Justice Watch "GJ Testimony re Patsy's Lover" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... GJ Testimony re Patsy's Lover, Ginja, 12:11:09, 8/06/2001 Plenty to discuss..., Ginja, 12:20:23, 8/06/2001, (#1) Ginja, 1000Sparks, 12:23:20, 8/06/2001, (#2) Sparks, sarah, 12:53:20, 8/06/2001, (#3) Ginja, Nedthan Johns, 13:06:33, 8/06/2001, (#4) Couple of comments regarding Linda's statements, Nedthan Johns, 13:21:07, 8/06/2001, (#7) Ned, Twitch, 13:14:10, 8/06/2001, (#5) sex and handwriting, fly, 13:25:39, 8/06/2001, (#11) If Patsy Was...., Voyager, 13:19:22, 8/06/2001, (#6) Vger, Twitch, 13:24:54, 8/06/2001, (#10) Just another thought...., Voyager, 13:24:35, 8/06/2001, (#9) Ginja, Nedthan Johns, 13:24:17, 8/06/2001, (#8) Twitch, Nedthan Johns, 13:26:59, 8/06/2001, (#12) Voyager and Twitch, Nedthan Johns, 13:38:31, 8/06/2001, (#14) Ou Ned, Twitch, 13:38:09, 8/06/2001, (#13) Twitch, Nedthan Johns, 13:41:43, 8/06/2001, (#15) Ned, Tricia, 14:51:34, 8/06/2001, (#16) Nedd, Show Me, 16:48:30, 8/06/2001, (#18) Tricia, Nedthan Johns, 16:36:28, 8/06/2001, (#17) So, I guess, Gemini, 16:53:50, 8/06/2001, (#19) LPH and her wild tales, Ellique, 20:52:47, 8/06/2001, (#20) I have to agree, JR, 21:17:52, 8/06/2001, (#21) JR -fly- Ned, Tricia, 21:32:01, 8/06/2001, (#22) I can't imagine PR , v_p, 21:40:12, 8/06/2001, (#23) Nah, Ellique, FT, 22:01:16, 8/06/2001, (#25) v_p, Tricia, 22:00:33, 8/06/2001, (#24) lol FT, v_p, 22:15:43, 8/06/2001, (#26) To JT and v_p, Ellique, 00:55:53, 8/07/2001, (#27) Ellique, JR, 02:22:31, 8/07/2001, (#28) The Media, New York Lawyer, 06:59:14, 8/07/2001, (#29) New York Lawyer, Tricia, 08:53:44, 8/07/2001, (#30) Tricia, Nedthan Johns, 11:28:09, 8/07/2001, (#31) Nedd, Ayeka, 12:27:58, 8/07/2001, (#32) Ayeka, Tricia, 12:39:22, 8/07/2001, (#34) ayeka, fly, 12:33:37, 8/07/2001, (#33) Thanks for the clarification,, Ayeka, 14:54:19, 8/07/2001, (#35) Ayeka, Nedthan Johns, 15:08:33, 8/07/2001, (#36) Tricia, Nedthan Johns, 15:18:53, 8/07/2001, (#37) Fly, Nedthan Johns, 15:23:38, 8/07/2001, (#38) Nedd, Ayeka, 15:29:12, 8/07/2001, (#39) Ned, fly, 15:43:57, 8/07/2001, (#40) Tabloid vs Mainstream, Ginja, 17:06:34, 8/07/2001, (#41) Sparky, Ginja, 17:27:15, 8/07/2001, (#42) Bedsheets, Ginja, 17:46:37, 8/07/2001, (#44) HI ginja!!!!!!, starry, 17:30:34, 8/07/2001, (#43) Starry!!!!, Ginja, 17:56:08, 8/07/2001, (#45) Ayeka, Nedthan Johns, 18:09:31, 8/07/2001, (#47) Absolutely so right, Ginja!!!!, starry, 18:08:31, 8/07/2001, (#46) Fly, Nedthan Johns, 18:12:49, 8/07/2001, (#48) Gee Ginja, Nedthan Johns, 18:19:01, 8/07/2001, (#49) Ned, Ginja, 18:52:39, 8/07/2001, (#50) Question, Ned, Ginja, 18:58:37, 8/07/2001, (#51) Ginja , Tricia, 22:05:39, 8/07/2001, (#52) Ginja, JR, 22:50:24, 8/07/2001, (#53) Why so squemish about investigating bed sheets?, Dunvegan, 23:20:21, 8/07/2001, (#54) thanks dun for your insights, purrplepassion, 20:03:19, 8/08/2001, (#61) ...Dunvegan...that is what I feel..., DAWN, 14:20:25, 8/08/2001, (#60) Dunvegan, Tricia, 00:21:43, 8/08/2001, (#55) Dun, JR, 06:53:01, 8/08/2001, (#56) Dun, Ned, Ginja, fly, 08:21:26, 8/08/2001, (#57) Changes of heart, Fly?, Ginja, 12:30:49, 8/08/2001, (#58) Wecht, fly, 13:46:11, 8/08/2001, (#59) Variables, Gemini, 20:14:49, 8/08/2001, (#62) Not only is it silly, FT, 22:05:06, 8/08/2001, (#63) FT, JR, 07:02:30, 8/09/2001, (#64) ................................................................... "GJ Testimony re Patsy's Lover" Posted by Ginja on 12:11:09 8/06/2001 GLOBE August 7, 2001 Cover Headline: JONEBENT MOM HAD SECRET AFFAIR -- LINKED TO MURDER -- NANNY CHARGES Story Headline: "GLOBE rips lid off grand jury files": HOUSEKEEPER SAYS: JONBENET MOM WAS HAVING A SECRET AFFAIR (EX-RAMSEY SERVANT ALSO BELIEVE TRAGIC TOT WAS KILLED BY MOM) Story: Patsy Ramsey may have been having a passionate love affair at the time her daughter JonBenet was brutally murdered, according to shocking evidence presented to the grand jury in Boulder, Colo. Ripping the lid off testimony that's been sealed for two years, the Ramseys' housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh tells GLOBE in an exclusive interview that much of her eight-hour grilling by the panel zeroed in on Patsy's sex life and loveless marriage to John. "They questioned me heavily about their marriage and asked whether I knew Patsy was having an affair," Hoffman-Pugh reveals. "I was forced to relive those months before JonBenet died, when Patsy would get dolled up every morning and never tell me where she was going. "Looking as if she'd stepped out of a store fashion display window, she'd say, 'Linda, I'm going out for the day,' and she actually looked happy. "When John would call and ask me where she was, I never knew what to tell him. He'd always sound annoyed that she wasn't there, and especially when she didn't tell me where she had gone." The housekeeper's suspicions were further aroused by phone calls from a man who would ask "how long ago Patsy had left. It was always the same man and he'd never leave his name." Hoffman-Pugh says, "Patsy would come home in a very happy mood after her days out. "At the time, I had a feeling she was off doing something naughty, but I never knew for sure. But as I testified for the grand jury, I realized my instincts were right. The grand jury believed the Ramseys' marriage was in trouble and they were trying to find out if Patsy was having an affair." The housekeeper tells GLOBE that the grand jury repeatedly asked her questions probing the Ramseys' union -- and she had plenty to say about a couple that she says rarely had sex and displayed no signs of love. "I never saw John kiss, hug or show any affection to Patsy," confides Hoffman-Pugh, who worked for the family for more than a year before JonBenet's battered body was discovered Dec. 26, 1996, in the basement of their $1.3 million mansion in Boulder. "It looked like a very empty marriage and Patsy was a very unhappy woman. "I could tell by the sheets that they had sex only on rare occasions, maybe five times in the 14 months I worked there." Patsy often asked her housekeeper for advice on how to save her crumbling marriage, once telling her, "Linda, I don't really like having sex with John." Hoffman-Pugh suggested renting an adult movie or seeing a doctor. "But Patsy was always so moody," she adds. "She could be kind, but she had a quick temper and could snap and suddenly blow up in anger. "Patsy and I were very close. I liked her very much and she was very good to me. My feelings for her made it hard for me to realize that she's the one who murdered poor JonBenet." The housekeeper was also quizzed by the grand jury about evidence she believes points a finger at the mother of the slain tot, who was discovered wrapped in a blanket in the basement. "It's impossible that a stranger would get into the house and find the door to the basement," Hoffman-Pugh tells GLOBE. "I worked there for almost a year before I found it. It's ludicrous to think an intruder would. "And he wouldn't know to get the blanket JonBenet was wrapped in out of the dryer when there were lots of towels and blankets around that were easier to grab. "As