Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 28910111213 LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 193
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Family cleared in JonBenet Ramsey's death

  1. #166
    Elite Member ManxMouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lemuria
    Posts
    7,380

    Default

    It's not that I doubt you, but what is the source of the information on John's sweater fibers? And where is the stuff about the fibers on the garrote?

    I know that pedo/ritual abuse rings exist, mostly facilitated by the internet these days and often involving children from developing or unregulated countries, or children who aren't closely watched, one way or another. But Nancy Krebs notwithstanding, I see nothing but speculation that the Ramseys et. al. were involved in one.

    I still tend to think that some pageant pedo got to JonBenet, either continually or just that one terrible night.
    Santa is an elitist mother fucker -- giving expensive shit to rich kids and nothing to poor kids.

  2. #167
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,811

    Default

    I still say it was the family, and Pats is burning in hell. (they still may have served little Jon-Benet out to pedo's or a pedo ring though..not disputing that.)
    Don't slap me, cause I'm not in the mood!

  3. #168
    Elite Member Sarzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    13,803

    Default

    What about the pubic hair that was found that didn't belong to any of the Ramseys? From what I've read I think there was someone else in the house that night. Whether they killed JonBenet or not I have no clue.

  4. #169
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarzy View Post
    What about the pubic hair that was found that didn't belong to any of the Ramseys? From what I've read I think there was someone else in the house that night. Whether they killed JonBenet or not I have no clue.
    I am not sure..but having watched the Ramseys on TV..in interviews and on shows back after it happened..I just have a very strong gut instinct feeling that they were involved/or killed her..especially Patsy. I could smell her guilt and sin right through the TV screen. Sorry, but it was that strong to me. And I usually would give a person the benefit of the doubt, but her guilt was so strong to me it was practically a physical presence and entity of it's own.

    JMO.
    Don't slap me, cause I'm not in the mood!

  5. #170
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Back of Beyond
    Posts
    11,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ManxMouse View Post
    It's not that I doubt you, but what is the source of the information on John's sweater fibers? And where is the stuff about the fibers on the garrote?

    I know that pedo/ritual abuse rings exist, mostly facilitated by the internet these days and often involving children from developing or unregulated countries, or children who aren't closely watched, one way or another. But Nancy Krebs notwithstanding, I see nothing but speculation that the Ramseys et. al. were involved in one.

    I still tend to think that some pageant pedo got to JonBenet, either continually or just that one terrible night.

    Oops, sorry I didn't provide the links. Here you go:

    Transcript Ramsey interview by prosecutors, in which he is informed that his sweater fibers were found in JBR underwear

    Patsy interview

    Absent a confession or a conviction, everything in this case is speculation. It just happens that Nancy Krebs' information fits all of the known physical evidence and goes a long way toward explaining some of the bizarre behaviour of the Ramsey's and the truly bizarre facts of this case, which is absolutely unique in the annals of crime.
    Last edited by Sasha; July 15th, 2008 at 06:22 PM.

  6. #171
    Elite Member Sarzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    13,803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojiita View Post
    I am not sure..but having watched the Ramseys on TV..in interviews and on shows back after it happened..I just have a very strong gut instinct feeling that they were involved/or killed her..especially Patsy. I could smell her guilt and sin right through the TV screen. Sorry, but it was that strong to me. And I usually would give a person the benefit of the doubt, but her guilt was so strong to me it was practically a physical presence and entity of it's own.

    JMO.
    That's ok. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I'm must say I'm finding it hard to believe the Ramseys weren't involved in some way. I just think there was someone else involved also.

