Justice Watch Support JW "A Case for JonBenet" The JonBenét Forum is offline until further notice. [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... A Case for JonBenet, Ginja, 22:53:22, 10/04/2000 So where do we begin?, Ginja, 23:03:40, 10/04/2000, (#1) Ginja -great job, Chart, 07:11:11, 10/05/2000, (#2) Ginja, ayelean, 08:45:14, 10/05/2000, (#3) Ayelean, Ginja, 17:40:16, 10/05/2000, (#6) Ginja, Gemini, 10:21:58, 10/05/2000, (#4) Gem, Ginja, 18:20:17, 10/05/2000, (#7) Well Ginja, Gemini, 20:41:14, 10/05/2000, (#10) Well, yourself, Gem, Ginja, 21:21:22, 10/05/2000, (#11) ginja, Gemini, 21:34:50, 10/05/2000, (#14) Chart, Ginja, 17:13:32, 10/05/2000, (#5) Negative evidence: Garbage bag luggage, Dunvegan, 18:36:08, 10/05/2000, (#8) Oh, well, Dunvegan, dear me,, gaiabetsy, 18:47:10, 10/05/2000, (#9) Dunvegan, Brightlight, 21:44:49, 10/05/2000, (#15) Why Patsy is probably innocent, docg, 21:33:15, 10/05/2000, (#13) Garbage bag luggage, Ginja, 21:32:57, 10/05/2000, (#12) Gosh, docg, Ginja, 21:49:05, 10/05/2000, (#16) ................................................................... "A Case for JonBenet" Posted by Ginja on 22:53:22 10/04/2000 Chris is right, gang. There's a real lull in this case right now. The investigaton has been shelved until the election period is over and the new DA takes over. Then again, if someone like Keene wins, the case will probably stay on the shelf until she's knocked out of office or someone with cahonas hands her a prosecutable case on a silver platter. My suggestion during this lull is to take advantage and see if JW'ers have those cahonas (personally, I think we do!) and can pull together that prosecutable case. Frankly, I don't care who prosecutes; all I care about is that it gets done! Likewise, I don't care who figures it out; all I care about is that someone, somewhere, figures out a solid, prosecutable scenario that will convince a jury to send JonBenet's killers to prison. The opinion is split: the parents did it; the parents didn't do it. Those opinions aren't based in fact; they're based on speculation. There is no evidence, no smoking gun, no dna, no proof. A classic circumstantial case. And the circumstances, seeding those opinions, have to date, been inadmissible. The case goes nowhere when too much reliance is placed on irrelevant evidence. Fingers will point to prints, broken windows, open doors. They prove nothing. They don't even relate to each other; there's not one that can link to another. Ignored is the negative evidence -- the evidence that isn't there. Then there's the 'hush-hush' evidence -- evidence people would rather ignore because it crosses the lines of social mores -- those things we don't want to admit, don't want to talk about, don't want to believe happen. It's no wonder this case is on the shelf. Can the internet intercede? make a difference? It thinks so. If nothing else, we've kept it alive and on the minds of those who should care. They probably do (care), but to what end if all our good intentions aren't useable? There's no statute of limitations on murder. So why worry, justice can wait, right? Does that mean we make a lifetime commitment to keep the case alive? Quite a few of us are going to outlive the killers. What of justice then? Ramsey's sole mission in life is to find his daughter's killer. I say we help him ... and his partner ... into orange suits. He begs us on...chides us...arrogant in his belief he'll walk away from murder. His partner confronts a former investigator...demands he enumerate the steps she took in killing her daughter. Let's help Steve out. Let's enumerate. Let's put our money where Patsy's mouth is! Let's kill their arrogance as savagely as they killed their daughter. Let's show the BPD and Boulder DA's office how it's done! [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "So where do we begin?" Posted by Ginja on 23:12:22 10/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:12:22, 10/04/2000 A theory. Hashing and rehashing the evidence (as we know it) for almost four years, I think we're ready to state a case and then support it. But which theory? The answer is the one that'll work. :-) I have two, mostly because I haven't taken either from start to finish...which is what needs to be done in finding the one that works. It could turn out neither works, and then it would be back to the drawing board. Mine are anchored in incest. One is manslaughter; the other murder one (premeditated). Patsy's the major player in both, striking the blow. The question is, under what circumstances? Did she catch John abusing JonBenet, swing at him and miss? The blow was fatal, but not quick. Did it matter to the killers? Was the strangulation really staging, or a way to not only finish her off, but used to then thwart the investigation? What parent would strangle their own child? One could convincingly argue motive. But for the incest, this child would still be alive. When was this incest discovered? That night? Or earlier, giving Patsy time to seethe, to ponder the sin and redemption for innocence lost? One could convincingly argue motive for this sacrificial rite. There were threads this weekend asking us what witnesses we'd call to the stand if we were prosecuting this case. Since my argument for motive revolves around incest, I would want to start my case in firming that up in the juror's minds. So my first witness called would be Dr. John Meyer. I would fully develop two points: (1) JonBenet was murdered in her home and that (2) her autopsy identified both acute and chronic sexual abuse. The body is the most significant evidence in this entire case...it's the only evidence that is physical and material. So I would keep the line of