Originally Posted by FloridaDeathHag
If you do not find these pictures disturbing, I am not sure what to say.
I have a small daughter who has been in dance since the age of 18 months. She is now four. There is NO WAY she needs to have makeup, lipstick, nylons or anything else to perform.
Renowned Death Hag
Those underpants and pj's could have come from the dirty laundry basket where DNA could get mixed together. Jon Benet was washed and dressed after the murder. What intruder is going to do that. That shows me that the killer wasnt worried about getting caught in the act. That and the note is enough for me to say she did it.
Gross.
I think the idea that people are jealous that she had money is laughable. Try they are angry she was involved in killing her daughter. Oh & the little issue with her whoring out too. I am pretty darn disgusted by that.
Again, I ask. My child's babysitter folds her clothing. Her DNA is on my childs clothing.
Does that mean she is a killer?
I'm sorry, I think it's a little strange, but I don't think she looks "slutty" or like a hooker. Patsy says JonBenet liked to dress up and do these pageants where full-make up is part of the deal. It's not my deal, but I'm not going to crucify Patsy Ramsey for this, if JonBenet liked it. How is that outfit make her look like a hooker or a slut?
It is laughable that anyone would be jealous of Patsy. She was average to low in the looks department.Gross.
I think the idea that people are jealous that she had money is laughable. Try they are angry she was involved in killing her daughter. Oh & the little issue with her whoring out too. I am pretty darn disgusted by that.
She also should have fired her housekeeper. The condition of that house for someone so "loaded" is ridiculous.
Would you be concerned if you found unknown male DNA on your child's underpants and not that of you, anybody in your family, or your chid's babysitter? This DNA did not belong to anybody in the family or anybody that had access to the family home!
Renowned Death Hag
I don't know about hooker or slut but she does look like a stripper.
I don't know if you have children but I have a 4 year old daughter. She too, loves "dress up" and likes to play in makeup. I let her do it at home.
There is a difference between letting her play in it at home and parading her around in full makeup and showgirl costumes.
Patsy was the adult. She makes the choices, not the 6 year old.
I do not have children, but the make-up is not overdone in my opinion. And the outfits and make-up were only part of it, JonBenet took hours and hours of dance lessons and worked hard for these pageants.
Renowned Death Hag
It could belong to a lab tech or a detective or a evidence clerk, it could belong to Santa Clause. It don't show who killed her. It shows someone's dna came into contact with those clothes. Thats it.
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. My child has spent hours upon hours of dance lessons as well. For the last three years. She works hard too.
However, I will not dress her in adult clothing or place a speck of makeup on her.
I am speaking of how DNA can get on clothing.
As Jefe already stated, the clothing was in all probability contaiminated.
I find it hard to believe that a child molester or pedophile has gotten away with it all these years and has yet to have his DNA in a national databse!
I'm not saying it's my thing, but I don't think it's as over the top as people are making it out to be, that's all. Maybe if I had a daughter, I would feel differently.
Why do you assume that the clothing is contaminated? If that's the case, then can we assume that DNA found in every murder investigation in likely contaminated as well? Additionally, the probability that the same DNA, from an innocent person, was just coincidentially found on two different areas of JonBenet's clothing, much less mixed into JonBenet's own blood, is very, very slim.
The national database is useful but it is fairly new and does not have close to the number of sexual predators/molesters/murderers/felons actually out there. Some states don't require DNA to be collected from these individuals. Had fingerprint samples been obtained from the crime scene, there would be a better chance of linking them to an individual.
Agreed. There are thousands upon thousands of children that particupate in these beauty pageants. They might not be my thing, but to each his own. They aren't illegal and they certainly don't make anybody a murderer. It was just something for the media to jump on and sensationalize to make the public hate the Ramsey's.
Renowned Death Hag
You are hinging your case on the DNA alone. Explain the note. Look at all the evidence in the case.
I think you better read up on CODIS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_DNA_Index_System
I don't assume that all crime scene evidence is contaminated, but some is. A pair of long johns from 1996 are JUST NOW being tested? Why? In my PROFESSIONAL opinion as one who works with homicide and crime scene evidence and yes, even DNA, testing a piece of clothing this far into the game with a shoddy police department and a shoddy crime scene team smells funny.
Call me crazy and nutty like that.
I am. My above post (a few pages back) has plenty of evidence that point away from the parents. The note is certainly a HUGE clue, but just because Patsy's handwriting might resemble it does not conclusively point to her being the murderer.
There has been dozens of handwriting experts that have studied the note and Patsy's writing and they can't even conclusively say whether she wrote the note or not. So it's 50/50. I think the other evidence (shoe print, stun gun, missing paintbrush, disturbance near window, fingerprint impressions on window, shady van parked outside home, etc.) point towards an intruder.
