A. The problem is not that Patsy's voice could have been anywhere on that tape - the problem is not that Patsy might have said "Help me, Jesus."

The problem is that the noises on the unenhanced tape are NOT clear enough to say they are Patsy saying anything.

I have listened to the tape repeatedly and I hear a hangup - no pick up after - but let's just say she did fumble with the phone and she was moaning "Help me, Jesus," - - so what?????

The BORG is making it appear that IF an enhancement can bring out Patsy saying that - - which I don't believe happened at all since CBS, NBC and others couldn't get it -

but if it HAD brought out her voice - - how in hell the BORG jumps from that to John and Burke being there having a discussion is beyond me.

THAT is the problem.

If you don't stick to the facts - if you don't insist others stick to the facts - then you open the door to lies of any kind - - and that is not how this case will be solved,

The BPD tried it - - they followed only the evidence that supported their BORG belief - - they ignored other information - - look where it got them.

The BORG can still play that game - but it is wrong - it is a problem - and I will continue to say so.

*Wow! Great post, I agree completely, jameson.
JS

There are those who think we are "reporting" the "Help me Jesus" part of the enhancement (done by Dave) as a mechanical VOICE!! No, No, No, No!! Please re-read Dave's enhancement notes and corresponding posts. What is being said is that in the part of the tape that is being touted as the "Help me Jesus" part is that a repetitious mechanical SOUND is all that can be heard.

Thanks for posting that clarification. I don't read those other forums, and I've been pretty busy lately, so I appreciate your post very much.

And I think that Jams is absolutely right. If you anticipate hearing something, you will. And I think that this is exactly what happened.

It appears to me that previous work, if any, was aimed at: "What are they saying?" Instead of "Is that human speech?" It's the same problem as throwing down some mug shots and asking, "Which one of these guys attacked you?" instead of "Do you see that person here in this group? They may or may not be there." If you have software that is aimed at interpreting noise as speech, you may very well obtain some misleading result from that approach as well, such as: Burke is saying "What would you do with a brain if you had one?"

LOL --- it seems to me that all we have to do to get that into case "Facts" is repeat it three times! It is a magical process, but of course it would have to be presented that he was asking one or both his parents that question!

Absolutely NOT! He was a reasonable suspect, the Ramseys said so and he sued - that suit was tossed out by a judge fairly quickly.

The Ramseys may spend their money easily on renovating houses but they for sure wouldn't give a cent to someone like Chris Wolf.

Q.If the police interviews were worthless as evidence in the Wolf case, why did Darnay have them?

A. To sell them to the tabs.

jameson says - How could he be sure what the interview might do in the Wolf case unless he had the tapes or transcripts? Of course he wanted them - and it can't have been an unreasonable request if he got them.

If he got them to sell them to the tabs, why didn't he? They would have bought them from him the day he got them - - why wait?

I think Spade needs to be taken very UNseriously.

A. No idea except Spade is BORG and it is part of what BORG does. Still, I see the cracks in that relationship starting to show - Spade never came through with the promised proof of his claims - and it seems some of the BORG are backing away - including Tricia.

She posted that she heard nothing - then said she heardit - not shehears something but not what she heard when she was following Spade.

Is Tricia credible? I think no - same as Spade.

Q. Why are the BORG suporting the misinformation in the 2nd hand notes from a legal secretary?

A. Because that is what BORG does. There is no rhyme or reason - if it is BORG, some will support it as real. I made threads on the notes to expose the truth - I can't be responsible for what the BORG does but we do tell the "rest of the story".

Q. What do you think of the BORG petition campaign?

A. Not much. It was not an honest effort to get Truth and Justice - it was just another BORG effort to beheard no matter what the truth was.

Q. What do you think of Tricia trying to buy weBsleuths and the JusticeWatch domain?

A. Doesn't make much difference to me - the BORG is the BORG is the BORG. Interchangable as far as I can tell.

My question - - what? Where did she deny any such thing?

The tape ends with a hang-up and the experts who worked on the tapes couldn't find any evidence of Patsy on the tape after that.

Patsy has not made any public comment.

Would she deny saing those words that morning? I doubt it. Why would she? It would be a logical thing for her to say - a typical thing. And if she HAD said it - - so what???

If they come back and say that her voice WAS on the tape after an attempted but incomplete hang-up... I would accept that and move on. No problem. Certainly nothing there unreasonable or evidence of any wrongdoing.

(ButI will note that has not happened.)

More important, I will ppint out that even if every expert in the world now came out and verified Patsy saying "Help me, Jesus" at the end of that tape it would not be evidence of what the real BORG is trying to sell - - a conversation between John and Burke.

Patsy - for the record - has never made any public comment on what is and is not on the tape.

A secondary 'agenda' is to show Lin Wood as a liar. Well, people, Lin Wood got the same tape/cd you got and you need to lab-shop to find something on it. That HARDLY makes him a liar.

Baffling logic!

What I believe the answer to that question is:

There were only half a dozen CODIS-specific markers extracted from the foreign DNA under the nails. All of those matched the same six CODIS markers in the foreign DNA found in the panties (if Lin Wood has his information correct and I believe he does - he's a very cautious man IMO).

One should wonder why. We don't really know, but it could be that the kit used to extract the DNA information was designed to only draw information from six markers.

Or, it may have been due to an error (contamination) in the collection of the DNA under the nails AND in the first blood spot (at autopsy, storage of the sample, at the crime scene). It may have been an error (contamination) in handling at the lab. It may have been due to degradation (environment).

The Reporting on the DNA in this case has been VERY poor all around. Given into the hands of us posters, it has been further Misconstrued, IMO.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, most DNA kits used by the labs only look at six (or so) CODIS-specific markers. A "half dozen" markers in common between the fingernail DNA and the pantie DNA would then be all that was established.

Keep in mind that the DNA is not so "minute" that there is nothing there but the six or ten or thirteen CODIS markers. There is a whole lot of OTHER DNA information there. What is extracted for the purposes of a profile for DNA comparison are very specific loci that separate us from each other for identification purposes.

I also believe the first blood spot was not as good a specimen as the second spot and base that belief on recent quotes. I could be wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(For the record, Ginja's own theory includes this line - " Patsy comes upstairs and finds John in the room with JBR doing whatever, and explodes. All hell breaks loose, JonBenet gets in the middle and is accidentally struck down. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

QUESTIONS

Ginja's question: What was the purpose in making sure the story went that JonBenet was sound asleep and put to bed?

Her thoughts - as usual not posted as opinion but as fact - "JonBenet was not asleep when she got home. She was awake and eating pineapple."

my comment - Why would they LIE about her being asleep and being put right to bed? There would be NOTHING wrong with saying she had been awake when they got home, had a snack and then went to bed... nothing wrong with saying that if it had been the truth.

The fact is, the Ramseys had no reason to lie, told the truth, but the BORG just won't accept that because... I don't know. I mean if JonBenet WAS awake and ate pineapple after they got home - - that wouldn't clear or convict the Ramseys? Why would they lie about that?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ginja's question: What was the purpose in claiming Burke was in bed sleeping?

Her thoughts - Burke was not in bed the next morning, he was standing in/near the kitchen asking questions of John while Patsy made the 911 call.

my comment - That is simply not true. We have all heard the 911 tape now, we have all heard the public enhancements - - there is nothing there to support this BORG lie.

But beyond that - there is the same question - - why would they lie about something like that? If Burke HAD been up and in the kitchen - - there is nothing damning about that. Fact is, it didn't happen that way and the BORG just won't let the myth go.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ginja's question: What was the purpose in detailing John's reading of the note in his underwear on all fours?

Her thoughts - John was not undressed and he certainly did not get down on all fours to read a note off the floor.

my comment - Gee, I guess I missed seeing the vido that had John in his three piece suit as he held the note and read it...

Seriously - - why would the ramseys lie about THAT???

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ginja's question: What was the purpose in Patsy's statement that she rinsed out the red whatever on her way to the kitchen?

Her thoughts - "It has to look like neither expected anything other than to wake up and take off for the airport. So Patsy comes up with the story that on the way down the stairs to get coffee, she stops and grabs the jumpsuit (which had been laying around waiting to get washed) and stuffs it in a bag or rinses it out, whatever. In reality, she does no such thing...it's part of the cover story to show she was oblivious to what had happened ..."

my comment - Patsy told the cops she used the toilet that morning too. But that too was probably just something she made up to make it look like it was just another day. I mean - really - just consider that through BORG eyes - - it had to be a lie.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The fact is, it would have made PERFECT SENSE if Burke had been up, awakened by the commotion and questioned by his parents. The fact that he stayed in bed faking sleep is a child's logic, a child's reasoning. (edited to add - and the Ramseys, like most parents, were probably relieved to not have to incude Burke in all the traumatic events going on at that stage of the morning.) Had he been up when the cops arrived it would not have been in the least suspicious. The cop who DID THINK he was sleeping did not see that as suspicious either.

There is no problem for the Ramseys to have stated JonBenét ate some pineapple - whenever - before leaving for the Whites, at the Whites, on the way home from the Whites, or after they got home.

By denying any knowledge of the pineapple, they have created all kinds of speculation. It would have been EASIER to have said she was awake, had a snack that included pineapple, and went off to bed.

I think there are BORG theorists who think the Ramseys were LOCKED into their "lie" about JonBenét being asleep. Well, then WHY, when confronted with the pineapple in the bowl on the table, wouldn't Patsy have just said - Yes, I did have fresh pineapple in the fridge and Yes, JonBenét or Burke COULD have gotten up to get a snack. WHO would have challenged that and made that into any indication of guilt?

Turning this red herring into an indication of guilt is ridiculous and underemploys the use of logic IMO. Do these 'theorists' think Patsy FORGOT about that bowl of pineapple, FORGOT JonBenét was awake? What difference does either fact make for them to lie about it? If the Ramseys were lying about the details of that night, they would stick CLOSE TO THE TRUTH on matters that have no bearing on their involvement. Whether or not JB was awake has no bearing and neither would her snacking on pineapple have any bearing.