for the ransom note, that's definitely Patsy's handwriting. I recognize the A's and N's, and the accent she was always so careful to put over the E in JonBenet's name." The ex-employee says she is sure John knows that his wife killed JonBenet, "But he's covering up for her to save his reputation." The Ramseys' lawyer L. Lin Wood claims Hoffman-Pugh's testimony is false, adding that her "ignorance is overshadowed only be her imagination." But the housekeeper insists she knows Patsy is guilty and is surprised she has not been indicted. "I can only guess at exactly what happened the night JonBenet died," Hoffman-Pugh tells GLOBE. "Patsy got mad at her for something she did and snapped. I was sure there'd be an indictment against Patsy. "JonBenet was brutally killed by her mother for no good reason. I know it, friends know it and the police know it. It's so sad that JonBenet's murderer might never be brought to justice." ROBIN MIZRAHI * * * [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Plenty to discuss..." Posted by Ginja on 12:20:23 8/06/2001 ...but I'm off to lunch. So the "happy" couple only had sex about 5 times in 14 months? I guess while Mommy was off with her new boyfriend, Daddy found solace in his little girl! I think John helped cover up this tragedy only to save his reputation. But I think he thought his daughter was dead when he tied the rope around her throat. The coroner's report came in and ties John directly to the murder. And that's why the two are holding hands now and making like the close, grieving couple! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Ginja" Posted by 1000Sparks on 12:23:20 8/06/2001 Regarding: The coroner's report came in and ties John directly to the murder Where did you get that information? That looks like a bombshell if I ever saw one. So, what's the holdup? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Sparks" Posted by sarah on 12:53:20 8/06/2001 I think Ginja is simply laying out the most obvious conclusion. The facts of the autopsy, coupled with the fact that we can reasonably conclude both were in on her murder. I think this is WHY the BPD went after Patsy as the primary perp. However, John's 'dalliance'with JonBenet was the cause, and most likely he was the one to actually finish her off, ruff as it sounds. My opinion only. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Ginja" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:06:33 8/06/2001 Wow, this evidence was presented at the Grand Jury? Pretty interesting if true. Why hasn't this Linda Hoffman Pugh appeared in any TV interviews yet? Why just the tabloids? Something stinks, and it smells like money. I think someone got a hold of Linda to show her how to make a ton of money through her ridiculous stories. Don't know what to beleive from this woman anymore. LINDA HOFFMAN PUGH, IF YOU CARED ONE THING FOR THIS MURDERED CHILD, DO THE RIGHT THING AND TELL YOUR STORY TO THE WORLD THE RIGHT WAY, CONTACT ONE OF THE MORE WELL RESPECTED NEWS PROGRAMS, NOT THE TABLOIDS. UNTIL THEN, THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT YOUR STORIES I CAN BELEIVE. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Couple of comments regarding Linda's statements" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:21:07 8/06/2001 The grand jury believed the Ramseys' marriage was in trouble and they were trying to find out if Patsy was having an affair." Nedd: Probably to find an answer to the make DNA found in Jb's panties. The housekeeper tells GLOBE that the grand jury repeatedly asked her questions probing the Ramseys' union -- and she had plenty to say about a couple that she says rarely had sex and displayed no signs of love. "I could tell by the sheets that they had sex only on rare occasions, maybe five times in the 14 months I worked there." Nedd: Gross, first of all, but really the maid LOOKED at the sheets???? "And he wouldn't know to get the blanket JonBenet was wrapped in out of the dryer when there were lots of towels and blankets around that were easier to grab. Nedd: This is what I have been trying to discuss for days. WAS anything in the dryer found that morning and was any of it taken into evidence? If Linda put the load on laundry on, wouldn't she know what was in with that blanket? Linda if you are reading here, did the police question you regarding the items found in the dryer that morning? And WHY would John cover for his wife to save his reputation? This man lost EVERYTHING. WHY? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Ned" Posted by Twitch on 13:14:10 8/06/2001 I don't think it matters where she tells her story. If she calls you on the phone and tells you the story, its still her story. She has presented her story into evidence at a grand jury hearing and that makes it official. L. Lin Wood's statement sounded extremely familiar...like something you might have read on the pages of JW past. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "sex and handwriting" Posted by fly on 13:25:39 8/06/2001 Although LHP might have things right, judging the frequency of sex based on the condition of the sheets is pretty questionable. Also, perhaps LHP was referring to the accent on attache' in her comment about her conclusion that PR wrote the note. Couldn't have been from JBR's name, because that wasn't in the ransom note. Although the odds would favor a male having been responsible for any previous sexual abuse that the autopsy might indicate, there is nothing that actually requires the abuser be a male. No evidence of penile penetration is present. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "If Patsy Was...." Posted by Voyager on 13:19:22 8/06/2001 having an affair as Linda surmized, then perhaps JonBenet caught Patsy in the act and threatened to "tell daddy"....would that have been enough to send Patsy over the edge to silence her? JonBenet and her father, were by all accounts, very close..... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Vger" Posted by Twitch on 13:24:54 8/06/2001 I mention the other day that is exactly the rumor that was going around Atlanta at the time of her death. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Just another thought...." Posted by Voyager on 13:24:35 8/06/2001 If Patsy was having an affair, chance are that someone else besides the two of them knew about it...it seems that in a town the size of Boulder, with a well known woman like Patsy, someone must have seen them together, or some woman friend might have been her confidant....wonder if, when Linda writes here book, if someone will come forward with more information... If someone has that information, they could make a literal fortune with the tabs, not to mention bringing about evidence leading to justice for a small child....some people just need a real "push" to get involved....we can only hope..... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Ginja" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:24:17 8/06/2001 So the "happy" couple only had sex about 5 times in 14 months? I guess while Mommy was off with her new boyfriend, Daddy found solace in his little girl! I think John helped cover up this tragedy only to save his reputation. But I think he thought his daughter was dead when he tied the rope around her throat. The coroner's report came in and ties John directly to the murder. And that's why the two are holding hands now and making like the close, grieving couple! Nedd: Interesting. IF an affair was going on, then I could understand John's involvement with Jon Benet, and the NON-penetration. Perhaps getting what he needed without that, BUT why then the paint brush to moleste her with that evening? She was alive when this was done, NOT part of a cover up. And the garrote was applied within 20 minutes I heard some experts say of the head blow, again how does this all fit together? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Twitch" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:26:59 8/06/2001 It bothers me that Linda is discussing this information with tabloids, who pay her thousadns of dollars for it and then elaborate on what she tells them. Why not go to a reliable source to spread your news in the justice of a murdered child? Doesn't sound to me like Linda is interested in anything else but making money off this case. She would be more crediable to me if she seeked out Jane Pauly, or Katie Curic to tell her side of thinks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Voyager and Twitch" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:38:31 8/06/2001 I mentioned other day that is exactly the rumor that was going around Atlanta at the time of her death. Nedd: Here's a thought. It was after all Christmas, IF Patsy was having an affair, perhpas after the kids and John went to bed, Patsy's lover paid a visit. They went to the basement, so they wouldn't be heard. -Not to make love, but to talk or exchange gifts. I know this would be risky, but perhpas this man was very much in love with her, and would have done anything to see her that night. She was after all going on a long vacation, to Michigan and then on the BIG red boat cruise to DisneyWorld JonBenet, wakes and hears them in the basement, she threatens to tell daddy, and Patsy or this man panics. JonBenet is struck, the man leaves and Patsy covers for him. This would explain the DNA left in JB's panties, and the foreign blue fibers, the missing evidence which was taken with him as he left the home. Then frost fell and covered any tracks, by morning it had melted. Patsy covered, and John followed because perhaps only he knew that he had been fondling his child, and the murder would be pinned on him. Therefore he HAS to protect Patsy, in order to take the focus off him. He unknowingly gave the police the pad of paper, because although he knew it was Patsy's handwriting, he didn't know she had used that pad to write it with. Now he had to make the decision about what to do. He found the body at 11:00 am when he told his son he had, but it was then he knew the risk of telling the police. He went along with the story as long as he could. When he knew the FBI were going to be called in, the jig was up, he went and brought JB up. I wonder up until WHAT point Linda knew Patsy was having an affair? Where there any calls within days of the murder? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Ou Ned" Posted by Twitch on 13:38:09 8/06/2001 Katie Curic credible? I don't know. She lost a lot of credibility with that Lou Smit fiasco. You might be surprised to find just how many "credible" news sources are more than happy to pay for interviews. Just read the quote about her by the Ramsey attorney and maybe you can understand why she might have developed a "what the hell" attitude about the entire thing. She has been betrayed by the Ramseys in most ways imaginable. Ned, if LHP were an impeccably perfect human being it would not change her story. It might change how we all receive it though. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Twitch" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:41:43 8/06/2001 I get my news from CNN, MSNBC, Dateline, the Today show, Frontline, 20/20, and 60 minutes. I am CERTAIN they would be more then willing to run Linda's story. It sounds to me she is more interested in selling it for a high price, and ONLY tabloids pay that kind of $$$ to embelish stories. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Ned" Posted by Tricia on 14:51:34 8/06/2001 Somehow I can't see Frontline talking to LHP about the Ramsey's sex life. Let us get real shall we? This IS tabloid material. Until something more substantial (like a confession) happens the tabs will be the ones keeping the fire stoked. I say more power to Linda for selling her story. After wearing a murderer's hand me downs and cleaning up after her Linda deserves a little bit of the green [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Nedd" Posted by Show Me on 16:48:30 8/06/2001 If Linda's talking to the Globe is not credible to you... what makes the Ramsey's interview with the National Enquirer credible? If Patsy went to Bible study to become a better person and had a 'life coach' to help her cope with living, maybe she had a sex therapist? Thank you Ginja for the article. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Tricia" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:36:28 8/06/2001 I disagree. NO ONE deserves to make money off a murder. Not Thomas, not Pugh, not even the Ramsey's. They are all wrong. That's why this case is such a charade. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "So, I guess" Posted by Gemini on 16:53:50 8/06/2001 a titillating tabloid tale is the beeeg news? hmmmmmm ... pathetic. ... NO ONE deserves to make money off a murder. Not Thomas, not Pugh, not even the Ramsey's. They are all wrong. That's why this case is such a charade. Ned, I agree with you totally on this and have trouble seeing how anyone could possibly disagree. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "LPH and her wild tales" Posted by Ellique on 00:36:57 8/07/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 00:36:57, 8/07/2001 Linda's tales most assuredly fell on deaf ears in that Grand Jury room if indeed she testified to all of that. To those who even WANT to believe this sordid kind of LPH mumbo jumbo: FOR SALE: Beautiful antique bridge spanning the entire breadth of the San Francisco Bay.......... Love, Ellique [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "I have to agree" Posted by JR on 21:17:52 8/06/2001 Fly, I have to agree with you. You can't necessarily tell everything about a person's sexual escapades by their sheets. People have different "habits" in that area (i.e. keeping a towel nearby etc.) Also, if Patsy' was ashamed or embarrassed by JonBenet's wet sheets perhaps she was careful not to leave telling "signs" behind on her own (at least much of the time.