Statistics
We looked inside some of the posts by jonbenetrunsolved 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
21 hours
Number of Posts By Type
Text
17
Last Seen Tumblr Blogs
Fun Fact
Total funding amounts to $125.3M.
Text
“Officer French thinks the Ramseys are acting appropriately at the scene.” (BPD Report #5-3851.)
“Officer French does not know whether Patsy said that she went in to get her daughter ready or whether she came downstairs first.” (BPD Report #5-3834.) (Date of Formal Interview: 1-10-97.)
“Patsy had gotten up on the morning of Dec. 26 1996 and had gone down the stairs from her bedroom to the kitchen … At the bottom of this spiral staircase Patsy discovered a 3 page handwritten note … After Patsy looked at the note and read it she ran to JonBenét’s bedroom. JonBenét was missing” (Detective Linda Arndt—Date of Report 1-8-1997).
“As she descended the back stairwell, she discovered the Ransom Note and read only those few lines stating that JonBenét was kidnapped, but "safe and unharmed," and demanding $118,000 for her return. (SMF P 17; PSMF P 17.) Mrs. Ramsey immediately screamed and proceeded to check JonBenét's room, which was empty. (SMF P 18; PSMF P 18)." (Carnes 2003:11-12).
x
0 notes
Text
Steve Thomas' PDI evidence presented June 1, 1997
Finally, in closing, Steve Thomas listed over a dozen reasons, in no particular order, why the police suspected the Ramseys. Some of them had been mentioned during the discussion of other categories.
1.The date engraved on JonBenét’s headstone was December 25, not December 26, 1996, which indicated they knew she did not die in the early morning hours. December 25—that is, before midnight—was the earliest approximate time of death judging from the state of the pineapple found in her small intestine.
2. Sound tests conducted by the police indicated that the scream heard by Melody Stanton across the street should have been heard by the parents in their bedroom.
3. The behavior of Patsy and John after Rick French arrived at their house was not in keeping with a kidnapping but more the way people would respond after a death.
4. The phone call placed by John Ramsey to arrange for a pilot to fly his entire family to Atlanta that evening was made within thirty-five minutes of his finding his daughter’s body.
5. Prior vaginal trauma was unlikely to have been caused by a person outside the immediate family.
6. The flashlight, the writing pad, and the Sharpie pen were all found in the kitchen area. The flashlight—which may have caused the head injury—was left on the kitchen counter.
7. The ransom note was written on paper torn from a writ- ing pad that belonged to the Ramseys.
8. The Sharpie pen used to write the note was not found close to where the pad was discovered; but in a cup next to the kitchen phone where the pen was kept.
9. The writing pad was discovered close to where the ran- som note was allegedly found.
10. Patsy Ramsey had not been eliminated as the author of the ransom note.
11. The enhanced 911 tape contradicted the version of the events of that morning told by both Patsy and John Ramsey on several occasions to different police officers.
12. Patsy’s statements about when she discovered that her daughter was not in her room and John’s statements about what he did with his daughter after taking her to bed on December 25, 1996, were inconsistent.
13. The paintbrush used in the “garrote” was linked to Patsy.
14. The confusing layout of the home would make it dif- ficult for a stranger to commit all the aspects of the crime and its cover-up without fear of discovery.
15. The elements used in the aftermath of the crime and its staging, such as the blanket were obtained from places in the house known to the parents.
16. When the first officer arrived at the house Patsy answered the door fully dressed wearing the same jacket as the previous night and with her makeup on.
17. Fibers from her jacket were found on the duct tape John Ramsey said he tore from JonBenét’s mouth.
source: PMPT
Steve Thomas book
CHAPTER 12 page 115 "... the sergeant who reported the undisturbed snow now filed an amended report. The first officer was having difficulty in recollecting certain events. Then Arndt began amending her reports too. I saw big trouble ahead."
x
0 notes
Text
neighbors
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-neighbors-scott-gibbons.htm
"John and I were both amazed at the number of transients who lived in close proximity to our Boulder home. We had learned that the house across the alley was occupied by a house-sitter during that Christmas. This man disappeared within days after the twenty-sixth. Who was he? Why had he left so quickly? The young CU art student who had created the "Daddy's Little Hooker" display had once lived only four doors to the south of us in a student rental house for a period of time. Unfortunately, we were realizing how transient our University Hill neighborhood really was. Some neighbors rented their extra rooms and basements to students and others who moved in and out frequently. We could only hope the police were paying close attention." -DOI
0 notes
Text
Cord fibers in Bed.
"Further, fibers consistent with those of the cord used to make the slip knots and garrote were found on JonBenet's bed. (SMF P 168; PSMF P 168.)
Wolf v Ramsey:
"A rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom of defendants' home, neither of which belonged to defendants. Small pieces of the brown sack material were found in the "vacuuming" of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body."
0 notes
Text
0 notes
Text
0 notes
Text
Pineapple - Report - Botanists - P. Woodward.
October 15, 1997 – Det Sgt Tom Wickman and Det Weinheimer met with Dr [Redacted] at the University of Colorado about the contents found inside the small intestine. [1-1156]
October 15, 1997 – Det Sgt Tom Wickman and Det Weinheimer met with Dr [Redacted] at the University of Colorado about the contents found inside the small intestine. [1-1156]
October 15, 1997 – Sgt Wickman and Det Weinheimer met Dr [Redacted] at the University of Colorado and Dr [Redacted] concerning the identification of the contents found in JonBenet Ramsey’s small intestine. [1-1348]
October 16, 1997 14:45 – Det Weinheimer retrieved the test tube containing the intestine contents from the Coroner’s Office. [1-1348]
October 16, 1997 14:59 – Det Weinheimer put the intestine contents into the freezer in the evidence section of the Boulder Police Dept. [1-1348]
October 17, 1997 09:54 – Det Weinheimer checked the intestine contents out of the Boulder Police Dept evidence and took to to Dr [Redacted] office at the University of Colorado. [1-1348]
October 17, 1997 12:01 – Det Weinheimer returned the test tube of intestine contents to the Boulder Police Department evidence lab after observing Dr [Redacted] remove approximately 2 grams of substance from the test tube. [1-1349]
December 25, 1997 – Dr [Redacted] informed Det Weinheimer that the intestine contents included pineapple and grapes including skin and pulp. [1-1349]
January 22, 1998 – Det Weinheimer received a report from Dr [Redacted] and [Redacted] concerning their findings from the examination of the contents of the intestine. [1-1349]
Followup on the stomach contents, re: the Pineapple. Contacts with Dr [Redacted], Dr [Redacted] [Redacted], Dr Meyer. Other item besides pineapple was cherries. [1-1348]
Followup by Det. Weinheimer on the pineapple recovered from the Ramsey house. Also letter (report) from Dr [Redacted] and [Redacted] re: their findings. Grape skin also found. [1-1448]
Report of Det. Weinheimer re: pineapple found in house given to Dr [Redacted] and [Redacted] for further testing. [1-1450]
0 notes
Text
Levin/Wood Patsy's fibers
21 I do not want, nor do I think
22 you should expect for Mrs. Ramsey, for Patsy,
23 to speculate. Pure speculation is always
24 fraught with peril in anybody's part. And
25 your question not only calls for, I think,
0199
1 gross speculation, but it is at best a
2 hypothetical that reasonably may not even be
3 based on fact. Here is what I would offer
4 in terms of a compromise, and that is, you
5 have indicated, at least by your questions,
6 that you are comfortable in giving us, at
7 least, your verbal statement of the results
8 of these tests.
9 I think, if you would give us,
10 subsequent to this or if you want to do it
11 today, this afternoon, or tomorrow, you can
12 get those, if you can give us the actual
13 result, not looking for the details of the
14 testing, but just the results, the
15 terminology used, we will then consider,
16 reconsider, and maybe we can get you some
17 additional information.
18 But right now as it stands, I am
19 just not willing to let Patsy sit here and
20 speculate about scenarios that may not, in
21 fact, be based in fact. I just don't think
22 that is fair.
23 MR. LEVIN: Just so you know,
24 what I would like to ask her is the
25 following, and you will have this in case
0200
1 you have a change of heart in the future.
2 MR. WOOD: Okay.
3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
6 from her jacket were found in the paint
7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
11 the question is, can she explain to us how
12 those fibers appeared in those places that
13 are associated with her daughter's death.
14 And I understand you are not going to answer
15 those.
16 MR. WOOD: Right. Not, not
17 without -- I mean, with all due respect,
18 Bruce, even the discussion we had, as I can
19 best recall it, we didn't get a consistent
20 description of the fiber results on the
21 question of the paint tray. You are sitting
22 here making a record saying that it is a
23 fact, and I don't know that.
24 MR. LEVIN: I understand that,
25 and I'm just --
0201
1 MR. WOOD: And I think what we
2 will probably find, more likely than not, is
3 when we look at your test results, we will
4 find that there was -- there were fibers
5 that were consistent with or similar to
6 fibers that you believe were found on Patsy's
7 sweater or jacket.
8 I think we will also find, if you
9 put all of the information out there, that
10 there were an extraordinary number of fibers
11 that are not, in fact, in any way similar to
12 any item associated with Patsy Ramsey on
13 these very items.
14 And to single out now in this
15 record and say a fiber was found on the
16 ligature that was consistent with Patsy
17 Ramsey's jacket, fairly, I think if asked,
18 you would say, Mr. Wood, there were an
19 extraordinary number of other fibers that we
20 do not relate in any way to Mrs. Ramsey and
21 probably you would tell me you don't have an
22 explanation for.
23 So I don't want this record to be
24 accusatory based on your statements about the
25 fibers. Fiber evidence, as you know, is
0202
1 pretty, pretty -- I won't say weak, but
2 let's just say that it is subject to a great
3 amount of debate in the profession. And
4 that is why I am just not comfortable
5 leaving your statements there without, I
6 think, putting a more accurate picture,
7 Bruce, on the whole record.
8 MR. LEVIN: I understand your
9 position.
10 In addition to those questions,
11 there are some others that I would like you
12 to think about whether or not we can have
13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
14 understand you are advising her not to today,
15 and those are there are black fibers that,
16 according to our testing that was conducted,
17 that match one of the two shirts that was
18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
19 Those are located in the
20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
22 other areas that we have intended to ask
23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
24 explaining their presence in those locations.
25 MR. WOOD: And again, you state
0203
1 that on this record as fact, and I really
2 think that is unfair. I think if you would
3 produce the full truth of the fibers that
4 you have collected that it would probably be
5 at best similar to, which is not uncommon.
6 And I think you would also probably have to
7 admit that there are any number of other
8 fibers found in these areas that you have no
9 explanation for, and I don't want this record
10 to be distorted down the road as being a
11 situation where somehow there is greater
12 weight given to these similar fibers you
13 represent in terms of their location and
14 their alleged origin than really is fair
15 under the truth of fiber evidence and the
16 total fiber evidence in this case.
17 So I mean, I understand your
18 position, and we may very well be able to
19 get over it. You all are willing verbally
20 to tell us the result. I think you clearly,
21 in fairness, should be perfectly willing to
22 show us the result. And when you do that,
23 that would give us an opportunity to perhaps
24 reconsider and answer the question.
25 Would you all be willing to do
0204
1 that, Bruce?
2 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
3 something we'd have -- I would have to
4 discuss with Chief Beckner. And I think you
5 can appreciate why, when we are talking about
6 physical evidence in an ongoing investigation,
7 which is not a filed case, that we are
8 reluctant to release reports.
9 MR. WOOD: Well, in fairness to
10 John and Patsy, though, you are willing to
11 state that these fibers, you believe, match,
12 and it seems to me then you are not giving
13 away anything by simply giving us the actual
14 result. What did the forensic expert say?
15 What is the actual result?
16 If you are willing to say it
17 verbally and characterize it, it seems to me
18 you don't jeopardize anything in an ongoing
19 investigation not filed by giving us the
20 result and letting us see if, in fact, what
21 the result says is consistent with the way
22 you represent it today. It seems to me that
23 would be fair and wouldn't hurt you in the
24 slightest.
25 MR. LEVIN: I understand your
0205
1 position.
2 MR. WOOD: Okay.
0 notes
Text
gideon epstein deposition
http://www.acandyrose.com/05172002Depo-GideonEpstein.htm
0 notes
Text
handwriting experts opinions on Patsy's handwriting v ransom note
0 notes
Text
What evidence is there that Patsy Did It? Contrary to popular belief that there is SO MUCH that points to Patsy, there is very little. And what is there may not even be considered as evidence.
Some people believe that Patsy wrote the ransom note. Then there are the fibers.
