The "Touch DNA" is worthless.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#414 Aug 16, 2013
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/crimi...

I know nothing about Canadian Courts but the US Court System is in crisis mode regarding experts and their credibility. There is no standard of quality in the equation of being allowed to provide expert testimony.

ALL THAT IS NEEDED IS A PAID FOR piece of paper, certificate or ‘DIPLOMA’ from one for profit enterprise.
JustWondering

Sophia, WV

#415 Aug 16, 2013
Spice Pond wrote:
<quoted text>
I suggest that your broaden your knowledge of the case and not concentrate only what you've read put out by those who claim Ramsey guilt. There were at least four professional, respected handwriting experts who said that JMK wrote the note! So apparently you DO need to read more.
<quoted text>
I seriously doubt that Patsy would even THINK of saying such a thing to her husband who was a self-made millionairre who obviously was very well educated. Generally speaking, CEO's of multi-million dollar corporations are very "brainy", so to speak.
<quoted text>
I agree the note WAS very personal and was directed toward John. But there is no evidence at all to corroberate your saying Patsy tried to get John involved with Burke's "problem" toward JonBenet. Accidentally striking her with a golf club does not mean he had a problem with JB. Perhaps HER "problem" was she got in the way when he started his swing. That happens sometimes when bystanders aren't cognizant of the danger in stepping close to someone who is swinging a golf club. Can you please be more specific in your claim that Burke had a problem with his sister?
As for the ransom note getting longer and longer, others who have been identified as the writer of the note -- such as JMK -- are known to be verbose and prolific writers. In fact, after viewing his correspondence with Professor Tracey, it's fairly obvious that JMK is a compulsive writer and doesn't know when to stop. And if he had a connection to the family, like he claimed to have, he would have known much about their personal affairs.
<quoted text>
From Patsy's very obvious despair, I doubt that soon after the crime, such as IF she had written the ransom note, ANYTHING would have given her "comfort". If anything, she seemed inconsolable. But being a Christian, after she was able to face the finality of her child's death, she probably did think of how JonBenet was now in Heaven and realizing her own immortality, she could have taken some comfort in her belief she would soon join her there.
I just hope you realize that with all your reasoning, the things you've brought out can be seen differently by those of us who look outside the possibility of Patsy or John or anyone who lived in the house was the killer. There far too many crimes committed by intruders who never left any trace whatsoever of their being in a house.
The story of the Canadian colonel who spent years breaking into homes, stealing women's underwear and then progressing to rape and murder is a prime example of how intruders can go unnoticed for years!
Now we have finally been enlightened as to why Patsy had no respect for the detectives and the Bolder Police--they weren't the brainy, millionaire types. As a Christian, we are judged, not by how we treat the best of these, but how we treat the worst. She showed no to little respect for the police--but we are to believe that she would not get angry with her husband and show the same demeanor to him? That is highly unlikely.

As for Burke's problem? We shall, more than likely, never know. It has all been protected by the "island of privacy" afforded the Ramsey family. That is definitely one benefit to having wealth and social status. Not so much of an influence for the policemen working the cases, but for the DA's office where political ambitions run high.
JustWondering

Sophia, WV

#416 Aug 16, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
It IS a fact that no credible expert identified Mrs Ramsey as the author. Yes, I know that other experts have identified her, just as other experts identified Mr Ramsey and others identified Karr, etc. Who cares? We should only concern ourselves with the credible experts.
I would recommend “Forensics Under Fire. Are bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice?” as a good place to start when trying to determine what is meant by credible experts (Chapter 11 is “Expert vs Expert. The Handwriting Wars in the Ramsey Case”). The Carnes Decision and Daubert are also good references.
Reference to expert opinion are actually Appeals to Authority. Appeals to Authority may be sound if the following six criteria are met:
1. The “expert” has sufficient expertise in the field in question.
2. The claim being made by the “expert” is within the “experts” area(s) of expertise.
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other “experts” in the field in question.
4. The area of expertise is a legitimate field.
5. The “expert” in question must be identified.
6. The “expert” is not significantly biased.
This is more-or-less the basis for Daubert and Daubert was, as legally demanded, used by Carnes. I can understand someone rejecting the experts hired by Ramsey (although they passed Daubert), but one should at least find the four experts used by BPD as being credible. Only one of those experts – ubowksi – did not exclude Mrs Ramsey as being the author. NONE of those experts identified her as being the author! That’s a pretty good trick, fooling credible experts with TWO AND A HALF pages of evidence!
Also, I don’t see the note as being “personal.” At least, not “personal” in such a way as to determine authorship!

AK
Anyone with eyes can compare the exemplary written by Patsy with her left hand and see more than just similarities to the actual ransom note. I was shocked. It is difficult to distinguish between the two.

I hope she was not involved and the "monster" is brought to justice. But it is just my opinion--albeit, a very uneducated, lowly opinion (LOL) that Patsy was the writer of the note. And I can see no other reason for her participation except the love she had for her son and her fervent desire to protect him from the public whose affirmation she craved.
JustWondering

Sophia, WV

#417 Aug 16, 2013
Spice Pond wrote:
<quoted text>
I suggest that your broaden your knowledge of the case and not concentrate only what you've read put out by those who claim Ramsey guilt. There were at least four professional, respected handwriting experts who said that JMK wrote the note! So apparently you DO need to read more.
<quoted text>
I seriously doubt that Patsy would even THINK of saying such a thing to her husband who was a self-made millionairre who obviously was very well educated. Generally speaking, CEO's of multi-million dollar corporations are very "brainy", so to speak.
<quoted text>
I agree the note WAS very personal and was directed toward John. But there is no evidence at all to corroberate your saying Patsy tried to get John involved with Burke's "problem" toward JonBenet. Accidentally striking her with a golf club does not mean he had a problem with JB. Perhaps HER "problem" was she got in the way when he started his swing. That happens sometimes when bystanders aren't cognizant of the danger in stepping close to someone who is swinging a golf club. Can you please be more specific in your claim that Burke had a problem with his sister?
As for the ransom note getting longer and longer, others who have been identified as the writer of the note -- such as JMK -- are known to be verbose and prolific writers. In fact, after viewing his correspondence with Professor Tracey, it's fairly obvious that JMK is a compulsive writer and doesn't know when to stop. And if he had a connection to the family, like he claimed to have, he would have known much about their personal affairs.
<quoted text>
From Patsy's very obvious despair, I doubt that soon after the crime, such as IF she had written the ransom note, ANYTHING would have given her "comfort". If anything, she seemed inconsolable. But being a Christian, after she was able to face the finality of her child's death, she probably did think of how JonBenet was now in Heaven and realizing her own immortality, she could have taken some comfort in her belief she would soon join her there.
I just hope you realize that with all your reasoning, the things you've brought out can be seen differently by those of us who look outside the possibility of Patsy or John or anyone who lived in the house was the killer. There far too many crimes committed by intruders who never left any trace whatsoever of their being in a house.
The story of the Canadian colonel who spent years breaking into homes, stealing women's underwear and then progressing to rape and murder is a prime example of how intruders can go unnoticed for years!
I appreciate the sources you and AK have suggested. I will indeed delve into these. The search for details as well as objective and varying opinions is why I chose this forum.

To be fair, I did read the Ramsey's book and came away feeling much more sympathetic to their side. But, I still cannot understand anyone who claims she cannot talk with the police because of her emotional state (and I cannot begin to imagine the pain with which she was dealing) but can manage to sit before make-up artists and cameras and present her version of events to the public at large.

Also, I did see a sample or two of John's handwriting. But Patsy's left handed exemplary was hard to distinguish from the original note. Could be coincidental, of course.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#418 Aug 16, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Absolutely biased AK. Carnes had her "preferences" that she allowed in her courtroom and other judges have theirs. You are talking opinion vs law.
If these other "non-credible" experts as you have outlined them to be were truly NOT experts in their fields then every case they had EVER testified in would be reopened and scrutinized, and it would cause a plethora of overturned and vacated cases not to mention retrials of those cases. That has NOT happened, nor will it.
<quoted text>
Carnes accepted the four BPD experts and the Ramsey experts because both plaintiff and respondents accepted them. None of these experts identified Mrs Ramsey as author.