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "JR -fly- Ned" Posted by Tricia on 21:32:01 8/06/2001 JR and Fly I agree it would be hard to tell for sure how often someone had sex by their sheets. Perhaps Linda didn't want to describe exactly what made her so sure about the sheets. Maybe Linda was being polite and not crude. Ned Look I am not thrilled that people get paid by the Tabs for their stories but it is a fact. After being thrown under the bus, having her husband branded a pervert, having that internet freakazoid toejamjammy post a porno picture claiming it was her daughter, I understand why she went to the tabs. You know what? I beleive her. I can understand not wanting to see that someone you care about is cold and evil. It's hard to come to terms with the truth sometims. I think Linda finally came to see the truth and she is speaking it. Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. " I can't imagine PR " Posted by v_p on 21:40:12 8/06/2001 would muss her hair, much less soil her K-Mark Martha Stewarts.. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Nah, Ellique" Posted by FT on 22:01:16 8/06/2001 You said, "Linda's tales most assuredly fell on deft ears in that Grand Jury room if indeed she testified to all of that." I disagree. If Linda's or any other witnesses' testimony had fallen on deft ears, one or both of the Ramseys would be in prison right now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "v_p" Posted by Tricia on 22:00:33 8/06/2001 YIKES! I try not to imagine Patsy in any bed, on any sheets! Good point though. Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "lol FT" Posted by v_p on 22:15:43 8/06/2001 I wasn't gonna go there... but somebody had to... Tricia, uch, huh? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "To JT and v_p" Posted by Ellique on 00:55:53 8/07/2001 Re my Post No. 20. Thank a million. Now I am laughing out loud at myself too. It wasn't even a typo. It was ignorance :<( I have gone back and edited it but folks I will tell you I messed up big time by typing DEFT when I should have typed DEAF. They have almost opposite meanings. Oh !!, Mrs. King I need you so much !!!!!!!. Love, Ellique [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Ellique" Posted by JR on 02:22:31 8/07/2001 Where have you been lately? You never post anymore - don't you love us anymore? I didn't pick on your post cause I knew what you meant. Scary that I can almost read your thoughts - of course when I can read almost Nedd's thoughts is gonna be the day I turn in my Junior Detective Badge. ;-\ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "The Media" Posted by New York Lawyer on 06:59:14 8/07/2001 Because of all of the Ramsey libel lawsuits, the "mainstream" media is no longer interested in interviews with people such as Chris Wolf and Linda Hoffmann-Pugh. Even the Ramseys have been reduced to giving the tabs interviews in order to get their story across, having succeeded all too well in "chilling" the First Amendment with their libel suits. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "New York Lawyer" Posted by Tricia on 08:53:44 8/07/2001 I had never thought of that! Once again the actions of the Ramseys come back to bite them in the ass. Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Tricia" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 11:28:09 8/07/2001 After being thrown under the bus, having her husband branded a pervert, having that internet freakazoid toejamjammy post a porno picture claiming it was her daughter, I understand why she went to the tabs. You know what? I beleive her. I can understand not wanting to see that someone you care about is cold and evil. It's hard to come to terms with the truth sometims. Nedd: By the way what ever happened to that photo on the web? I happen to think it looked exactly like the daughter. If anything in this case matched, it was that photo. I found it odd. I also find the Pugh family odd. Marvin is a drunk, had a shady past and so did some of his older children. The Pugh's had a motive and the access to the home. Either way, they shouldn't be allowed to profit from this murder [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Nedd" Posted by Ayeka on 12:27:58 8/07/2001 Nedd: By the way what ever happened to that photo on the web? I happen to think it looked exactly like the daughter. If anything in this case matched, it was that photo. I found it odd. I also find the Pugh family odd. How did you come to see that picture? Ugh. Marvin is a drunk, had a shady past and so did some of his older children. The Pugh's had a motive and the access to the home. How do you know so much about these people, to brand him a drunk with a shady past? I don't know anything about them, not even enough to brand them as "odd". Either way, they shouldn't be allowed to profit from this murder The Ramseys do.... Ayeka [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Ayeka" Posted by Tricia on 12:39:22 8/07/2001 I guess you and I don't get it. If you have tons of money AND KILL your daughter, then you should be the only ones allowed to make money off of your crime. All the others like Steve Thomas who gave up his career to expose what was going on with the investigation should live under a freeway right NED? Steve Thomas wrote a book. He did it because his reputation being smeared. Thomas did it to expose the weak justice system and how justice was denied for JonBenet. Thomas did not get rich. He got sued. Steve Thomas did not get rich. LHP did not get rich. Everybody the Ramseys have thrown under the bus may have been paid to tell their story but so what? The story needs to come out. In LHP case I am sure her money is gone already. I don't think you are talking 6 figures here. NED why aren't you taking the same stance against the Ramseys? Tricia PS I do have a problem with the Ramseys making money because Patsy killed JonBenet. Call me wacky but It's wrong when you murder someone to turn the deceased into a cottage industry. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "ayeka" Posted by fly on 12:33:37 8/07/2001 ayeka - I don't know about Ned, but I saw the picture posted online some time ago when it was a topic of discussion. The girl looked a bit like LHP's daughter, but the guy that a lot of people thought was Mervin didn't resemble him at all, IMO. As to Mervin being a drunk...that comes from MaskedMan, who knows them and has come to their defense. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Thanks for the clarification," Posted by Ayeka on 14:54:19 8/07/2001 Fly, I appreciate it. :) I had written up a longer reply earlier but with this stupid Code Red virus mucking up the web, I lost my connection and then I had to go home, and lost the post. C'est la vie. Ayeka [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Ayeka" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:08:33 8/07/2001 A photo of a girl that remarkably resembled the Pugh's younger daughter was posted on Jameson's web site. Someone had come across it when they ran a search for children of pornographic pictures, looking for JonBenet. I thought the picture looked very much like the Pugh daughter. As for Marvin being a drunk and having a shady past, that was in Thomas' book. Apparently he had been drinking the morning they arrived to question him, and has a problem with alcohol. I think one or both of his eldest sons had spent time in jail, if I remember correctly. How are the Ramsey's making money off their daughter? The book they sold, even admittingly by all of you who dispise them is about THEM, not JonBenet. So where are they making money? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Tricia" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:18:53 8/07/2001 NED why aren't you taking the same stance against the Ramseys? Ned: Because I haven't seen the Ramsey's selling any "stories" to the tabloids. You're fooling yourself if you think Linda hasn't made a bundle. Besides a couple grand IS a huge amount to this sort of person. PS I do have a problem with the Ramseys making money because Patsy killed JonBenet. Call me wacky but It's wrong when you murder someone to turn the deceased into a cottage industry. Nedd: There is NO proof Patsy murdered ANYONE. Sorry Tricia but in this country Patsy is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. How do you know John wasn't the killer or perhaps an intruder? You don't. No one does [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Fly" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:23:38 8/07/2001 Masked man knows the Pugh's? What's the relation? I agree the man shown in the photo did not appear to be Mervin. Probably wasn't. But here's my thought, how does anyone know it still isn't the daughter? Kids have access to scanners and all sorts of things. I think the picture could be important to this case. I haven't elminated the Pugh's from my suspect list. They are the ONLY ones I have seen thus far that had a CLEAR motive. There is NONE for the Ramsey's. I just wonder if it was ever followed up upon. Probably not. Where is Masked Man by the way? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Nedd" Posted by Ayeka on 15:29:12 8/07/2001 How are the Ramsey's making money off their daughter? The book they sold, even admittingly by all of you who dispise them is about THEM, not JonBenet. So where are they making money? Do you think the Ramseys would have even written a book if their daughter hadn't died? Come on, Neddie. :) Ned: Because I haven't seen the Ramsey's selling any "stories" to the tabloids. You're fooling yourself if you think Linda hasn't made a bundle. Besides a couple grand IS a huge amount to this sort of person. Do you think they did the story in the Enquirer out of the goodness of their hearts? Can't fool me, there was money in it for them. A couple of grand is a huge amount to this person (me) as well. What are you saying here? Being classist? Ayeka [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Ned" Posted by fly on 15:47:02 8/07/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:47:02, 8/07/2001 Ned - Last time I saw MM posting, it was at WS. I am guessing, but I think MM knows the Pughs as a result of his residency in Boulder, his interest in the case, and his occasional association with journalism (loosely defined). Edited to add: Although I agree that the Pughs were a reasonable early suspect, by all accounts they do not have the verbal skills to have written that ransom note. Plus, LHP (at least) gave handwriting samples, Arianna (at least) gave DNA, and we've heard they have an alibi. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Tabloid vs Mainstream" Posted by Ginja on 17:06:34 8/07/2001 I think NYL brought out the major point as to why mainstream media is staying away from any story having anything to do with the Ramseys. We all know pluperfectly well how criminals' rights far outweigh the rights of the victims. In this instance, we see where the real criminals of this saga have all the rights! Don't you dare say anything because you'll wind up in court. The real, and unfortunate, outcome of this is that it's cheaper for the media to payoff (aka settle) the suits rather than take them to trial. The second point as to why mainstream media isn't picking up on Ramsey info is due to the fact it's had it's day; now it's the Condit/Levy scandal that gets front page every night. Just tune in to any news program, cable or network, and you'll see what I mean. The public isn't interested anymore in who killed JonBenet; they already know! OTOH, Chandra is still missing. That's the story. Where's Chandra? And what's Condit's involvement? Now, if for some god forsaken reason Boulder officials in the DA's office suddenly found their balls and decided to do their job and indict the parents, I think you'd see a change in coverage. The publics' curiosity would then be piqued once again, as it was with OJ's trial. That is, will the jury find the parents guilty, or will they let them walk with OJ? Linda's story needs to be told. If the only way it gets into the publics' hands is via the Globe, then so be it. This is also known as forcing the issue. Get it out, no matter what. As one poster has stated repeatedly, it doesn't matter where the story is told or under what circumstances. The story is the story regardless of the venue (or payment). Keep in mind that Linda's story goes to her grand jury testimony...testimony that was gagged for three years! Sometimes the only way to get it out there is to go public. Perhaps the only way to get action is to humiliate Boulder authorities. It happens here in my neighborhood, as I'm sure it happens in all of yours. People have complaints. They go the proper route and get nowhere. It isn't until they "Turn to 10" or whatever the local newspaper or television station is, where they get the local investigative reporters going public and humiliating the officials into getting results. Finally, keep in mind that the Globe "scooped" the mainstream media constantly and consistently during the first years of this saga. As Darnay Hoffman is Linda's attorney, thus acting as her agent, I think it's safe to assume that he knows this story needs to be told publicly and is behind any reporting of it in the Globe. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Sparky" Posted by Ginja on 17:27:15 8/07/2001 Regarding: The coroner's report came in and ties John directly to the murder Where did you get that information? That looks like a bombshell if I ever saw one. Here's my take on this: I believe both parents are involved -- otherwise, they wouldn't be joined at the hip as they are. But why? Why would John stand by his murdering wife? Likewise, why would Patsy stand by her murdering husband? Reputation and money/status be damned! We're talking about a child...their own flesh and blood. Whatever the catalyst, I believe Patsy hauled off and connected with JonBenet, delivering a fatal blow. However, the blow didn't kill her immediately. I think the reason she hauled off in the first place involves John in some way, if only because he was there or witnessed it, or if he was the cause of her anger/outburst (e.g., she caught him with JonBenet). John, guilty because he was the cause/catalyst for the outburst, had no choice (to him) but to help cover up his wife's crime. Maybe he thought JonBenet was dead already, or maybe he realized she was as good as gone. But the point