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 The Blanket being wrapped around JonBenet is not proof of PDI. It's compelling and it is said people who are close to the victim do this, but people who are not close to victims have done stranger things. Patsy wearing the same clothes is not evidence. She had on a turtleneck with a jacket on top. It is reasonable to believe that Patsy changed into comfortable clothes when she got home. The house is heated in the winter, so it'd be too warm inside to be dressed in layers. And even more so if people believe she committed these atrocities. Someone said the basement would get hot, so a window would need to be opened. The notepad and pen belonged to Patsy. Not proof. Why would the killer hide or dispose of the ligature cord and duct tape but leave the flashlight on the table? Why, if Patsy wrote the note, did she leave the notepad exposed? John literally handed the tablet to the police. The pens were in the same "lot," so any pen found from that lot would be a match. It couldn't be said that the pen they found was the one the killer used. The location of the ransom note is very curious. But there is no evidence that Patsy put it there. Patsy's 911 call sounded genuine and exactly what a frantic parent would sound like. She hung up prematurely means nothing. The people who decided to "interpret" every sentence of that 911 call and concluded there was deception are probably wrong. Burke could not be heard. LOL. I disagree with the conclusions of body language experts when they say Patsy is being deceptive. The issue is that, to begin with, when ppl see John and Patsy in interviews, they start with the premise that they are guilty. They haven't even spoken yet. The good news is that this so-called evidence is not evidence at all. It wouldn't stand in a courtroom. It is a misconception that Patsy and John did not act like grieving parents. Some reports say they were beyond distraught. Anything the housekeeper said is hearsay. She had it out for Patsy and wanted to see her convicted. She sued them and dragged their names through the mud. I'm sure she lied. That other friend, Phillips turned on Patsy as well, telling lies and selling pictures of Jonbenet to the tabloids.
The Ransom note The handwriting experts could not say with any certainty that she was the author. Full stop. In fact, a few of them said she was unlikely to be the author. The fact of the matter is, that just like Patsy's handwritten seems to "match" the ransom note, other people's handwriting may look just as similar. Handwriting experts are not looking at individual letters from the alphabet. They are looking for the differences. An interesting story shared by Jameson on her subreddit about the ransom note. "Interesting story
Howard Rile and Lloyd Cunningham met with the Boulder police Department in March of 1997. They were explaining to the police their opinions and that included a presentation on how handwriting analysis is done, the fact that it is quite complex. Not only the shape of the letters is taken into consideration but also the distance between letters, the pressure of the pen, the margins.
Anyway, Lloyd Cunningham did a comparison between the ransom note and the writing of a known individual he let viewers believe was Patsy. The officers were sitting on the edge of their seats believing they were seeing evidence Patsy wrote the note.
They were NOT pleased when they found out the handwriting sample was not from Patsy but from someone totally unrelated to the case.
Both Rile and Cunningham were disliked by the BPD because they weren't leaning BORG; their reports would make it harder for the BPD to make a strong case against the Ramseys which was clearly what they had hoped for. The practical joke didn't help the situation."
0 notes
Text
Expert’s Opinions on the Handwriting
Below are the six original handwriting experts and their conclusions. They are the only ones who examined the original ransom note and handwriting samples- others examined only copies.
Chet Ubowski, Colorado Bureau of Investigation (police expert)
Conclusion: “The evidence fell short of what was needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note.” Ubowski also publicly denied (April 10, 2000) the accuracy of the Boulder police department’s statement that he concluded Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note. He also denied the claim (repeated by both Thomas and Kolar) that 24 of the alphabet's 26 letters looked as if they had been written by Patsy.
Richard Dusak, U.S. Secret Service Document Examiner (police expert)
Conclusion: “found a lack of indications and noted that a study and comparison of the questioned and specimened writings submitted has resulted in the conclusion that there is no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the ransom note.”
The US Secret Service is recognized as having one of the foremost questioned-document laboratories in the world. Secret Service examiner Richard Dusak was chosen to analyze the Ramsey ransom note for the Boulder Police Department. Yet Dusak’s analysis was never released until now. It was also never leaked to the media. His conclusion was a stunner. Secret Service Examiner Richard Dusak concluded that Patsy Ramsey never wrote the Ramsey ransom note: “No evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the ransom note.” (WHYD, 2016)
Lloyd Cunningham, a Forensic Document Examiner (hired by defendants)
Conclusion: “There were no significant individual characteristics, but much significant difference in Patsy’s writing and the ransom note.”
Howard Rile, Forensic Document Examiner certified by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (hired by the defense)
Conclusion: His opinion was between ‘probably not’ and ‘elimination’ of Patsy Ramsey as author of the ransom note, further stating that he believes that the writer could be identified if historical writing was found.