Ah we are back on everyone is hateful and jealous of the Ramseys.
Who said they are illegal? What I will say is a normal parent of a small daughter would not put their daughter out there like this.
I have a small daughter younger than Jon Benet was at the time of her death. She has been in dance for three years.
Do you have children or a small daughter? If you do, would you put your child out there like this?
The issue is not her wearing makeup and looking like an adult. But it certainly adds a weirdness to that family.
Might resemble? The handwriting is exactly the same. As you said in your other post "you don't have to be a crime scene investigator to see that."
Renowned Death Hag
Ditto, Lisa! I noticed that as well.
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:38-39
I don't think it's just now being tested. But new technology has evolved to be able to isolate very sensitive DNA on her underwear. That technology did not exist in 1999. I saw the interview with the spokesperson of the lab that found this DNA and this is coming straight from her.
Again, you need to read up on CODIS. If the mystery man is indeed a pedophile and/or molester who found Jon Benet his "Dream child" as Ramsey supporters say, the chances that he has not offended since then are really slim.
That is to say, his DNA would be in CODIS and it is not.
Ha! Okay y'all I admit, I should have said stripper.
Yes but dance lessons & recitals are different than pageants where they made up look like midget adults & judged on their looks, the size of their hair & an even spray on tan.
I have nieces & friends whose kids take dance & they don't wear fake teeth or hair pieces when they have a recital.
I agree. They couldn't have only done this one crime this one time.
Maybe you wouldn't feel any differently at all. What I mean is, there are plenty of people who this to their kids. So maybe you would too. I felt this way long before I procreated.
Actually people pretty much hate this stuff no matter who is attached to it. it's not the Ramsey's as much as any parent who participates. Have you not seen all the reality shows about it? They are popular b/c people are so disgusted by it. it's like a freak show. I haven't seen girls who love it, I see girls who cry that they want to quit.
LMAODitto, Lisa! I noticed that as well.
Where is Jon Benet wearing a spray-on tan or fake teeth? Or even a hair piece? The only pictures I see, she has a tan-line. Most of her pageant photos I see a pretty little girl in grown up clothes, but I don't think she looks like a hooker, or even a stripper. I think people need to get their minds out of the gutter.
JonBenet is wearing extensions in most of her "professional" pictures. I need to examine the other pictures closer to see if she is wearing fake teeth, which I think she is because at her age they are either losing their teeth or have lost them.
No 6 year old child has perfect chicklet white teeth. They are usually missing at that age.
Granted, this is a tribute photo, but she has big hair in the unposed shots and her teeth don't look unnatural, in fact, in some of the shots they look too small and uneven.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4VaB9MRko
I would never say a 6 year old looked like a slut or hooker. She does look like she should be dancing on a stage in Las Vegas though and, I am sorry, but that is just not an appropriate look for a young child.
I am the one who mentioned fake teeth and spray tans. I do think they used tanning with Jon Benet but I don't know about teeth. I brought those up because I know they are used in the pageanting community in ages as young as 4 and 5 years old and I think that is disgusting. I don't understand why these parents are trying to make their kids look like grown women. It's weird.
I don't crucify the Ramsey's for having their daughter in pageants and I stated that I have no issue with pageants except when they cross a line. Some do, some don't. I am not the pageant police, I can only call it as I see it and give my opinion. Obviously, other people differ.
In the "professional" shots, she is wearing fake teeth.
In the more candid and school shots, it looks like she probably has her own teeth.
My child is 4 and has not lost her teeth yet.
Renowned Death Hag
haaaaa perfect.
it's the sexualization of children and it's gross.
I was referring to the pageants now days, for the most part; I don't know if she had a fake tan or not. I do know that they used to take them to the tanning beds.
Again, I don't know if she used them or not. Most do though. my SIL was in pageants & she's put her daughter in some. We refuse to go b/c we just won't support that decision.
Are you really not creeped out by this?
Which goes full circle to bring me back to this question:
How does this new DNA evidence exonerate John, Patsy and Burke? It's just another piece.
I'd like to know exactly why CO DA's office went out of their way to make this info and letter or exoneration a public hoopla. Who ever gets a formal letter telling them they are free and clear? Without a suspect in custody or even a glimmer of clue as to who it is and it is not John Mark Creepy.
No, I am not jealous of anything Ramsey.
[quote=RaRaRamona;321621
Are you really not creeped out by this?[/quote]
Shit, I am. They look like hooker Bratz, or is that an oxymoron?
Those thumbnails are bizarre, but the shots I'm pulling up on you-tube, she didn't look like that. It broke my heart when Patsy was saying how much JonBenet loved the pageants and then the whole nation is heaping scorn on Patsy for supposedly dressing her daughter up like a hooker when it's a popular child pageant thing that JonBenet liked and worked hard on and the photos aren't bad imo.