questioning dedicated to the condition of the body and injuries. Thus, the witnesses called in succession would include witnesses to the autopsy, the second doctor Meyer brought in the night of the autopsy to confirm his earlier findings, and then a separate medical expert to elaborate on the autopsy findings in laymen's terms so there'd be no mistaking, on the part and in the minds of the jurors, that this child was abused before her death. IOW, I would firmly develop and set the foundation for motive. The next round of witnesses would include the police, beginning with the 911 dispatcher. The dispatcher would set the times of the calls from the Ramseys and to the police units to respond. I can't ask the dispatcher what s/he thought, her/his opinion is inadmissible. What I would do is introduce the 911 tape...let the jurors hear for themselves. I would let the tape run its full course, including that portion recorded when the Ramseys thought the call had ended. This opens the door later for me to bring in the analysts who enhanced the tape. But before that, I'd have to show why the enhancement is significant. So I set those witnesses aside. Now, you may think my next witnesses would bethe responding officers, French and Veitch. However, I want them to testify to certain findings to which a foundation hasn't been introduced yet. Therefore, I'd bring in a meteorologist to testify to the weather conditions of the previous evening. His testimony would include that it snowed consistently, albeit not heavily, for several hours the night before, that although the temperatures were above normal during this period, they weren't above normal during the night (thus killing any attempt by defense to say spiders came out of hibernation that night), and that the ground was significantly covered by snow at 6:00 a.m. (killing any attempt by defense to use pictures taken hours after the sun had been up and that the above-normal temps, when they finally kicked in during the day, melted just about all but a few blotches by 10:30 p.m. when the corpse was removed from the house). Then I'd call up French and Veitch, with French first. He would establish time of arrival, who was present when he arrived, and what he did and what he observed. Anything else is inadmissible, so I couldn't ask him to give his opinion, or ask him what he thought. But I could ask him to describe the scene and what he actually saw. So if he really saw Patsy peeking looks at him between splayed fingers, you bet your bippy I'd make sure he testified to such. French would testify as to what he was looking for when he conducted his cursory search of the building. That information would "justify" his reasoning for not unlatching and opening the wine cellar door. But more importantly, I'd want him to testify to what he didn't see in the basement. Remember, the meteorologist testified to weather conditions. So if the so-called intruder entered the home anytime between 4:00 and 9:00 p.m., he'd have been wet with snow. Climbing through a window, dust and dirt would be wiped away. I'm not so much looking for puddles...they'd have dried up by the time police responded; but a wet sleeve would streak the dirt and dust from the sill. I would keep this witness focused on procedure and his findings. Defense is going to be cross-examining him, so I don't want to open any doors, thus limited the cross-examination. If defense tries to go outside the scope of what I've introduced, I'd object on foundation. In that respect, I wouldn't let the defense get away with asking French why he didn't do this or that. For example, defense will try to scapegoat French for not opening the door. But as I noted, I'm going to keep French focused on procedure. This was a kidnap call and French was looking for points of egress, anything out of the ordinary, signs of intrusion. He wasn't looking for a body. Any argument that he should have is 20/20 hindsight and I'd object. So the premise here is that an intruder wouldn't have left a body in a room, walk out and latch the door behind him. In essence, what I'm doing is keeping the scope narrow and focused. French's testimony is to his findings, not procedure and not what should or shouldn't have been. Defense would have a tough time getting such objections overruled as it would have to show relevance to such a line of questioning. After firming up French's testimony as to his findings indoors, I'd next bring in Veitch to sum up his findings outdoors. That testimony would include his sighting of no footprints, no sign of intrusion, weathered/worn pry marks on a back door, and the spider web in the grate. His findings are now significant, because the meteorologist has testified that weatherconditions were such that if someone had been walking around on the grounds the night before, it would have been evidenced and the temperatures were too low for spiders to come out of hibernation to respin their webs after the intruder replaced the grate. Again, the testimony would be focused on findings, not process. On cross-examination, I would object to anything outside that scope. If defense slipped in the fact that Veitch didn't take photos, I would bring out in redirect the fact that Veitch reported his findings to someone (can't remember if that was Arndt or the warrant affiant) as well as pointing out the evidence of lack thereof to officers on the scene during a second round of fact-finding and printing. Then again, I might make these points during the intial exam, bringing in the supporting officers to testify -- thus killing defense's chance, or reasoning, for bringing such "non-action" into questioning. ***** How'm I doin'? I think it's time for points and counterpoints to what I've put up so far. Whaddya think? What needs work? clarifying? Sound right, close, no where near close? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Ginja -great job" Posted by Chart on 07:11:11 10/05/2000 You are really doing alot of work here and covering alot of ground so far - great job. I think the fact that you mention negative evidence is important. I don't think that we have sorted it out too often on the forum and it would be a good exercise. It is the area that we're lacking in knowledge regarding what the BPD knows and doesn't know. I am still wondering how far in detail Patsy's preparations were for their trip to Florida and then, Hawaii. JR spent time at the airport checking the plane, but if PR did not cover all the details from her end, there would be a question of pre-meditation. Were there some tiny neccessities that she ignored because she knew they'd never get to their destinations? I don't think this is the case, because of her "We didn't mean for this to happen." remark, but it still needs to be reviewed. Just one little question regarding the elimination of the intruder theory. Some argue that this "intruder" could have had a key. What time did Barnhill suggest that he saw a young man going toward or into the house? (He later recanted that it was JAR.) Was this ever settled? I didn't read all of ST's book so I'm not clear on all the details from his perspective. Carry on Ginja. I can't see where to make any corrections on your work. You'll make a fine attorney. I hope we're invited to your graduation party! Same for paralegal. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Ginja" Posted by ayelean on 08:45:14 10/05/2000 You're doing too good. There is food here for the defense team!! I do however continue to object to your assumption that the chronic and acute abuse was perpetrated by the same person. If nothing else, the area of chronic abrasion would be more vulnerable to showing damage in an acute episode. The healthier tissue may not have shown any ill effects of the probing, whereas the abraded area would not tolerate the acute trauma as well, so it looks like the same area was traumatized. All this in addition to the fact that the vaginal vault in a 6 yr old isn't large enough to show isolated areas of trauma. e.g. any trauma is all trauma. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Ayelean" Posted by Ginja on 17:40:16 10/05/2000 >I do however continue to object to >your assumption that the chronic and >acute abuse was perpetrated by the >same person. Jeesh, Ayelean, I haven't gotten that far yet! You're bomping me before I make my argument! LOL >If nothing else, the >area of chronic abrasion would be >more vulnerable to showing damage in >an acute episode. Interesting comment. As a matter of fact, I don't think I understand it! :-) Could you explain this a little more? Sometimes I get these 'thinking blocks'. Similar to writer's block. No matter how hard I try to think, to make something make sense, I get this thinking block. The healthier tissue >may not have shown any ill >effects of the probing, whereas the >abraded area would not tolerate the >acute trauma as well, so it >looks like the same area was >traumatized. I think I'm beginning to understand what you're saying. You're looking at abrasions. Does this include erosion? The erosion is clearly indicative of probing or abrading over a period of time, ergo chronic. I'm also looking at the interstitial inflammation, which is also indicative of chronic abuse taking place prior to the 25th. Now, am I going to use this example, as I have in the past, to show that the abuser was the same person? Actually, I'm going to go around that. It won't be my "proof" per se. I'm going to lean on incest. And because this is a circumstantial case -- where it all depends on how I arrange those circumstances to set forth the theory -- I'm going to use the injuries to support my theory that John was the sexual abuser. That theory (John the abuser) will also be supported by other circumstantial evidence, including the reasoning for why both parents are in this up to their noses. IOW, my motive is incest. The culprit is John. And the injuries are both chronic and acute, supporting the theory of incest. That is, I don't think it's necessary to "prove" the injuries show it was the same person. Motive, coupled with the circumstances, will do that. >All this in addition to the fact >that the vaginal vault in a >6 yr old isn't large enough >to show isolated areas of trauma. >e.g. any trauma is all trauma. Thinker's block is striking again! I'd like to hit myself with a 2x4 to get my brain synapsing in synch! :-) But if I'm reading you right, I think I can show that any trauma in the vaginal cavity can only be effected via digital penetration, e.g., sexual abuse. That is, there's enough expert testimony I could pull in to testify that these kinds of trauma (abrasion, bruising, hyperemia, stretched openings, erosion, and interstitial inflammation) are all symptomatic of sexual abuse and can't be attributed to irritants or exercise or accidents. I would want the expert to elaborate on this in great detail so the jurors would make no mistake. Show that sure, maybe a bruise could have been caused by rought toiler training, or inflammation caused by douching or bubble bath. But those would be isolated examples. And when you look at all the injuries as a whole, (as douching won't cause hypermia, or bubble bath won't cause erosion), there can be no other reason for these injuries except sexual abuse (physical abuse of the vaginal cavity for buffs who can't accept the word sexual). :-) I'm glad you brought these ideas out because then I can work through the details when I get to that portion of the 'trial'. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Ginja" Posted by Gemini on 10:21:58 10/05/2000 Are you suggesting an objective search for the truth (which most would surely applaud), or a subjective effort to focus only on the parents and work dilligently to see them arrested and prosecuted (could be all the same thing, but it ain't necessarily so). If it's the latter, what do you propose to do with the fencers and pro-Rams ... just shut 'em all out? If that's what you're thinking, then, of course, I vote no. That kind of biased effort would, necessarily, involve working within the framework of a closed mind, and I'm a little claustrophobic. jmo, of course [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Gem" Posted by Ginja on 18:20:17 10/05/2000 >Are you suggesting an objective search for >the truth (which most would surely >applaud), or a subjective effort to >focus only on the parents and >work dilligently to see them arrested >and prosecuted (could be all the >same thing, but it ain't necessarily >so). Gem, we've been objectively searching for almost four years. In my opening post, I noted we've hashed and rehashed the evidence. Posters are bashing authorities for not taking this case to trial, alleging corruption and collusion and wide spread conspiracies. I get bashed back for stating these authorities haven't taken this to trial because they can't pull together a prosecutable case. Why is that? So the purpose for my starting this thread is to see if I can pull that case together for them! With some help from posters, of course! :-) Now, as far as you asking if I'm being subjective and simply going after the parents...you're absolutely right! Again, the search is over. We have the facts. Granted, not all the facts. But if we could pull together a workable case not knowing all the facts, then why the hell can't the authorities do it with all the facts? That's the point of this exercise. As to the choice of defendants, I noted that in order to even try to pull a case together, you have to start with a theory and then pull all the evidence together to support that theory. For the purposes of this exercise, I believe I can make a case against the Ramseys using the incest motive. I'm still not sure, and I'm hoping it'll work out as I go along, or at least get into the nitty gritty, as to whether it's a case of manslaughter or murder one. The parents as defendants is working the circumstantial evidence, as we know it, together with the physical and material evidence, as we know it, to a particular theory. Now, if someone wants to do the same type of exercise which would include a third person accessory, or a lone intruder, then let them take the reins and go with it! I've chosen the parents because I can't work a case using an accessory, and I certainly can't make a case against an intruder. I have no motive to found either of these theories. And I don't see any evidence that could be used to support those theories. IOW...personally, I can only work with the evidence and the evidence, to me, supports an inside job. As far as I'm concerned, this exercise IS an objective explanation of the truth! >If it's the latter, what do you >propose to do with the fencers >and pro-Rams ... just shut 'em >all out? If that's what >you're thinking, then, of course, I >vote no. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn about fencers and pro-Rams. Public opinion has no bearing on the facts. Of course, I appreciate constructive criticism, so if the fencers or pro-Rammers have something to contribute, I'm going to listen. Whether or not I use the input depends on whether or not it's based in fact and supports the evidence. Insulting me by saying this effort is purely subjective and ignores the truth and opinions of others, is spiteful opinion, not to mention very closed-mindedness. There's more than enough probable cause supporting a theory of the parents did it. This isn't something I just pulled out of a hat. The bottom line is to show posters why this hasn't gone to trial. I don't think there's any doubt in anyone's mind, save for the fencers and pro-Rammers :-) that the parents are involved heavily and solely in their daughter's death. The problem, because it's all circumstantial, is proving it. My "subjective" purpose in this particular exercise is proving they did it. >That kind of biased effort would, necessarily, >involve working within the framework of >a closed mind, and I'm a >little claustrophobic. Gem, this is the basis of trial work. Wake up and smell the coffee. :-) Of course it's biased! Theoretically, I've determined the evidence points to an inside job, and I'm out to prove it. You don't arrest a person and charge them with a crime, thinking it's the best you can do until the real perp shows up! You don't make that arrest unless you have the evidence to support that arrest! You're objective throughout the investigation. You turn every stone, check every witness, and pull the evidence together into a cohesive whole. The result brings you to the door of the perps. After four years of objectively searching for the truth, I've wound up on the Ramseys doorstep! Now...if you'd like to take a shot on a theory of an intruder or accessory, I'd be very interested in seeing it played out. And in doing so, should I come back at you and accuse you of being subjective? Of ignoring objective truth-seeking? Of being closed-minded? Only if you ignore the evidence. Again, I started this thread in saying that we could try to work this case out ourselves, seeing as how the authorities can't. Perhaps we can help them. Then again, maybe it will help us understand why Hunter didn't indict or take the case to trial. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Well Ginja" Posted by Gemini on 20:41:14 10/05/2000 since you obviously don't care to read any opinions that don't agree with your own ... I'll gladly stay off your threads and out of your prosecutorial hair. Can't promise everyone else who finds the bull-dog "my POV or none at all" attitude a little ridiculous will do the same, but I'm sure you'll be up to dealing with those little annoyances. Have at it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Well, yourself, Gem" Posted by Ginja on 21:21:22 10/05/2000 >since you obviously don't care to read >any opinions that don't agree with >your own ... I'll gladly stay >off your threads and out of >your prosecutorial hair. Can't promise >everyone else who finds the bull-dog >"my POV or none at all" >attitude a little ridiculous will do >the same, but I'm sure you'll >be up to dealing with those >little annoyances. Have at it. > You're reading comprehension level tonight is obviously below normal. Neither of your posts jibe with the subject matter of this thread. My initial post tried to explain that in order to pull a case together, you have to start off with a theory. There are a helluvalot of different theories out there. The challenge is to piece together the evidence that supports the one of them. My second post stated that over the weekend, there were threads -- Ellique's here and Jameson's over there -- looking to piece together a case. Ellique came in from the prosecutorial end, and of course Jameson took on the defense. Neither thread worked because there was no theory, no cohesiveness. They had the right idea, an interesting one to boot; yet neither yielded successful results. But like I said, they had the right idea. So I brought it here. What if, based on our knowledge of the case, we take the reins, state a case and then prove it? (or at least, make the attempt). I noted that I have my own theory, and if I was prosecutor, this is how I would present and prove it to a jury. Keyword here is "prove". It's the lynchpin, Gem. It's why the case is on the shelf. Everyone claims they know who did it...they just don't have any evidence to prove it. Including Hunter. That's hogwash! This is a circumstantial case. You speculate, based on the evidence and circumstances, on how the crime was committed. If you bring all the pieces of the puzzle together in a cohesive whole, and can present not only the who and how, but why, you can prove a circumstantial murder case. I distinctly stated what I thought was the motive and said this is how I would prove it. So I started to set forth my idea of how this could be done, and then stopped and asked for comments and input. Which part of all of the above did you not understand? I set out to prove a case of incest/murder. There's a specific goal here, a specific theme, a specific theory, a specific motive, and specific defendants. Input/opinion/criticism of that goal doesn't merit being accused of being subjective and closed-minded and obstructing the search for truth. "That kind of biased effort would, necessarily, involve working within the framework of a closed mind, and I'm a little claustrophobic." Of course it's a biased effort! Certain parameters have been set and I'm trying to work within those parameters/framework. I don't know how you function in RL if working within a framework or parameters makes you claustrophobic! Oh wait! It just dawned on me. No wonder you've misunderstood this entire exercise. You had to work within the framework of that exercise and couldn't, due to your claustrophic condition! I'm tired and you're claustrophic. Let's quit while we're ahead. LOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "ginja" Posted by Gemini on 21:36:04 10/05/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:36:04, 10/05/2000 your replies are perfect examples of the arrogant, attitude that has caused so much division. I was responding directly to your comment that you didn't care about others (fencers - pro-rams) opinions. I guess I'm 'way over here somewhere else, because I do care about what everyone on the forums thinks, in terms of this case, and want to read what they have to say. Accusations, attacks against the poster, etc., are cheap gotcha-last tactics ... totally inappropriate. I was sincerely interested in why your new project was Xing out a number of forum posters. Guess I, most definitely found out what you have in mind. I'm not going to bother addressing the insults. Your post speaks for itself ... very revealing in fact. (edited to correct the usual goofs) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Chart" Posted by Ginja on 17:13:32 10/05/2000 As regards the negative evidence: >area that we're lacking in knowledge >regarding what the BPD knows and >doesn't know. I'm not sure I follow you. Referencing negative evidence, what I'm pointing to is the fact there isn't evidence of the type that would indicate someone outside the house entered and committed the crime...with or without a key. Let me explain further. In any crime scene, especially one that was as violent and moved throughout the house as this one did, perps would leave a trail of themselves and their actions behind. Obviously, forced entry of an intruder would leave numerous signs/evidence. Using the grated window as an example, the perp would first need to remove the grate. He would either lift it up completely and then set it on the ground; or, he could lift it enough in order to slide it across the top of the well onto the ground. Those grates are heavy. If he lifted it and dropped it, there would have been the impression of the grate in the snow. For buffs who insist there was no snow (contrary to that night's weather of a consistent falling snow between 4:00 p.m. and 9 p.m.), the grate would have left an impression in the grass (grass would have bent/folded flat against the ground). If he slid the grate, it's weight would have scraped the dirt and grass -- it may have even left scrape marks in the concrete top of the well. Either action would have dislodged the spider web. Now here I'm assuming, too, that grass borders the well top. There may not be any grass that close to the well, but rather, a concrete or brick patio. In that case, sliding the grate onto the patio would leave scratch marks. In any event, this is just one possible show of where negative evidence exists. That is, IF that grate had been removed, there should have been some evidence of that movement. Yet there was none. Ergo, negative evidence. The intruder jumps into the well in his wet shoes/boots. There was debris in the well, including dead leaves and I think those peanuts. Yet there was no evidence of tracking that debris into the house. Again, negative evidence. Strong here is the indication of staging, because there was a pile of dirt with leaves and peanuts inside the house. But it was a neat pile! The intruder would have had to slide through the window, disturbing the dust and dirt buildup on the sill. Again, the dust/dirt on the sill was undisturbed. How does one explain this intruder sliding through the window without any such disturbance. Again, negative evidence. Positioning his body in the well in order to slide through that window, the perp would have probably slid in either facing the house, both feet first, sliding down and in; or, standing sideways, sliding one foot through followed by the other. The track marks on the wall don't match either position. Did he carry a sack with tools and supplies? If so, he probably would have thrown it in through the window onto the floor and then slid in. When the bag fell to the floor, no fibers or debris dislodged. Was the bag wet from the falling snow? It left no marks on the floor (the floor was dusty -- a wet bag could have left a ring in the dust. When the perp pulled the bag off the floor, did he grab the top of the bag and lift? or did he drag it a bit and lift? For buffs who believe the perp brought the note with him, he'd need to carry it in something other than his person. There were no wrinkles or folds or bends in the three pages. So the bag theory makes sense. Yet again, there's no evidence, ergo negative evidence. Of course, he could have had a key and walked through the front or back door. That doesn't mean there's no chance of leaving anything of himself behind during this crime. He still has to go upstairs and struggle with the girl. And there was a struggle, evidenced most notably by the disarray of her bedroom. LHP testified that the room was kept spotless...everything in it's place, including the basket of hairties, which I think she said were kept on the counter in the bathroom. They were strewn across the bedroom floor. Likewise, her nightstand was in disarray, as well as the curtains. Pieces of carpet were cut away and analyzed. No fibers, no hair. Negative evidence. Items were taken from the dryer, the door left open. Yet no prints or smudges on the dryer door belonging to anyone outside the family. Ditto for the cupboards where Burke's knife was removed from. Ditto on the bureau drawer where her undies were taken from. Negative evidence. IOW, for every action this perp needed to take to subdue the child, molest her, hit her, strangle her, move her from the second floor to the basement...there's no evidence of prints or fibers or hair or dna...nothing...except samples belonging to family members. As in any crime scene, there's always random evidence. This is evidence that can't be linked to the crime. The hair on the blanket can't be traced...to anyone including an outsider or to the crime itself. The footprint in the basement is highly questionable as to belonging to this perp. He was out in the wet snow, crawled through a window, walked throughout the house committing how many different crimes? And then out of the blue leaves a print in the wine cellar. One lone print? Ditto on the palmprint on the doorjamb outside the track of the crime scene. The perp is this careful throughout the whole ordeal, and then suddenly leans his hand above his head against a door in the basement? Too much action and movement for there to have been absolutely no evidence tracking those actions or movements. Clearly, negative evidence. IOW, there's no proof of an outsider coming in. Ditto if that "intruder" was 'assisted' by one or both parents. As far as there being evidence that we don't know about but the police do: the police and DA's office are adamant that there is no smoking gun. Any kind of evidence that could possibly be linked to an intruder or outsider would most certainly be a smoking gun in that it would support an intruder theory. I think it's safe to say that the most this investigation can offer toward "intruder" evidence is the random evidence which they've released to the public. But even at that, this random evidence doesn't link to the crime, let alone an intruder. As regards premeditation: I've thought about this alot. There was soooo much staging in this crime. Maintaining a status quo and continuing to make plans, e.g., pageants, trips, could just as easily have been part of the 'plan' to thwart and stage. The parents argue how could they strangle their own child? Likewise, they could just as easily argue that premeditation is preposterous as they had made all these plans to go on the trips, to go to a pageant the following month, etc. But as you've pointed out, Patsy murmured that infamous line to her friend, "We didn't mean for this to happen." Clearly, there's more to this statement than credit's being given. What didn't they mean to happen? She was clearly molested before the blow to the head and strangulation. Where's the line drawn as to what was supposed to happen, and what wasn't? Or was this part of the coverup, this line of Patsy's? Was she continuing efforts to thwart? Was the murder planned, and then to cover that up, thwart the investigation, Patsy threw out the line, 'we didn't mean for this to happen'...to cover up the fact that it was premeditated, making it look like the blow to the head was accidental? The problem with this crime is that so much effort went into staging it to look like something it wasn't...or at the very least, to make it look like something parents would never do to their own child; thus, it HAD to have been some intruder. How much of this crime is staged? And does that staging include lines like, 'we didn't mean for this to happen'? This is one of the problems that makes this case so difficult to figure out. What's real and what's staged? Since the case is circumstantial, it's a matter of which circumstances explain what those differences are. Because it's all speculative, any number of different paths can be taken to get to the core crime. >>What time did Barnhill suggest that >he saw a young man going >toward or into the house? >(He later recanted that it was >JAR.) Was this ever settled? I don't know what time Barnhill saw this person. I thought it was soon after the Rams left for the Whites. They left sometime between 4:00 and 4:30 p.m. I vaguely remember something about this person being someone walking through the neighborhood to get to wherever, and he cut through the Rams front yard, to the back, and out the alley, cutting from 15th Street to the street behind the Ramseys. I have no idea if that's what was finally determined, or if it was just discussion here as to the possibility of some such innocent action. Girlfriend, after sitting on my arss for 20 years trying to decide should I or shouldn't I, know right now that I am going to have one helluva bash at graduation, and you are on the the list of partyers! :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Negative evidence: Garbage bag luggage" Posted by Dunvegan on 18:36:08 10/05/2000 Did Patsy usually pack in trash bags for trips on the Beechcraft? She said in DOI that John had made his preference known that she pack only "soft sided luggage" for the Beechcraft. Linda would know how Patsy packed. Archuleta would know what kind of luggage usually went on the plane. I think Patsy simply never packed for Charlevoix. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Oh, well, Dunvegan, dear me," Posted by gaiabetsy on 18:47:10 10/05/2000 are you right on target about the scoring? You most rediculous and scandalous fool - I love you. You are so brave. Please go for it. Please. Pleeasee......... You are so cute and intact. My only wish is to live near Hampstead Heath, but I guess I'm not famous enough. Let me know. hdc@ispchannel.com. I'd love to give acknowledgment to those deserving it. Let's give it a go. OK?0 [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Dunvegan" Posted by Brightlight on 21:44:49 10/05/2000 > I think Patsy simply never packed for > Charlevoix. It's good to see your comment as I've felt the same way for years. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Why Patsy is probably innocent" Posted by docg on 21:52:41 10/05/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:52:41, 10/05/2000 It's been a long time since I presented this spiel, so -- now's as good a time as any for another go. One reminder. My style is to keep things simple. I'm not out to make an iron clad case. No such thing anyhow. All sorts of suspicious things can always be explained away. But I'm not interested in torturing the facts, just looking at them as clearly as possible, with a level head. No intruder. Ginja makes as good a case as any. No one went through the window. And if someone had a key, then WHY was there debris and a suitcase under that window? No real evidence of an intruder, just some miscellaneous reasonable doubt fodder, of the sort that EVERY defense lawyer manages to root out. For cryin' out loud, there was snow on the ground, it was MESSY out, and this intruder just leaves ONE footprint, in the form of a neatly stamped Hi-Tec logo? No snow or mud tracks to be seen anywhere in this house where the residents removed their shoes before entering? Burke? Couldn't have written the note. The notion that the parents would have covered for him is beyond bizarre, but lots of people think it possible. But assuming Burke did it, and the parents are covering, we have to account for them allowing him so early on to have so much unsupervised contact with others. It would have been so easy to keep him close, "for his own protection," home school him, etc. Burke knows some things, I think. But he didn't do this crime. So it's either Patsy or John -- or Patsy AND John. Let's assume they are in on it together. Then why stonewall the police? Accomplices get their story straight and then CO-OPERATE with the police. Easiest way to get the heat off you. Cooperate. No lie detector of course. But everything else. Why not? However, if one party is guilty and the other innocent, the guilty party might be very nervous about what the innocent one might, in all innocence, reveal. Same reasoning with the pineapple. If they both collaborated, then why lie about this? Why not weave it into their story? But if one of them was feeding her pineapple while the other was fast asleep, then that person could NOT let that be known. Far too suspicious. If they are in on it together, then WHY would they write a ransom note designed to buy time to dump the body and then call 911 so early, BEFORE the body can be dumped? And don't tell me they didn't have the heart to do it. If they decided NOT to dump the body, then the note works against them -- they would have torn it up and flushed it, THEN called the cops. When the cops do arrive, they are NOT together, NOT supporting each other, not even near each other. Come on! If they're both involved, each is going to be terrified the other might spill the beans. They are going to be glued to one another the whole time. One more thing. It's hard enough to figure out a motive for one of these people to commit such a crime. Coming up with a motive for the two of them to collaborate, either in the murder OR the coverup, is definitely a stretch. One person flipping out? Possible. Maybe on alcohol -- or drugs. TWO people flipping? Hard to figure. No. I can't believe they were collaborating. It's Patsy OR John. NOT Patsy AND John. From now on it's downhill all the way. Patsy says John was in the shower when she awoke. John concurs. So Patsy had NO WAY of knowing whether John had been up. John says Patsy was in bed when he arose to shower. John says Patsy was NOT fully dressed at that time. If one is guilty and the other innocent, then it's clear Patsy was, indeed, NOT dressed. Because: if Patsy is innocent, she'd have had no reason to be dressed -- and if John is innocent, he'd have no reason to protect Patsy by lying. Simple! But there are many other reasons for assuming Patsy to be innocent: 1. a murderer covering a crime, does NOT use things of her own as part of the coverup; 2. while some of Patsy's statements indicate confusion and some of her actions have looked suspicious to some (e.g. peering through her fingers and allegedly saying "We didn't mean for this to happen"), none of this is particularly incriminating, just a bit eyebrow raising -- it is JOHN, not Patsy, who disappears that AM, John who closes a window and tells no one, John who hires the lawyers, John who refuses to allow Burke to be questioned, John who stonewalls the police; 3. there is nothing in Patsy's background to suggest she'd be capable of writing the ransom note and getting away with it -- if she had written it, that should have been obvious -- John on the other hand is a computer professional in the field of graphics and could well have had contact with experts in the field of handwriting, since computerized character recognition was and is a hot topic in the computer graphics field. John did have some clear opportunities to learn how to fool the "experts." It's hard to see how Patsy could have gained such knowledge or why it would have even interested her. So that leaves only: John. There is in my opinion, only ONE reason to think John could be innocent. He's been "ruled out" as writer of the note. If he had NOT been so ruled, then for the life of me I cannot think of a single reason he would not be sitting in jail at this moment. Oh, by the way, John lost NO time after the murder in having his handwriting assessed by "experts" of his own, "experts" he himself hired. JBR was hardly cold before these people declared John must be "ruled out." (This according to his own account in his book.) The CBI people accepted this dubious verdict. And the case has gone nowhere since. If Patsy is a suspect it is ONLY because of this zany decision to rule John out. No intruder, John "ruled out," so it MUST be Patsy. This is the BPD logic and Steve Thomas's logic and it is FLAWED. Just ONE MORE thing: there is always the possibility the note could have been written by a third party hired by John. Perhaps someone he met at the airport. What better alibi than a long hand written note that can't be traced to the real killer -- because he didn't write it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Garbage bag luggage" Posted by Ginja on 21:32:57 10/05/2000 You know, Dunvegan, I still don't understand what, besides gifts, had to be packed for Charlevoix. That was a second home they spent a lot of time in, so I would think they'd have wardrobes already there. Patsy's making excuses to cover...maybe because she had a bag of 'something' and needed to explain it away. Ha! When millionairs talk "soft-sided luggage", it's usually designer made and expensive. They don't cart their clothes around in a garbage bag! This from a woman who changes purses weekly! Patsy was the epitome of noveau riche arrogance. She no more used garbage bags to pack clothing than she wore the same outfit two days in a row! The bag wasn't taken into evidence. My money's on the cord, duct tape, wiping cloth and anything else of evidentiary value were put in the bag and covered with clothes...just in case someone asked them what it was. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Gosh, docg" Posted by Ginja on 21:49:05 10/05/2000 Your post is excellent, but I'm too exhausted to discuss it right now. I agree with you that Patsy did not kill JonBenet. John tied that cord around her neck. I don't know if he thought she was already dead, or if he did it to finish her off. Maybe I missed it because I'm so tired, but I don't remember seeing anywhere what caused the chain of events that ended her life. As regards the note. Doc, that handwriting is really shaky. To me, that indicates it was written by a very nervous hand. I don't know of any font that recreates nervous, shaky penmanship. I'll have to come back to this tomorrow when I'm conscious. Great posting. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]