  7. #172
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Back of Beyond
    Posts
    11,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarzy View Post
    What about the pubic hair that was found that didn't belong to any of the Ramseys? From what I've read I think there was someone else in the house that night. Whether they killed JonBenet or not I have no clue.
    Also, some believe that the most critical piece of evidence seized in the search of the Ramseys' Boulder home may be one that doesn't show up in the 65 pages of documents that were released last week.
    It's a single pubic hair, found on the blanket that covered JonBenet's ravaged body, where she lay on the bare floor of a small basement room.
    "It does not match any member of the Ramsey family,'' said a Ramsey representative who requested anonymity. The failure to trace that hair to anyone inside or outside JonBenet's family has also been confirmed by law enforcement sources.
    Rocky Mountain News



    "That single hair, I don't want to understate it, is the single most significant thing I've heard," said Denver attorney Scott Robinson. "It's far more significant than all the talk about melting snow, were there footprints or weren't there, a broken window, can you get in or can't you. But that hair -- a defense lawyer can make a lot out of it. "Because," Robinson added, "if I'm the prosecutor, I have to be really worried as to how I can put together a plausible story ... that explains the existence of a pubic hair not belonging to anyone that they know of, on a blanket covering the child. That hair explains why the delay (in making an arrest), why the caution."
    So how does one explain the fact that the Ramsey's obviously staged a cover-up (ransom note, pineapple, cleaned and redressed body) but there are strange pubic hairs and DNA on the body pointing to another perp? Simple. Someone else killed her and for some truly sinister reason, the Ramsey's were compelled to stage a cover-up.

  8. #173
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    squirrels in the morning, squirrels in the evening, squirrels at suppertime!
    Posts
    1,243

    Default

    I thought I had read that John Ramsey is the one that put the blanket over her and carried her up with it on, placing it over her body to cover up her nakedness? If he placed the blanket on her then the pube might not have any real significance.

  9. #174
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Back of Beyond
    Posts
    11,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cheetopia View Post
    I thought I had read that John Ramsey is the one that put the blanket over her and carried her up with it on, placing it over her body to cover up her nakedness? If he placed the blanket on her then the pube might not have any real significance.
    The pubic hair didn't belong to John Ramsey. No one has been identified as to the pubic hair and I have no idea if it has been matched to the "touch DNA" that supposedly cleared the Ramsey's. The "touch DNA" (skin cells) came from the waistband of her tights, as if someone grabbed them to pull them up or down, and matched the small DNA sample in her panties.

  10. #175
    Gold Member GoldDust77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Chasing Demri around our house in her walker!
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    I am not tooting my own horn here, but i am very knowledgeable about the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that a member of the Ramsey family (most likely Patsy, in a fit of rage, accidentally) killed JonBenet. I could go on all day & night listing the reasons why only one of them (Patsy, John, or--less likely--brother Burke) could have possibly done it. The facts are irrefutable. That is all i will say--I'm not going to list all the FACTS that point to the guilt of one or more of the Ramsey family members who were inside the house that night, as well as all the FACTS that irrefutably show that there was no "intruder". To put it very succinctly, the Ramseys are guilty as sin, but have avoided arrest due to their immense wealth and strong ties/connections/friendships with "people in high places" (i.e. the Colorado government & judicial system).

    Anyway, we have been tirelessly discussing this issue of the Ramseys "being cleared" due to these supposed new discoveries in the DNA evidence, over at Websleuths.com. There is no doubt that this "new evidence" is virtually meaningless & inconsequential. All panties (especially the ones worn by JonBenet that night, which were brand-new & were taken straight out of the package & put on her) CONTAIN THE DNA OF THE WORKERS THAT HANDLED/PACKAGED THE UNDERWEAR. Tests were done on similar panties; sure enough: Random DNA was present on them. Myself & many people well-versed in this case believe strongly that that is the source of the "unknown DNA" (which, by the way, was just a tiny trace)--probably just some skin cells of a worker over in China or wherever the panties were manufactured/packaged. Now, as for how this same DNA got on the waistband of JonBenet's leggings (which is the "new DNA evidence" at issue that has led to the Ramseys being *cleared*)--Very simple: As JonBenet was being dressed (i.e., her leggings were pulled up over the panties she had on), some of that DNA from the panties transferred to the leggings. So simple. This does not, in my mind, or most people's minds who are well-educated on this case, mean diddly-shit (to put it bluntly!).

    JMO
    My precious baby girl:
    ~ Demri Elizabeth-June ~
    Arrived July 19th. 6 lbs.,5 oz.; 19.5". BEAUTIFUL !