in covering up a criminal act is to divert attention away from the culprit. This is why the two went to such extremes to stage this crime as if some maniac from the street had come in and committed it. For example, suppose Patsy did catch John molesting JBR...they would need to "hide" it. Thus, they used the paintstick to cover up John's actions and made it look like a sicko came in and tortured JBR. Likewise, to ensure there wasn't anything of John left behind, they wiped JonBenet off inside and out. Ergo, the birefringent material in the mucosa and the fibers in the labia. But mutilating the body with the painstick wouldn't be enough diversion away from them onto a sicko. Real sickos do harsher things, and so they pulled out the cord and tape. And to make it look even more "professional", they included the fabrication of a garotte. I believe John tied the cord around JonBenet's throat. Whether he knew she was dead or not, who knows? I think in his mind (and Patsy's) they figured the headblow was fatal and if not dead yet, JonBenet would be soon. All of this staging and whatnot took place surrealistically. They were on a mission, that being to cover up their grievous acts. I think throughout this period and the time following, John really thought he did nothing more than to cover his wife's outburst as well as his culpability for being the catalyst to that outburst. But when the coroner's report was issued, it prounounced the cause of death as asphyxiation associated with the cranial blow. IOW, JonBenet died, not because Patsy's outburst landed a crushing blow to JonBenet's skull, but rather, her death was at the hands of her father who was "merely" covering up "other" things. John no longer has an out. There's no escape for him -- he's more than just involved -- he's the murderer. And Patsy knows it! It all boils down to each having the "goods" on the other now. There's no turning back, ergo, their union at the hip. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Bedsheets" Posted by Ginja on 17:46:37 8/07/2001 My s-i-l had her own business similar to "Merry Maids" and my sister worked for the housekeeping department at a hotel. The stories these two can tell! I can assure you neither is a sicko. They didn't "look" at the sheets to determine whether or not they could tell if couples were having sex. But they both had to strip beds. Sometimes it's obvious. Other times, the sheets are dry and you can't tell a thing, until you roll them up to throw them in the laundry and even through the latex gloves, the soiling dries and feels differently (stiffer) than the rest of the sheet. Sure...people can wipe themselves off afterward with a towel. Perhaps that was how LHP was able to determine whether the Ramseys "got it on". Dirty towel by the bed, sheet stiff in places...what does two plus two equal? When you change sheets, you pull the covers off completely exposing the sheet. If the sheets are white, the stains are an offwhite and noticeable. But they're more noticeable if the sheets are colored or designed. Changing your own sheets you wouldn't look for anything because you'd know whether or not you'd had sex, or you just know the sheets are otherwise dirty because they've been on the bed a few days. You don't change your own sheets looking for stains, you just pull them off the bed. But if you're a housekeeper, you may walk into the bedroom and see "signs" of lovemaking. Perhaps there are wine glasses on the bedstand, or a towel heaped on the floor. Maybe the couple came in from a party and started disrobing at the door, and you're picking up stockings and underwear and whatnot on the way to the bed. Perhaps when you pull the comforter off you find underwear. Cripes! there's all kinds of ways to "figure out" if it isn't blatently apparent, that the bed your changing has soiled linens! Likewise, changing soiled beds is food for gossip among the housekeepers. Couple that with the fact that Patsy had no trouble talking openly about her sex life to LHP and it's not such a reach to realize that given Patsy's propensity for not liking having sex with her husband, together with the mysterious day long trips when she got all dressed up and had follow up calls by a strange male, is it really that much of a reach that LHP wouldn't think "hmmmmmmm" when she changed soiled bed linens? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "HI ginja!!!!!!" Posted by starry on 17:30:34 8/07/2001 :-) Did y'all fail to notice that this was presented to the Grand Jury? Now, I don't know about you, but if I'm sworn to tell the truth under oath and could face penalty if I don't, I think I'd spill my guts to the GJ, too. Not that the Scamsey's would. They'd have a hell of alot more to fear from facing a murder one rap than perjury charges..... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Starry!!!!" Posted by Ginja on 17:56:08 8/07/2001 Hey girlfriend, how are ya? I didn't fail to notice this was grand jury testimony. That's why I think it's so important! This article is the result of LHP's successful challenge to the Colorado courts. We've been waiting for such testimony to be made public once the court's ruling came out. Now...here it is and it looks like some just don't like it?? Of course the grand jury is going to want to know as much as possible about the private lives of John and Patsy Ramsey. That includes their sex life, most especially when their daughter was sexually abused when she was murdered, and the autopsy report findings show the victim had previously been sexually abused. It would be one thing if there was no prior abuse. But this crime is being touted as being committed by a sick pedophile intruder. How coincidental that this pedophile just "happened" to choose a victim who was already being sexually abused! Likewise, how coincidental this "pedophile" was as gentle as the person abusing her before he even got there! Pedophiles aren't gentle! If a pedophile had attacked JonBenet, she'd have been torn to shreds! Any and all investigations into this crime would be remiss if they ignored the private lives of the victim's parents. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Ayeka" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 18:09:31 8/07/2001 Being classist? Ayeka Ned: Well yes Ayeka, I would be. Considering the Pugh's fall into the lower catagory of income, that would make them lower class economically. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Absolutely so right, Ginja!!!!" Posted by starry on 18:08:31 8/07/2001 Grand Jury testimony. I didn't mean you, of course, you knew that. LHP won the right to talk. She won the right to talk about what she saw going on in the Scamsey home ... (thanks, Darnay!) and now there are those who still want to discount her. Gimme a break! The woman was intimate enough with the Scamsey's even down to the bedsheets! Of course she would know if there was sex sometimes. Or if a man called asking for Patsy. Or if Patsy seemed happier after disappearing for a few hours. For good God's sake, people...... wake up and smell the coffee!!!!!! Linda Hoffman Pugh is spilling the beans and all you're worried about is who she's spilling it to! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Fly" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 18:22:19 8/07/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:22:19, 8/07/2001 Although I agree that the Pughs were a reasonable early suspect, by all accounts they do not have the verbal skills to have written that ransom note. Plus, LHP (at least) gave handwriting samples, Arianna (at least) gave DNA, and we've heard they have an alibi. Ned: I wouldn't dismiss them so readily. I agree they probably didn't have the verbal skills to construct the note, but they certainly could have conspired with others to write it. This note was written before the murder, most experts are convinced of it. I still find it amazingly ODD that Marvin Pugh had a rope with a stick tied around it in his garage. Linda Pugh asked for a loan. and they were in desperate need of money. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Gee Ginja" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 18:19:01 8/07/2001 Thanks for the course in bed stripping :0( yuck! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Ned" Posted by Ginja on 18:52:39 8/07/2001 >Thanks for the course in bed stripping >:0( yuck! Always a pleasure, Ned! :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Question, Ned" Posted by Ginja on 18:58:37 8/07/2001 Who are all these experts you're talking about? The ones who "know" the note was written prior to the murder? And are you talking about writing the note inside the home prior to the crime? or writing it elsewhere and bringing it into the home? Of course I disagree totally with those experts. I believe the note was written inside the home on that notepad. But I think the writing is far too shaky to have been written prior to the murder. I think it clearly evidences fear and guilt and was written afterwards to divert attention away from what really happened. It's obvious a deliberate attempt to disguise the writing was made -- now that's agreed to by FBI and CBI analysts. There are too many inconsistencies as well in grammar and spelling. I think, those too, are deliberate attempts to divert attention away from the real writer. But that's me! :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Ginja " Posted by Tricia on 22:05:39 8/07/2001 I am so glad you are here!:) Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Ginja" Posted by JR on 22:50:24 8/07/2001 I was trying not to go here but... Some folks use the towel under them so as not to soil the sheets and have to sleep on wet, sticky or soiled sheets. ;-\ One might then get up to "clean up" or use the toilet and toss the towel in a hamper at the same time. IMHO, unless a housekeeper looked very closely s/he might not know the towel wasn't stained with toothpaste or something else. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Why so squemish about investigating bed sheets?" Posted by Dunvegan on 23:20:21 8/07/2001 Investigation of infidelity or lovelessness in marriage, via bed sheet analysis, is a common enough forensic practice, and even offered into evidence in court, esp. divorce cases. I'm perplexed to contemplate why this area of investigaton is called "icky" or "irrelevant." Bed sheet inspection is no more "yucky" than any other area of forensic investigation involving a murder, or the swabbing of rape victims for evidence, or wiretaps of suspected RICO offenders, or you basic everyday garden-variety intrusive all-inclusive autopsy. Observations can be evidentiary. Otherwise, no one could ever offer circumstantial evidence about any crime. All crimes would require an eye-witness to prosecute...and murder could become commonplace and un-punishable as long as you committed it in private, and beyond all prying eyes. The "intruder evidence" in the Ramsey murder case is, if anything, even more apocryphal and a farther reach than Linda Hoffman-Pugh's bed sheet evidence...evidence which implies a possibly highly-charged and dysfunctional family dynamic extant in the Ramsey home in the months leading up to the murder of JonBenet. Here is a link from a private eye web page regarding the common usage of "housekeeper evidence" in an investigation: From the Private Eye Mall web page http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.dna99.html Infidelity studies: If only underwear could talk. now it can. Some questions have tough answers. A spouse's infidelity is one of these questions. According to some studies, it has been determined that a majority of married individuals will have an extramarital affair at some point during their marriage. Though one might hide guilt and unexplained absences -- DNA evidence is irrefutable. Bodily secretions during and after a sexual encounter are deposited on a number of items. The obvious are bed sheets and undergarments. [5] The less obvious are discarded bathroom tissues, bath towels, carpet, and couch cushions. A loyal housekeeper initiated one of our recent infidelity cases. The housekeeper retrieved a pair of boxer shorts from the trash and presented them to the wife along with her opinion as to why they had been discarded. The wife consulted a private investigator with her suspicions, as she had not been intimately involved with her husband for quite some time. The investigator submitted the clothing item for analysis. DNA analysis of the stained garment provided results that revealed a mixture of two genetic profiles the husband's and another individual. Infidelity was substantiated at this point, as the wife had not recently had relations with her husband. If she had, we would have required a buccal (mouth) swab from her as a reference standard for elimination purposes. Men who suspect their wives, or significant others, of infidelity can easily make that determination through basic serology and DNA analysis. A female panty liner works well for this type of screening. With unprotected sexual intercourse, vaginal discharge may occur for a day or two afterwards. The discarded panty liner is a perfect medium for collecting genetic evidence. If the suspicious party has abstained from sexual relations for three days (prior to collecting the item for analysis) an elimination standard is not necessary. The presence of semen alone substantiates infidelity. Yet, if the suspicious male has not abstained (prior to collecting the item for analysis), DNA must be performed. Here again, we must have a buccal swab from the suspicious party to serve as the reference / elimination standard. If a genetic profile inconsistent with the reference standard is determined through DNA analysis, infidelity has again been proven. If we can discuss the nature and extent of the hymen erosion of a six year-old child, as adults on a true crime forum reviewing evidence in a murder case, it is equally reasonable to discuss information regarding the state of the marriage bed of people who remain under an umbrella of suspicion in said murder. Doing so to attempt to illuminate yet another piece of the puzzle, and to attempt to recreate a picture of the emotional and inter-relational family dynamics present at the time of the murder, is a reasonable, rational, and routine investigative avenue. Guilty suspects ducking responsibility will not help you put them in prison. It's common for murderers to attempt to cover-up their crime. Investigation is the way you uncover the truth. And, speaking of investigation and sheets: I'm still curious about the practice that Patsy Ramsey had, she who was commonly-known to be haphazard and lazy in her housekeeping, of rising and washing JonBenet's sheets prior to Linda's arrival to work in the Ramsey house. Wouldn't it be more in character for Patsy, at the very most, to just strip JonBenet's bed and toss the sheets in the upstairs washing machine for Linda to cycle? Why did Patsy make certain that those sheets were in the washer and cycling when Linda was expected in...but wouldn't even clean out her own purses? It's out of character...therefore suspicious...curious...interesting...and therefore, probably worthy of investigation. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "thanks dun for your insights" Posted by purrplepassion on 20:03:19 8/08/2001 i really appreciate your insights. you always write in such a professional tone. and you bring a real investigative style to the forum. thanks for being open and discussing each and every "yucky" piece of evidence in this case! and .... thanks for all the hard work you have done to open up this forum again! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "...Dunvegan...that is what I feel..." Posted by DAWN on 14:20:25 8/08/2001 ...I posted a small passage regarding this same topic (JonBenet's bedding the night of the murder) on another forum yesterday... ...We know that Patsy didn't like to do any housework...BUT on this instance...I believe she never went to bed that night...and probably for the first time EVER...conscientiously...washed and dried all of JonBenet's bedding...and even the clothes she was wearing...she had many hours to do this...and besides...weren't there sightings of lights being on all night long...? ...She even had time to rearrange her hair and re-do her makeup...If she had really gone to bed that night...and woken up to the shock of finding a ransom note...her dishevelled hair, nightie...and morning breath...would be the first thing a policeman would see...true or not...??? ...Oh there is SOOO much more isn't there?...if all our evidence matches up....then why can't the powers that matter see it as well...??? dawn [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Dunvegan" Posted by Tricia on 00:26:11 8/08/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 00:26:11, 8/08/2001 WoW! How do you come up with all this information? I need to go back and read everything again. Really amazing. But Dunvegan the reason I find the discussion of bed sheets "yucky" is the visual I get of the Ramseys. "Don't wanna go there Pal"(haha) You are right though. All of the evidence needs to be discussed and picked apart. I'll just stick to the facts and ignore the visual. I do agree. Sheets can offer a wealth of evidence. Now back to your post. Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Dun" Posted by JR on 06:53:01 8/08/2001 Great post. Thanks. I don't feel the discussion of the bed sheets or them being an area of investigaton "icky" or "irrelevant." IMHO, it is a topic where one needs to be a bit diplomatic with their words and explainations though. Again, IMHO the topic is kind of in the category of politics, religion and sexual escapades. Not everyone is "comfortable" debating these topics. ;-\ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Dun, Ned, Ginja" Posted by fly on 08:21:26 8/08/2001 Dunvegan - Sure, bedsheets can provide proof that sexual relations occurred, but they do not reliably provide proof that sexual relations did NOT occur, and that is what LHP's statement involved. Not everybody ends up with a soiled bed - for a variety of reasons. Ned - When additional people have to be added to the scenario (e.g., writing the note), that scenario's probability rapidly decreases. There are aspects of the note that might suggest it was written in advance, but others that might suggest just the opposite. Like everything in this case, the evidence points in more than one direction. Ginja - LOL! Now you suggest that the headblow came first? What happened to your arguments that the autopsy indicates the headblow had to come last? Seems like we went a few rounds over that in the past. What should I expect next? That JBR didn't have an excessive number of vaginal infections and multiple UTI's? Just ribbing you (sort of). Changes of heart, at least if based on evidence and not just the need to fit one's current favorite scenario, are perfectly acceptable. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Changes of heart, Fly?" Posted by Ginja on 12:30:49 8/08/2001 The only one changing is you, I think. My hypothesis has always been that JonBenet was struck unconcious first and then garotted. Yes, we've gone back and forth on the topic as to how long it took for swelling and whatnot to occur, not to mention a myriad of other points of discussion. However, as far as which came first? The head blow in my book. Oh wait...maybe there was some confusion as to Wecht's theory of the sex gone awry. I dabbled in that with cord being used as a control mechanism. But as far as the actual garotting (to death), it came after she was knocked out. (Still)mho :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Wecht" Posted by fly on 13:46:11 8/08/2001 Perhaps my memory is faulty, but you were gung-ho Wecht, and Wecht has always had the garroting first. The timing of swelling was an essential element in the argument that the blow to the head might well have been first. I wouldn't have gone round and round on that with you so much if you'd simply been arguing a slightly shorter time between head blow and garroting. In any case, I've not changed my position, whether or not you have. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Variables" Posted by Gemini on 20:14:49 8/08/2001 ... Sure, bedsheets can provide proof that sexual relations occurred, but they do not reliably provide proof that sexual relations did NOT occur, and that is what LHP's statement involved. Not everybody ends up with a soiled bed - for a variety of reasons. Exactly. Like almost everything in this case, there are all those pesky variables. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Not only is it silly" Posted by FT on 22:05:06 8/08/2001 to assume that someone changing bedsheets could tell for sure how often the Ramseys had sex in the bed ... It is also shortsighted to assume that the bed is the only place where the Ramseys might have had sex. Just saying. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "FT" Posted by JR on 07:02:30 8/09/2001 Right, but it's difficult to imagine someone who (supposedly) by their own admission doesn't like sex, doing the "nasty" with any creativity or spontaneity. ;-\ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE