had an accident at school and -- I 4 know that they kept at her school like I 5 think they do at most grammar schools, they 6 have a box of like clean underpants if a kid 7 has an accident at school, do you ever 8 remember her getting to that situation and 9 borrowing panties from the school and having 10 to return them? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Okay. I am slightly confused, 13 and I would like this clarified. When I 14 first started to ask you about the purchase 15 of the panties in November, I got the 16 impression that you were somewhat unclear as 17 to whether you bought two sets or one. 18 In follow-up questions, I got the 19 impression that you felt confident that you 20 only bought one. Do you know? 21 A. I really can't remember. 22 Q. Do you recall that you did -- you 23 never mailed this pair out to -- 24 A. Jenny, yes. 25 Q. Okay. So if there was an
0112 1 unopened package, it would have been left in 2 the house? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Mrs. Ramsey, 5 prior to going to the Whites, did you see 6 JonBenet in panties? In other words, were 7 you at any point, prior to going to the 8 Whites, in the process of her getting 9 dressed, did you ever see if she was wearing 10 panties? 11 A. I mean, I just probably didn't 12 notice. I would, she must have had them on 13 or I would have certainly noticed if she 14 didn't have any on. 15 Q. When you came home and you got 16 her ready for bed, did you notice if she was 17 wearing panties? When you changed her out 18 of the black velvet -- 19 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 20 Q. - type pants -- 21 A. Right. 22 Q. -- and into the long underwear 23 pants -- 24 A. Uh-huh, right. 25 Q. -- the White ones, did you notice
0113 1 if she had a pair of panties on? 2 A. Yes, she did. I believe she did. 3 Q. Why do you remember that? I 4 mean, what do you remember? I just want to 5 know what you remember about that. 6 A. Well, I took the jeans off and 7 put the long leggies on. 8 Q. And you noticed that she had 9 panties on in that process? 10 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 11 Q. You have to answer yes or no. 12 A. Well, I noticed -- I mean, 13 nothing was unusual. I mean, if she hadn't 14 had panties on, it would have been unusual. 15 So -- 16 Q. So there was nothing unusual 17 there? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. When you actually removed those -- 20 you have -- they are black velvet pants? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And did the panties come down 23 with them when you removed those pants, if 24 you remember? 25 A. I don't remember.
0114 1 Q. If they had, would you remember, 2 or is that too long ago? 3 A. It has been a long time. 4 Q. But did you change -- did you put 5 a fresh pair of panties on her at that point 6 when you were getting her ready for bed? 7 A. No. 8 Q. (By Mr. Wickman) Mrs. Ramsey, I 9 have a daughter myself, and kids do strange 10 things, but was it her habit, when she 11 changed clothes, did she have a routine to 12 put them in a basket if they were dirty? 13 How did that work? 14 A. She usually probably dropped them 15 wherever they came off. 16 MR. WICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Was that pretty 18 much her practice with most of her clothes? 19 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 20 Q. I mean, not just her underwear, 21 just they are off, new pair? 22 A. (Witness nodded head 23 affirmatively).
0 notes
Text
0 notes