  11. #176
    Gold Member powerorchid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    865

    Default

    Question for gold dust:

    I have visited webslueths and read pretty much all the evidence. Some-one in this forum claims a pubic hair was found on her body. I don't recall ever reading this before. Is that just an internet rumor? All I could find was that there was a dog hair on her hand.

  12. #177
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    .. dead yet?

    YEP
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  13. #178
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    squirrels in the morning, squirrels in the evening, squirrels at suppertime!
    Posts
    1,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasha View Post
    The pubic hair didn't belong to John Ramsey. No one has been identified as to the pubic hair and I have no idea if it has been matched to the "touch DNA" that supposedly cleared the Ramsey's. The "touch DNA" (skin cells) came from the waistband of her tights, as if someone grabbed them to pull them up or down, and matched the small DNA sample in her panties.

    Never said the pube did belong to John Ramsey. My point, that you obviously missed, was that without knowing the physical chain of possession of the blanket put on Jon Benet we have absolutely no way of knowing where that pube came from.

    If the DNA from the pube matched the random DNA they found on the panties and or leggings it might mean something but not without any way to link it to any other evidence. Saying that it definitely points to an outside person as the murderer makes as much sense as saying that the guy that made the new panties found on her is the killer. Sure, his DNA could be all over the panties but he/she isn't the killer.

    Also, anyone that's ever owned a pet can tell you how easy it is to transfer a hair from one surface to the next. That pube could have literally come from anywhere and any time based on how absolutely tainted the crime scene had become. It could have even been laying around the basement floor for literal years before the killing.

  14. #179
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Back of Beyond
    Posts
    11,082

    Default

    Cheetopia, I was just answering your question. I assumed you meant it could have come from John Ramsey when you pointed out he put the blanket on her. If/until the person the pubic hair belongs to is identified, I agree, it could have come from anywhere. But. You do agree that a strange pubic hair near the body of a dead, sexually molested child could be a significant clue?

    "That single hair, I don't want to understate it, is the single most significant thing I've heard," said Denver attorney Scott Robinson. "It's far more significant than all the talk about melting snow, were there footprints or weren't there, a broken window, can you get in or can't you
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by cheetopia
    If the DNA from the pube matched the random DNA they found on the panties and or leggings it might mean something but not without any way to link it to any other evidence. Saying that it definitely points to an outside person as the murderer makes as much sense as saying that the guy that made the new panties found on her is the killer. Sure, his DNA could be all over the panties but he/she isn't the killer.
    As I said, I have no idea if the pubic hair DNA matches the DNA in the panties and on the leggings-which do match, btw. And unless these two different items came from the same package, it's hard to imagine how the same factory worker left DNA in both. The "touch DNA" expert who did the actual testing of the leggings was on Nancy Grace the other night and she pointed out that "touch DNA" ie skin cells, DO NOT fall or transfer to other items, like blood or semen would.

  15. #180
    Gold Member powerorchid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    865

    Default

    I am sure if the dna match we would have heard about it.
    My memory isn't too good but I *think* the blanket had been washed recently and placed in a tumble drier. The housekeeper also washed her family clothes in the same tumble dryer and also as the above poster described it could have been floating around the basement for years.

    skin cells don't transfer to other items? I wonder why?

    I often wondered if they got a friend who was a doctor to come and assess the head wound. Then when they decided she would either die or be brain damaged then decided to strangle her.

    Because it seems rash to just go ahead and strangle her if she could have recovered from the head wound and how would a normal person be able to tell how much damage it caused.

    And they have never allowed their phone records for that night to be accessed. (To me this shows they have more to hide.)

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 28910111213 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Doctors cleared in John Ritter wrongful death lawsuit
    By sharon_b in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 14th, 2008, 09:36 PM
  2. Suspect says JonBenet Ramsey death 'an accident'
    By aabbcc in forum Crime and Punishment
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 17th, 2006, 12:36 PM
  3. JonBenet Ramsey's mother dies
    By Palermo in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: June 30th, 2006, 05:32 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 16th, 2006, 12:37 AM
  5. Britney Spears cleared by family services
    By MaryJane in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 12th, 2006, 08:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •