Odds and Ends

As I've made clear from the start, the heart of the case can be found in just a few uncontested facts. Aside from these facts, outlined in my first two posts, almost everything else has been deemed "inconclusive." Nevertheless, a great many people following the case, both professional and amateur, have set great store by some of this evidence, which from their standpoint is especially important. To make my position as clear as possible, I'd like now to go over some of these "odds and ends," which I have to admit I've neglected thus far. It should be remembered, however, that when we focus too strongly on trying to understand the meaning of this type of evidence, the case, as I see it, can very quickly turn into a morass, so we need to proceed with caution. Nevertheless, each item can tell us something significant, if we are willing to place it in perspective.

The Pineapple

Traces of recently digested pineapple were found in JonBenet's intestine and a bowl of pineapple was found on the kitchen table the morning after the crime. The bowl revealed fingerprints of both Patsy and Burke. Both John and Patsy denied any knowledge of JonBenet eating pineapple on Christmas day or evening (Burke was apparently never asked). To many this means the Ramseys were lying, because their testimony is contradicted by the evidence. It also suggests that Patsy and Burke may have been with JonBenet when she ate the pineapple, and that Patsy is unwilling to admit that.

The fingerprints strike me as inconclusive because it's hard to imagine that Patsy's prints would not have been on dishes she had washed or put away and Burke could have been helping her or could have handled the bowl on some earlier date. JonBenet's prints might not have been on the bowl simply because her hands were clean at the time. If John and Patsy both were involved with the murder of their daughter, then it's hard to imagine why they would have wanted to lie about the pineapple. If they had fed her pineapple, they'd have had nothing to lose by saying so. On the other hand, if one is innocent and the other guilty, if one fed her pineapple and the other knew nothing about it, then it would be necessary for the guilty party to deny any knowledge of that. In this sense the pineapple evidence does seem to tell us something, but not what most people want to hear, since the consensus is that both Ramsey adults were conspiring in a coverup

The Fibers

Several unsourced fibers were found at the scene, including dog hairs. To Ramsey defenders this represented clear evidence of an intruder, while skeptics pointed to the many visitors to the Ramsey home in the last few days. Some of these people may well have been dog owners. Clearly this sort of evidence is inconclusive if not totally meaningless, but the BPD was forced to waste much precious time investigating it.

Fibers consistent with those from Patsy's red sweater were found at the crime scene, entwined with the "garotte" cord and on the sticky side of the duct tape pressed against the victim's face. Similar fibers were found in the paint tote from which the stick for the "garotte" was taken. For many this is proof positive that Patsy must have constructed the garotte and placed the tape on her victim's face. There are many reasons to doubt such a conclusion. For one thing, it would be difficult to understand what motive Patsy could have had in attacking her daughter in such a bizarre manner. For this reason, it's been assumed that she would have done this as part of a coverup, to construct a vicious, pedophile intruder. Yet the note she is assumed to have written constructed a kidnapper, not a pedophile. So there would have been no need to go to such lengths and attack the body of her daughter in such a vicious manner simply as part of a staging attempt. This has been explained on the basis of Patsy's tendency to "go overboard." But there is a huge difference between going overboard on a pageant costume and going overboard to simulate strangulation with a "garotte."

As far as the fibers are concerned, Patsy was undoubtedly in intimate contact with her daughter prior to the attack and it stands to reason that her fibers would have been all over JonBenet. Thus it would seem far more likely that the fibers got onto the cord, the tape and the paint tote through transfer from the body and/or clothing of the victim. If John had attacked her, he could have transferred Patsy's fibers as well, since they were husband and wife and could be expected to have been in close contact the previous day.

Fibers from the shirt John Ramsey was wearing that night were found in the crotch of the victim. This evidence is much harder to explain, as JonBenet was found wearing panties. From John's interview of 2000, with Michael Kane and Bruce Levin:

7     Q.     (By Mr. Levin) I've got some
 8   questions, Mr. Ramsey, that deal with fiber
 9   evidence, and this is probably going to be
10   questions that your lawyer is going to advise
11   you not to answer, but I would like to pose
12   them to you.
13            MR. WOOD:  Is this what we
14   discussed yesterday with Patsy?
15            MR. LEVIN:  Different fibers
16   associated directly with --
17            MR. WOOD:  I think the position
18   is, to save some time, if you want to
19   question Mr. Ramsey about test results, that
20   it is absolutely fair that we be allowed to
21   see the result ourselves before we answer
22   questions so that we are not dealing with
23   speculation and hypotheticals that are not
24   supported by the facts as you might represent
25   them. . .

[Wood goes on in this vein for a very long time . . .]

Q.     (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is
22   our belief based on forensic evidence that
23   there are hairs that are associated, that the
24   source is the collared black shirt that you
25   sent us that are found in your daughter's
0058
 1   underpants, and I wondered if you --
 2     A.     Bullshit.  I don't believe that.
 3   I don't buy it.  If you are trying to
 4   disgrace my relationship with my daughter --
 5     Q.     Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to
 6   disgrace --
 7     A.     Well, I don't believe it.  I
 8   think you are.  That's disgusting.
 9            MR. WOOD:  I think you --
10            MR. LEVIN:  I am not.
11            MR. WOOD:  Yes, you are. 
12            MR. LEVIN:  And the follow-up
13   question would be --
14            MR. WOOD:  Posing the question in
15   light of what I said to you yesterday is
16   nothing more than an attempt to make a
17   record that unfairly, unjustly, and in a
18   disgusting fashion points what you might
19   consider to be some finger of blame at this
20   man regarding his daughter, and you ought to
21   be ashamed of yourself for doing it, Bruce.
22            You knew we weren't going to
23   answer the question.  Why don't you just
24   give us the report, and we'll put it out
25   there for someone to look at and tell us
0059
 1   what it says and see how fair and accurate
 2   you have been.

Wood is not a very effective lawyer, and his irate response, coupled with that of John, cannot be ignored. Normally it wouldn't be difficult to explain away such fibers, because they too could have been transferred via the victim, in a perfectly innocent manner. It is John's response, seconded by his lawyer, who had been informed ahead of time of the nature of this evidence, that suggests guilt. Clearly neither of them even wanted to consider that evidence. Perhaps Wood already knew what happened.

Fingerprints on the Note 

Much has been made of the fact that neither Patsy nor John's prints were found on the ransom note. It's hard to say what that might mean, but of course for RDI's (those convinced the Ramseys Did It) it apparently holds great significance and has been discussed ad nausea on the forums. Presumably whoever wrote the note had gloves on. But the Ramseys had no gloves on that morning, so why wouldn't their prints be all over the note since they said they read it. Well witnesses were there who saw them handling it, so it's hard to understand what all the fuss is about. Prints don't always get transferred, especially if one's hands are clean. If the writer of the note washed his hands carefully his prints wouldn't have gotten onto it either. And there would have been no reason for Patsy or John to avoid handling the note since their prints could have gotten onto it in all innocence, after it had been discovered.

The Maglite

A "Maglite" flashlight was found on the kitchen table when the police arrived. It is often thought to have been the murder weapon, and with good reason. The blow to JonBenet's head was devastating, but there was no blood from her scalp. This is consistent with her being struck with a blunt weapon very much like a Maglite, with its hard rubber head.

The Ramseys owned a similar flashlight, but at first they insisted the Maglite on the table wasn't the same as theirs, because it was darker. As it turned out the photo they saw was of the instrument after it had been dusted for prints, so it had a dark film over it. An especially strange aspect of this item was the fact that it had been thoroughly wiped clean of prints. Even the batteries had been wiped clean. It's hard to imagine why an intruder would not have simply taken the Maglite with him rather than bother cleaning his prints off of it. In any case, this was another example of an item from the home being used in the crime. Nothing from outside was ever found.

The Notepad, the Pen, the Paintbrush Handle

As it turns out, the notepad that the "ransom"  note was written on came from a notepad Patsy had regularly used. The pen was from a container close to the pad. Also the handle of the "garotte" was fashioned from the handle of one of Patsy's paintbrushes. These associations led to one of the most incredibly naive assumptions I've ever seen on the part of law enforcement investigators. Tossing aside everything we know about human psychology, they jumped to the following very odd conclusion: since all these things belonged to Patsy, that must mean she is the one who wrote the note and constructed the "garotte." I admit that when I first read about this line of thinking I blushed, because it was hard to believe anyone with any degree of training or sophistication could arrive at so fatuous a conclusion. Why would anyone committing such a crime want to use items that might point to herself? If anything this evidence tells us Patsy was not likely to have been involved. But they already had their sights on her, so anything that might reinforce their predetermined conclusions was fair game.

Patsy's Outfit

Similarly naive conclusions were drawn on the basis of Patys's wearing the same outfit as the day before on the morning the note was found. To those already suspicious of her, this suggested that she must have been up all night. Again, on the basis of the most elementary knowledge of human nature one would expect someone up all night staging a crime to shower and change before calling the police. Patsy's actions are those of an innocent person and by no stretch of the imagination suggest someone whose intention is to deceive. A deceptive person would have made sure, as John made sure, to shower and change.