Carnes only rejected the experts that were contested. She rejected Wong in full, as according to standards (the law) and she rejected Epstein’s conclusion of authorship as according to standards. Although contested, Epstein was accepted as an expert qualified to testify and his testimony was accepted.

Carens reasons for accepting Epstein in part and for rejecting his findings are soundly presented clearly stated in the Decision, See: I Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony; A. Daubert Principle; B. Background on Handwriting Analysis; C. Background and Qualifications of Plaintiff's Experts and D. The Reliability of Epstein's Proffered Testimony.

There is nothing wrong with the Carnes Decision. The problem was with the case presented to her and the incompetence of Hoffman et.al.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#419 Aug 16, 2013
JustWondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone with eyes can compare the exemplary written by Patsy with her left hand and see more than just similarities to the actual ransom note. I was shocked. It is difficult to distinguish between the two.
I hope she was not involved and the "monster" is brought to justice. But it is just my opinion--albeit, a very uneducated, lowly opinion (LOL) that Patsy was the writer of the note. And I can see no other reason for her participation except the love she had for her son and her fervent desire to protect him from the public whose affirmation she craved.
I don’t really understand how Mrs Ramsey was able to fool so many experts (Ubowski included) and yet not have been able to fool any forum RDI posters. Mrs Ramsey was not the only person who was not eliminated, there were others (wolf, for example) and as previously stated, Mr Ramsey and even Karr have been identified as the author – by so-called experts. So, I’m sorry but I’ve never been impressed when someone says that they think Mrs Ramsey’s handwriting matches the ransom note. I take BPD’s experts opinions as being valid and not much more.


AK
Spice Pond

Mobile, AL

#420 Aug 16, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t really understand how Mrs Ramsey was able to fool so many experts (Ubowski included) and yet not have been able to fool any forum RDI posters. Mrs Ramsey was not the only person who was not eliminated, there were others (wolf, for example) and as previously stated, Mr Ramsey and even Karr have been identified as the author – by so-called experts. So, I’m sorry but I’ve never been impressed when someone says that they think Mrs Ramsey’s handwriting matches the ransom note. I take BPD’s experts opinions as being valid and not much more.

AK
I find it VERY difficult to place any value on OPINIONS of those who have absolutely no training in the field and miserably fail the final requirement you listed: 6) The “expert” is not significantly biased. Obviously, someone who expresses their opinion regarding the note writer on one of these boards, especially THIS one, is going to be "significantly biased".

Therefore, when someone here says that Patsy's handwriting is identical to that of the note writer, one should realize the statement, no matter how emphatic, is merely an opinion from someone with no training and is more likely than not, biased.
JustWondering

Sophia, WV

#421 Aug 17, 2013
Spice Pond wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it VERY difficult to place any value on OPINIONS of those who have absolutely no training in the field and miserably fail the final requirement you listed: 6) The “expert” is not significantly biased. Obviously, someone who expresses their opinion regarding the note writer on one of these boards, especially THIS one, is going to be "significantly biased".
Therefore, when someone here says that Patsy's handwriting is identical to that of the note writer, one should realize the statement, no matter how emphatic, is merely an opinion from someone with no training and is more likely than not, biased.
So true. And we do know that bias affects both sides of the equation in this instance.
But I challenge anyone, who is not afraid to admit the truth, look at the sample of Patsy's left hand exemplary and determine the likelihood of Patsy being the author.
Btw, we all know that the grand jury did indict the Ramseys for the death of their daughter. The DA didn't feel he had enough evidence to get a conviction.
So, I suppose, with or without the testimony of handwriting experts, the grand jury was convinced of their guilt.
JustWondering

Sophia, WV

#422 Aug 17, 2013
To the people who could not imagine Patsy taking an insolent attitude toward her husband, you need to remember that Patsy was a former Miss West Virginia. She didn't get there without resolve, a fighting spirit, and perseverance. There are too many beautiful women in the pageant world to win a title solely on their looks and a smile.