We don't know that Jon Benet loved the pagents. Most children hate them. We have Patsy's word that she loved the pagents. Did Jon Benet have a choice? I doubt it.
It looks good though to say she loved the pagents. It would not looks so good if she said she did not like to do it.
Administrator
And you say it well cindy!
I think it's an oxymoron.
My daughter tries to look at those crappy dolls in the store, I have to give her the stern
NO!
She looks like a ham who loved the attention in the you-tube videos.
I'm willing to give Patsy the benefit of the doubt with her motives, you aren't. It's an honest view either way.
We'll never know what JonBenet liked and didn't like.
Very true.
Actually Patsy WAS a looker in her youth...she was a former Miss West Virginia (1977) and she was drop-dead gorgeous, imo. Her sister Pamela won the same title 3 years later. Beauty ran in that family, big time.
SO--here's my question. If the DNA from a drop of blood found on the child's body and the 'touch DNA' found on the wasteband of her pants is a match, and that DNA is not a match for any family members or close family friends, then a stranger was involved--extensively--with her on the night of her murder. Right? I'm asking because I just don't see a reasonable alternative to that correlation.
Others here are positing that the clothing from which the new 'touch DNA' samples were taken must have been contaminated over the course of the last decade. IF that is the case (and none of us have any way of knowing whether that is the case or not), and IF the clothes (from which the 'touch DNA' was extracted) WERE indeed contaminated in the intervening years, then doesn't that further weaken any case against the Ramseys? It would seem a near impossibility--if the clothing had become contaminated in the intervening years, as many have surmised here--that the newly-identified 'touch DNA' would match (given that it was taken from supposedly contaminated evidence) the DNA from a drop of blood tested over a decade ago. How, then, could there possibly be a match between the two (given the contamination theory)? Again, just asking.
As for the infamous note, the Grand Jury exonerated the Ramseys, even given the various handwriting analyses presented, correct? If they and the handwriting experts failed to come up with a "match," then I don't quite understand what it is about the note that is such a sticking point. Either it matched or it didn't, close doesn't cut it--right? And the other bothersome thing about that note is--is it me or did anyone else notice this--it sounds TOO MUCH like Patsy, like someone parroting her speech patterns. I just don't see, if she did write the note, WHY she would do nothing whatsoever to disguise handwriting, speech patterns, word usage, etc. It smacks to me very strongly of someone trying very hard to implicate Patsy. My dad, as an aside, was with the FBI for 40+ years, we've talked about this case extensively over the years, and he's always believed the same thing--that someone was trying very hard to get Patsy down perfectly in that note.
And as melmoney said below, wouldn't all this be of great concern to any parent? That DNA taken from their murdered daughter's body and clothing--one sample utilizing a drop of blood and another--completely different--sample from the waistband of the child's pj's, tested a decade apart, MATCHED...AND, additionally, that it wasn't a match for any family members or friends? Cause for concern much?
So does that exonerate the Ramsays from involvement? No, and for some people the literal hand of God planting a sign saying "INNOCENT" by Patsy's grave wouldn't be enough to allay their suspicions either(joke folks, please drop the hammers and ice picks). But does it make it much more likely from a simple common sense point of view that someone other than the family was responsible, or at the very least INVOLVED? Yes, unless again I'm missing something huge here. So is it possible the Ramsays were involved? Yes. Is it probable--or even likely--given the piles of intruder-based evidence? I just don't see it, maybe I'm blind, I don't know anymore...
When the Grand Jury failed to indict all those many years ago, it became quite obvious that were serious problems with the Ramsays-as-suspects 'theory'--or witch hunt, as it were. And nothing that's happened since has made me believe any differently. Not calling anyone out here, or looking for an arugment AT ALL--just asking questions and trying to make sense of a case that by any reasonable standards has been completely and totally fucked up since day one.
I have to say it not so much I think they killed thier daughter...maybe an accident happend maybe it was Burk..maybe it was someone they knew....they hid something because of that note..their actions that day to me were no what you do if your daughter is being held for ransome and in threat of beheading.I know what everyone says they were rich they did thing differantly....its just there are so many things...maybe they found her dead already and got scared and thought they would try to pin it on them so the staged the crime scene and wrote that note. Their actions to me where shady and to this day Im not sure if they had a hand in killing her...I do think they certainly did not help matters at all...and no matter what they say Patsy was nuts....Im not sure we will ever know what happend to that little girl or who did it....but her own family ceratinly did not help anything at all.....
One thing that has always bothered the hell outta me is the omg we dont know where our daughter is...quick invite everybody we know over to the home the kidnappers could be watching.....I mean they had tons of people over..who dose that?I would be okya we are on lockdown..no comes in no one goes out....I just dont know.
Administrator
Let me run this by you. What if John or Patsy or even Burke (we all know children do kill) accidentally or on purpose killed Jon Benet? Whichever one it was and however it went down, the other parent found out or was told by the killer. So there they were with this horrible thing and one parent refused to call the cops on the other. So they called in a third party--someone they trusted but could not readily be linked to them, like someone from Atlanta or the other city they once lived in--and staged the scene to look like an intruder, and Patsy wrote the note to further the plot. That would explain the DNA blood and touch.
Last edited by cindyt; 07-10-2008 at 03:43 PM.
I agree with your views, Jack. I'm not saying that I know anything, since none of us (presumably) were actually there......I'm just saying that I believe that the evidence exonerates her family. I've often wondered whether the note was written before JB was actually killed. Maybe, the plan was to take her but he/she/they got caught up in the "passion" of the crime. Then, the person(s) who were responsible didn't have the time to retrieve the note or take the body.
So does that exonerate the Ramsays from involvement? No, and for some people the literal hand of God planting a sign saying "INNOCENT" by Patsy's grave wouldn't be enough to allay their suspicions either
When the Grand Jury failed to indict all those many years ago, it became quite obvious that were serious problems with the Ramsays-as-suspects 'theory'--or witch hunt, as it were. And nothing that's happened since has made me believe any differently. Not calling anyone out here, or looking for an arugment AT ALL--just asking questions and trying to make sense of a case that by any reasonable standards has been completely and totally fucked up since day one.
Again, I'm just pondering & certainly do not deny others here their own opinions. Maybe it is because I am NOT a parent.....that I am unable to grasp killing one's own child & bringing the world into the crimescene. I'd think that they'd have quietly disposed of her body. That's just me, not a parent, with no background in criminology or DNA research....or even a criminal mindset, aside from watching & reading too many crime stories. Also keep in mind, (unlike my LAST rant in this thread) I am sober as I submit this.......but probably will rectify that shortly.
"We don't know that Jon Benet loved the pagents. Most children hate them. We have Patsy's word that she loved the pagents. Did Jon Benet have a choice? I doubt it.
It looks good though to say she loved the pagents. It would not looks so good if she said she did not like to do it."
---Can someone explain to me, how does a 3-6 year old child know which hobbies or other extra-curricular activities to ask their mother to help them get involved in? Does anyone really believe that JonBenet read up on the menu of activities for her age group, did a little research and then picked the one that sang to her heart?
You can say what you want to say about child "beauty" pageants being creepy/not creepy, appropriate/inappropriate, etc. That child was bedwetting for some reason. Patsy Ramsey was not into this Child Pagentry business on any kind of part time basis. She was whole hog into this stuff and to the average person having toddlers and babies dressed like little prostitutes and then having them compete in beauty pageants is sick shit. They're little kids, for Christ's sakes!! I have no doubt in my mind that she was re-living her own glory days through her child. If Patsy Ramsey were a never-been tennis pro or a never-been rocket scientist then that little automaton JonBenet would have been a child prodigy in the tennis world or in rocket-scientry. JonBenet's life was not about JonBenet. That child's life was all about Patsy.
Personally, I do not have children. I am plenty old enough to have children. I haven't ever thought that one needs children to have a valid opinion on something. This having been said, in my mind Patsy Ramsey was clearly not normal and was not going to allow her daughter to grow up normally either. I have a HUGE problem with teaching little girls how to be, look and operate as perfect, grown, sexy women while they are still children--and there is no way to make that sound right. I do think it's sick to paint up little kids and parade them around, to teach them professional bump-n-grind moves, to teach that beauty and sex is what it's all about. I think it's a violation of their carnal knowledge threshold. And I think on the whole it sets women back like 75 years.
I will never believe that JonBenet randomly picked up on this whole little-girls-gone-strippers thing by herself. I do not believe that. This was Patsy's hobby and she was using her daughter to feed her own needs.
Does this make Patsy or John Ramsey killers? No. Certainly not. Sick people, in my opinion, yes. There is plenty of evidence that supports their knowledge and/or their involvement without any evidence speaking to them as the actual killers. Folks this is not nearly as cut-n-dry as 'yes' or 'no'. There is no evidence that clears the parents or the family of any wrongdoing. There was suspicious activity on many levels, it's just not as simple as someone killing JonBenet Ramsey and getting away with it.
Last edited by cachluv; 07-10-2008 at 04:25 PM.
Renowned Death Hag
I know I sound like a broke record but hand writing experts say she wrote the note, FBI profilers just reading the text of the note say it fits her profile. How the hell is a intruder going to be able to start a note, throw it away, start a new 2 and a half page note, sneak upstairs, taser her ( Taser guns make noise by the way ) drag her downstairs, smash her head, strangle her, bathe her, get her dressed and then leave undetected. Who ever did this wasnt worried about getting caught in the act.
I agree with you Jefe!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