According to one police report, two Boulder detectives reviewed the credentials of various work document examiners and selected the US Secret Service and specialists Edwin Alford and Leonard Speckin to conduct additional comparisons between Patsy Ramsey’s handwriting and the handwriting found in the Ramsey ransom note. (BPD Report #1-212.) (WHYD)
Leonard Speckin, Forensic Document Examiner (police expert)
Conclusion: “I can find no evidence that Patsy Ramsey disguised her handprinting exemplars. When I compare the handprinting habits of Patsy Ramsey with those presented in the questioned ransom note, there exists agreement to the extent that some of her individual letter formations and letter combinations do appear in the ransom note. When this agreement is weighed against the number, type and consistency of the differences present, I am unable to identify Patsy Ramsey as the author of the questioned ransom note with any degree of certainty. I am however, unable to eliminate her as the author.”
Edwin Alford, Jr.. Private Document Examiner. (police expert)
Conclusion: Examination of the questioned handwriting and comparison with the handwriting specimens submitted “has failed to provide a basis for identifying Patricia Ramsey as the writer of the letter.”
........................
From the Carnes ruling:
On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF 203; PSMF 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF 204; PSMF 204.)
Indeed, forensic document examiners were eager to jump into the high-profile investigation. In July 1997, Ms. Wong, now plaintiffs expert, had originally contacted defendants' attorneys and offered to analyze the Ransom Note and point out weaknesses in analysis by "Government handwriting experts." (SMF 342; PSMF 342.) Defendants declined such an offer.
In September 1998, Ms. Wong wrote District Attorney Hunter, Assistant District Attorney Michael Kane, and Judge Roxanne Bailin, asking to testify before the Grand Jury. (SMF 347; PSMF 347.). By letter dated January 20, 1999, Mr. Hunter rejected the request, informing Ms. Wong that it was his opinion that she did not use scientifically reliable methods, her testimony would be inadmissible, and that she lacked credibility. (SMF 348; PSMF 348.)
In stark contrast to Epstein, Wong has never taken a certification exam, completed an accreditation course in document examination, been an apprentice to an ABFDE certified document examiner, or worked in a crime lab. (Wong Dep. at 87-112). She does, however, claim nearly ten years of experience in the field.
She, however, is not a member of the ABFDE, the sole recognized organization for accreditation of qualified forensic document examiners. Although she is the former vice president of the National Association of Document Examiners (NADE), (PSDMF 12), defendants note that this organization does not meet ABFDE certification requirements, has no permanent office and has no membership requirements other than the payment of a fee. Wong, herself, admits that NADE does not require specialized training or experience for its certification. (Wong Dep. at 87-89.)
Finally, even Epstein, plaintiffs other expert, testified that Wong is not qualified to render opinions in this case. (Epstein Dep. at 32-33.) Accordingly, the Court concludes Ms. Wong is not qualified to provide reliable handwriting analysis in this case.
Here, as noted, several factors necessarily reduce the weight a reasonable juror could give to Epstein's conclusion.
First, Epstein did not consult the original Ransom Note nor obtain original exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey.
Second, as noted by defendants, Epstein deviated from the very methodology that he has previously asserted was necessary to make a reasoned judgment.
Most significant to the Court in its determination that Epstein's conclusion cannot carry the day for plaintiff, however, is the unanimity of opinion among six other experts that Mrs. Ramsey cannot be determined to have been the writer of the note.
Given the contrary opinion of six other experts, whose ability to examine the documents was necessarily superior to Epstein's, and given Epstein's failure to explain the methodology by which he can make absolute pronouncements concerning the authorship of a document, this Court does not believe that a reasonable jury could conclude that Mrs. Ramsey was the author of the Ransom Note, solely on the basis of Epstein's professed opinion to that effect.
Epstein acknowledges the importance of consulting original documents in an article he coauthored, appearing in the 1971 edition of Identification News, a publication of the International Association for Identification. (SMF 220; PSMF 220.)
In this text, Epstein writes that:
”All investigative agencies should be aware of the limitations that are imposed upon the Questioned Document Examiner by the submission of copies (Xerox, Photo, or Thermofax) in place of the original. By having to use the copies, the examiner is being deprived of one of the most important elements of scientific examination, the study of line quality of the writing. Those breaks, pressure areas, and even spacing, can often be attributed to the mechanical method of reproduction and not to the actual writing itself. A qualified conclusion based on examination of only copies is not rare. ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN THE ORIGINALS WHENEVER POSSIBLE.”
0 notes