Also, the Ramseys were self-made millionaires. They built their business from scratch. She, according to John, was instrumental in the building of that business. Patsy was no push-over. And she loved her family. She would do all she could to protect and provide for them.

Also, I did go to the link posted about touch DNA and was very surprised by the data. I encourage everyone to read the article. Very informative. And, apparently, this is factual information--not opinions.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#423 Aug 17, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
But, one of them is a study <1> that was done with the aim of discovering what one might expect for DNA to be found on bed sheets from “normal contact.” <2> Volunteers were given a new, clean bottom sheet. The upper bedding was whatever would normally be used by the subject and volunteers wore, freshly laundered, whatever they normally would have worn to bed and the subjects slept from 8 – 11 hours. Three areas from each sheet were sampled (foot, mid-body and upper shoulder) and tested for DNA. I have another study here (still looking!) that had one subject transfer another subject’s DNA, but not their own. Also, there seems to be some dispute – conflicting study results – over which profile we should expect to see as being dominant.
Primary transfer is pretty well understood, but secondary transfer is not. It does seem that a person’s shedder status is a considerable factor – some people seem to be natural shedders while others are not and the matter is further complicated because shedder status can be effected by various conditions! Good grief, eh?:)
<1> A Systematic Analysis of Secondary DNA Transfer: http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Tran...
The Secondary Transfer of DNA: The Influence of Shedder Status on the Dominant Donor in a Mixed Profile http://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/modified_sec_t...
<2> “DNA profiling of trace DNA recovered from bedding.” Susan F Petricevic,, Jo-Anne Bright and Sarah L Cockerton
If they tested the Ramsey family sheets for unidentifable foreign incomplete degraded DNA / secondary transfer DNA there would have been plenty found. Patsy was not a tidy person and the house was filthy.

As a matter of fact if they DNA tested some of the other underwear taken as evidence - those from the other family members - there would be similar 'artifact' DNA.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#424 Aug 17, 2013
JustWondering wrote:
Also, the Ramseys were self-made millionaires. They built their business from scratch. She, according to John, was instrumental in the building of that business.
Excellent point. John was nothing before he met Patsy. His marriage was a failure and he was working but there had been issues. John Ramsey tells the story of when he first met Patsy how he hid behind a door while Patsy lied to his girlfriend about his whereabouts. And John was proud to tell this story, thought it a funny ancedote.

IMO Patsy continued to lie, she had the ability.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#425 Aug 17, 2013
JustWondering wrote:
<quoted text>
So true. And we do know that bias affects both sides of the equation in this instance.
But I challenge anyone, who is not afraid to admit the truth, look at the sample of Patsy's left hand exemplary and determine the likelihood of Patsy being the author.
Btw, we all know that the grand jury did indict the Ramseys for the death of their daughter. The DA didn't feel he had enough evidence to get a conviction.
So, I suppose, with or without the testimony of handwriting experts, the grand jury was convinced of their guilt.
Do you truly believe that that’s all it takes – comparing something you saw on a website or in a tabloid, etc.?

Do you think that this is all we need to dismiss the conclusions of those credible experts (see, Carnes)?

Seriously, why we should anyone take your opinion or any forum posters opinion over that of those credible experts? Why? On what basis?

Are you aware that “that similarity, by itself, is not dispositive is because most people are taught handwriting as children from the same or similar ‘notebook styles’ and, therefore, many people will share common handwriting characteristics called ’class characteristics.’” <1>

“[A]ny differences between the questioned document and the comparison writings are generally considered to be more significant than are similarities…”

We do not know that grand jury was convinced of guilt, though this may be true. We only know that the grand jury concluded that there was sufficient grounds to indict. One of those jurors was quoted: "I think I did believe that they would get more evidence and figure out who did it."

<1> all quotes: Carnes Decision


AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#427 Aug 17, 2013
moonjack wrote:
<quoted text>
If they tested the Ramsey family sheets for unidentifable foreign incomplete degraded DNA / secondary transfer DNA there would have been plenty found. Patsy was not a tidy person and the house was filthy.
As a matter of fact if they DNA tested some of the other underwear taken as evidence - those from the other family members - there would be similar 'artifact' DNA.
Although beside-the-point, I am interested in knowing your source(s) for such a claim.

This is beside the point, because while it may be true that DNA can be found on a variety of objects and articles of clothing in cases such as this we are only concerned with DNA found in incriminating locations.

I also want to congratulate you for mentioning “underwear” without talking about poop. I never thought I’d see that day! Thank you.


AK
JustWondering

Sophia, WV

#428 Aug 18, 2013
As I stated earlier, I am in no way an expert. But please, Anti-K, pull up a copy of Patsy Ramsey's left handed exemplar as compared to the original note, before you attack my conclusion and opinion.

And, as I stated, no matter what you can give explanation for, there is absolutely no reason for that ransom note to be in the house. If the motive was sexual molestation and/or murder, the note was completely unnecessary. If the intent was kidnapping for a ransom, why leave the body? Whether the unfortunate victim of your kidnapping attempt is alive or dead, you can still claim the ransom money.

And the amount of $118,000. Really?(I will admit, that could have been used by an intruder to cast suspicion on a member of the family as the author of the ransom note.)

Now if we were to believe that someone who had a personal vendetta against Patsy, and had access to her house key, along with the knowledge that the Ramseys would be gone for at least three hours; was not afraid to hide in the house for several hours; felt comfortable using Patsy's pen and notepad--in fact, knew it to be Patsy's and where she kept it; knew that the paint brush handle used in the garrote was Patsy's; mimicked her writing enough to keep her from being dismissed by all the experts as the possible writer of the note; knew Patsy would be using the back steps that morning; knew where to find Jonbenet's favorite blanket to wrap her in; knew the dog was not at home that night and that the alarm system was not utilized by the Ramseys; then we can believe in an intruder that set Patsy up. It is possible. It would definitely have to be someone very close to the family. Someone who had prior access to Jonbenet in order to have molested her prior to that night. Again, it is possible.

But if we have no police training and can figure that out, surely the Boulder Police had allowed for that possibility and had questioned and dismissed all the suspects that fit that profile.

I came to this forum to find out about touch DNA. I appreciate the link you listed. I found it fascinating and it answered quite a few questions I had. Mostly, it is not 100% reliable.

I hope they find the murderer, and that it was not a family member. I also hope he finally tells us his/her reasoning behind the ransom note. That is the biggest hitch for me when I try to believe in the intruder theory.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#429 Aug 18, 2013
JustWondering wrote:
As I stated earlier, I am in no way an expert. But please, Anti-K, pull up a copy of Patsy Ramsey's left handed exemplar as compared to the original note, before you attack my conclusion and opinion.
And, as I stated, no matter what you can give explanation for, there is absolutely no reason for that ransom note to be in the house. If the motive was sexual molestation and/or murder, the note was completely unnecessary. If the intent was kidnapping for a ransom, why leave the body? Whether the unfortunate victim of your kidnapping attempt is alive or dead, you can still claim the ransom money.
And the amount of $118,000. Really?(I will admit, that could have been used by an intruder to cast suspicion on a member of the family as the author of the ransom note.)
Now if we were to believe that someone who had a personal vendetta against Patsy, and had access to her house key, along with the knowledge that the Ramseys would be gone for at least three hours; was not afraid to hide in the house for several hours; felt comfortable using Patsy's pen and notepad--in fact, knew it to be Patsy's and where she kept it; knew that the paint brush handle used in the garrote was Patsy's; mimicked her writing enough to keep her from being dismissed by all the experts as the possible writer of the note; knew Patsy would be using the back steps that morning; knew where to find Jonbenet's favorite blanket to wrap her in; knew the dog was not at home that night and that the alarm system was not utilized by the Ramseys; then we can believe in an intruder that set Patsy up. It is possible. It would definitely have to be someone very close to the family. Someone who had prior access to Jonbenet in order to have molested her prior to that night. Again, it is possible.
But if we have no police training and can figure that out, surely the Boulder Police had allowed for that possibility and had questioned and dismissed all the suspects that fit that profile.
I came to this forum to find out about touch DNA. I appreciate the link you listed. I found it fascinating and it answered quite a few questions I had. Mostly, it is not 100% reliable.
I hope they find the murderer, and that it was not a family member. I also hope he finally tells us his/her reasoning behind the ransom note. That is the biggest hitch for me when I try to believe in the intruder theory.
That bogus Carnes decision came without one piece of evidence from the police case file, which Mike Kane IMMEDIATELY NOTED, and it came a YEAR after Steve Thomas CAVED in his own lawsuit and $ettled with the Scams. Carnes saw Thomas had NO CONFIDENCE in his own theory, and since his theory and book were such a huge part of Darnay's case, PREDICTABLY threw the baby out with the bath water in that case in dismissing it. Everything she said about the handwriting is so much RAMSEY BS FOR EXAMPLE she KNEW Chet Ubowski had the same qualifications as Cina Wong, yet didn't dismiss HIS opinion. That opinion of Carnes didn't last HITTING COLORADO WHERE PEOPLE KNOW THE RAMSEY CASE, only 10 months after Carnes opinion a COLORADO Judge threw OUT the lawsuit against Fox News, where Fox News DID NOT use either Thomas or Fleet White, both of whom were a DISASTER in the Wolf and Miller cases.
Spice Pond

Mobile, AL

#430 Aug 18, 2013
JustWondering wrote:
As I stated earlier, I am in no way an expert. But please, Anti-K, pull up a copy of Patsy Ramsey's left handed exemplar as compared to the original note, before you attack my conclusion and opinion.

<snip>

Now if we were to believe that someone who had a personal vendetta against Patsy, and had access to her house key, along with the knowledge that the Ramseys would be gone for at least three hours; was not afraid to hide in the house for several hours; felt comfortable using Patsy's pen and notepad--in fact, knew it to be Patsy's and where she kept it; knew that the paint brush handle used in the garrote was Patsy's; mimicked her writing enough to keep her from being dismissed by all the experts as the possible writer of the note; knew Patsy would be using the back steps that morning; knew where to find Jonbenet's favorite blanket to wrap her in; knew the dog was not at home that night and that the alarm system was not utilized by the Ramseys; then we can believe in an intruder that set Patsy up. It is possible. It would definitely have to be someone very close to the family. Someone who had prior access to Jonbenet in order to have molested her prior to that night.
<snip>
I came to this forum to find out about touch DNA.... Mostly, it is not 100% reliable.

I hope they find the murderer, and that it was not a family member. I also hope he finally tells us his/her reasoning behind the ransom note. That is the biggest hitch for me when I try to believe in the intruder theory.


I'll try to be brief while addressing only some of your post. First, you don't appear to be at all familiar with John Mark Karr's claim to a connection in the family. IMO, Karr knew quite a lot about the family's comings and goings, their habits, the layout of the house, and everything he needed to know in order to commit this crime and which was very well planned. IMO he was coached on all this by the same family member who provided him with all the information necessary to commit the crime. And IMO this was the same person who had been violating JB, which was the basis for the crime to begin with.

Karr has said that his biggest mistake was in leaving the ransom note. And it's obvious why he said this. As it turned out, this is the ONLY piece of physical evidence that's been found that can connect him to the crime, something he admitted to me.

But you seem to think the note was directed to Patsy, but in reality, it was directed toward John. Backing up,(and incidentally all this is based on my opinion which was derived from years of conversations with various people who were close to JMK as well as my own conversations with him), so the information is not something just plucked out of thin air. And I believe that it was his so-called "connection" who provided the basic theme of the note, which was to express to John his anger and disdain for him. Incidentally, there was no attempt to set Patsy up since everything was directed to and because of John.

I should add that the reason for the ransom note has never been explained by him, however it could have been written to "get" to John! Thus I think that the note was written by Karr's "connection" and used as a draft from which JMK copied while awaiting the Ramsey's return that night. Since Karr has MPD, some of his personalities being female, this also fits the description of the note being dictated by a male and written by a female.

Karr had a history of breaking into homes and stealing articles of women's clothing, so he was experienced in breaking and entering homes. Just as was the Canadian colonel who spent years doing such before he was caught.

(Sorry I had to delete more of your post to make room.) But I wanted to add that you can do the same with exemplars of Karr's writing, i.e., compare it yourself and you will also see the similarities. So it's understandable that several experts claimed him to be the author/writer of the note.
Spice Pond

Mobile, AL

#431 Aug 18, 2013
JustWondering wrote:
As I stated earlier, I am in no way an expert. But please, Anti-K, pull up a copy of Patsy Ramsey's left handed exemplar as compared to the original note, before you attack my conclusion and opinion.

<snip>

Now if we were to believe that someone who had a personal vendetta against Patsy, and had access to her house key, along with the knowledge that the Ramseys would be gone for at least three hours; was not afraid to hide in the house for several hours; felt comfortable using Patsy's pen and notepad--in fact, knew it to be Patsy's and where she kept it; knew that the paint brush handle used in the garrote was Patsy's; mimicked her writing enough to keep her from being dismissed by all the experts as the possible writer of the note; knew Patsy would be using the back steps that morning; knew where to find Jonbenet's favorite blanket to wrap her in; knew the dog was not at home that night and that the alarm system was not utilized by the Ramseys; then we can believe in an intruder that set Patsy up. It is possible. It would definitely have to be someone very close to the family. Someone who had prior access to Jonbenet in order to have molested her prior to that night.
<snip>
I came to this forum to find out about touch DNA.... Mostly, it is not 100% reliable.

I hope they find the murderer, and that it was not a family member. I also hope he finally tells us his/her reasoning behind the ransom note. That is the biggest hitch for me when I try to believe in the intruder theory.


I'll try to be brief while addressing only some of your post. First, you don't appear to be at all familiar with John Mark Karr's claim to a connection in the family. IMO, Karr knew quite a lot about the family's comings and goings, their habits, the layout of the house, and everything he needed to know in order to commit this crime and which was very well planned. IMO he was coached on all this by the same family member who provided him with all the information necessary to commit the crime. And IMO this was the same person who had been violating JB, which was the basis for the crime to begin with.

Karr has said that his biggest mistake was in leaving the ransom note. And it's obvious why he said this. As it turned out, this is the ONLY piece of physical evidence that's been found that can connect him to the crime, something he admitted to me.

But you seem to think the note was directed to Patsy, but in reality, it was directed toward John. Backing up,(and incidentally all this is based on my opinion which was derived from years of conversations with various people who were close to JMK as well as my own conversations with him), so the information is not something just plucked out of thin air. And I believe that it was his so-called "connection" who provided the basic theme of the note, which was to express to John his anger and disdain for him. And incidentally, there was no attempt to set Patsy up since everything was directed to and because of John.

I should add that the reason for the ransom note has never been explained by him, however it could have been written to "get" to John! Thus I think that the note was written by Karr's "connection" and used as a draft from which JMK copied while awaiting the Ramsey's return that night. Since Karr has MPD, some of which personalities are female, this also fits the description of the note being dictated by a male and written by a female.

Karr had a history of breaking into homes and stealing articles of women's clothing, so he was experienced in breaking and entering homes. Just as was the Canadian colonel who spent years doing such before he was caught.

(Sorry I had to delete more of your post to make room.) But I wanted to add that you can do the same with exemplars of Karr's writing, i.e., compare it yourself and you will also see the similarities. So it's understandable that several experts claimed him to be the author/writer of the note.
Spice Pond

Mobile, AL

#432 Aug 18, 2013
Please diregard second post.

When my post was delayed, I made some corrections and the "corrected" post came up as (No. 430) with the old one No. 431, above. Just minor corrections, so no harm done. Sorry.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#433 Aug 18, 2013
JustWondering wrote:
As I stated earlier, I am in no way an expert. But please, Anti-K, pull up a copy of Patsy Ramsey's left handed exemplar as compared to the original note, before you attack my conclusion and opinion.
And, as I stated, no matter what you can give explanation for, there is absolutely no reason for that ransom note to be in the house. If the motive was sexual molestation and/or murder, the note was completely unnecessary. If the intent was kidnapping for a ransom, why leave the body? Whether the unfortunate victim of your kidnapping attempt is alive or dead, you can still claim the ransom money.
And the amount of $118,000. Really?(I will admit, that could have been used by an intruder to cast suspicion on a member of the family as the author of the ransom note.)
Now if we were to believe that someone who had a personal vendetta against Patsy, and had access to her house key, along with the knowledge that the Ramseys would be gone for at least three hours; was not afraid to hide in the house for several hours; felt comfortable using Patsy's pen and notepad--in fact, knew it to be Patsy's and where she kept it; knew that the paint brush handle used in the garrote was Patsy's; mimicked her writing enough to keep her from being dismissed by all the experts as the possible writer of the note; knew Patsy would be using the back steps that morning; knew where to find Jonbenet's favorite blanket to wrap her in; knew the dog was not at home that night and that the alarm system was not utilized by the Ramseys; then we can believe in an intruder that set Patsy up. It is possible. It would definitely have to be someone very close to the family. Someone who had prior access to Jonbenet in order to have molested her prior to that night. Again, it is possible.
But if we have no police training and can figure that out, surely the Boulder Police had allowed for that possibility and had questioned and dismissed all the suspects that fit that profile.
I came to this forum to find out about touch DNA. I appreciate the link you listed. I found it fascinating and it answered quite a few questions I had. Mostly, it is not 100% reliable.
I hope they find the murderer, and that it was not a family member. I also hope he finally tells us his/her reasoning behind the ransom note. That is the biggest hitch for me when I try to believe in the intruder theory.
JustWondering,
I’m going to break up my reply into two or more posts – cuz, that’s just the way I roll; that’s my style. First, want to apologize to you, I wasn’t trying to attack you; sorry. The written word doesn’t always come off as intended.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#434 Aug 18, 2013
I’ve looked at the sample you refer to, and I’ve looked at others. I’ve looked at Mr Ramseys and I can remember when a sample of Thomas’ handwriting made the rounds and I looked at that too. I draw no conclusions, and I defer to the credible expert’s opinion. None of them identified Mrs Ramsey as the author. It doesn’t matter how many times I look at what samples or what I think of them, I must defer to the opinion of those experts.

While it is true that some so-called experts have identified Mrs Ramsey as the author, it is also true that some so-called experts have identified others as the author. Some of these so-called experts may be credible in their field, but some, perhaps ALL, were wrong in their final analysis.

When considering an expert’s opinion I find it helpful to consider the opinion of other expert’s in the relevant field. For instance, how does a Wong or a Brugnatelli (or a forum poster) compare to the credible experts (the four BPD experts)? None of the credible experts identified Mrs Ramsey or anyone else as being the author!

The ransom note author has never been identified. Just as the panty/leggings DNA has never been “identified”(or otherwise explained). What would we find if we could identify one and compare that to the other?


AK

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
There was Slim Fast Everywhere 2 hr Moving on to a Ne... 15
John Ramsey to speak in Charlevoix, 5/23/12 (May '12) 3 hr Texxy 340
Fleet said, "Burke said (Nov '16) 3 hr Texxy 49
The head blow, just a thought. (Mar '15) 4 hr robert 57
1996 Ramsey case crime scene video-Radar online (Dec '16) 4 hr robert 212
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 7 hr icu2 749
From Patsy's 1996 Christmas letter (Sep '15) 8 hr robert 17
More from around the web