Ken Mains' Youtube figuring

[jameson245]

So Ken Mains has a youtube video out. Been out a long time and it being a lazy day here, I think I will listen and make my comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb58-o10Yf8&t=99s

Right off, it is clear he is strongly influenced by the CBS crockumentary that launched a huge lawsuit and led to the Ramseys, Burke and John, receiving substantial checks.

He says he's gonna solve this or come close. (rolling my eyes)

First, he says the most important thing is the EVIDENCE. Let's see how honest and hardworking this man is.

The note - Mains says he is NOT an expert in ransom notes. No question.

He has a few points I would not dispute. It is the most important piece of evidence according to Mains. (Erm, I would say the note and the DNA.) He says it is, for a ransom note, long. (True.) Says it took between 15 and 25 minutes to write. (I think at least 20 minutes, perhaps up to an hour.)

He goes into the amount - $118,000. ****** Mains believes that was the amount of John's Christmas bonus in 1996. ******* WRONG! That was his bonus for 1995 and was paid to him early in 1996. The amount was listed on every paystub for at least 10 months before the murder. Stubs were not destroyed or put away for privacy reasons, they were found in drawers on the first and third floors of the house. AND, Mains shares a bit of gossip here, though he admits he can't verify it. He says the Ramseys had $118,000 in their checking and savings accounts - - money they could have gotten ahold of fairly easily and quickly. WRONG AGAIN!!! John had to call Rod Westmoreland in Atlanta to get a cash advance on his credit to put together the ransom.

His first point of evidence, he's just getting STARTED, and he has so much wrong. That is evidence of a poor investigation by a lazy investigator.

[jameson245]

Mains believes that number was chosen to try to make the police suspect someone from John's work. While that may be true, I disagree - - I think it is just as likely, no, MORE likely, that the intruder was playing "creepy crawly" in the house before the murder, saw a paystub and was ANGRY when he saw the amount of John's BONUS. I mean, most people don't earn that in a year - - and this was his BONUS???
Think about it - - the intruder fantasizing about kidnapping the child of a multimillionaire whose business just reported a BILLION dollars in sales for 1996. If he intended to take her for ransom, WHY NOT ASK FOR A MILLION? No, I think he was not going to take her away, wasn't expecting to collect any money so he used that figure to taunt John long after taking his child's life. "Hey, John, you couldn't even save your daughter for the amount of your BONUS! How's it feel to be so helpless, to fail?"
Mains said pointing to a "foreign" entity makes no sense. Mains doesn't go further (at least not yet) but I think that came from the glut of movies that were released back then with Russians and others getting the attention of John McClane and others like him. Everything in the note made sense to the author and I don't think any clue should be dismissed so lightly.

[jameson245]

These experts are the only ones who examined the original handwriting samples. This is lifted directly from Judge Carnes' decision in the Wolf v. Ramsey civil case:
Quote:"Chet Ubowski of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation concluded that the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note.

Leonard Speckin, a private forensic document examiner, concluded that differences between the writing of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the author of the Ransom Note prevented him from identifying Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note, but he was unable to eliminate her.

Edwin Alford, a private forensic document examiner, states the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note.

Richard Dusick of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the ransom note."

Lloyd Cunningham, a private forensic document examiner hired by defendants, concluded that there were no significant similar individual characteristics shared by the handwriting of Mrs. Ramsey and the author of the Ransom Note, but there were many significant differences between the handwritings.

Finally, Howard Rile concluded that Mrs. Ramsey was between "probably not" and "elimination," on a scale of whether she wrote the Ransom Note."
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

Apparently Mains didn't do any research at all on this detail. He said Patsy could not be eliminated as the author, suggest no one else was a closer match, and that some experts attributed the note to Patsy. Well, this is another example of very shoddy detective work.
The "experts" Mains seems to be citing or putting his faith in are the same ones discredited CLEARLY by Federal Judge Carnes in her Wolf v Ramsey decision. No professional can give a proper analysis without the proper papers to analyze. Using computer printouts from Godknowswhere online is most unprofessional. I think Mains has found his niche.

[jameson245]

Mains cites the use of exclamation marks, abbreviations and indentations at the beginning of a paragraph as pointing towards Patsy.
The only abbreviations I can remember are Mr. as in Mr. Ramsey, FBI as in Federal Bureau of Investigation and, of course, the sign off, "S.B.T.C".
I remember three exclamation marks - The first after the first sentence, "Listen carefully!" The last two are right at the and. I think someone who really LIKES using exclamation marks might have included them after many other sentences in that note. Especially after he wrote, "She dies." That would double the number of exclamation marks and I can think of several other places one would be appropriate.
As for indenting the paragraphs, it took me YEARS not to indent paragraphs in my Internet posts. When we learned how to write in school, writing on paper using a pen or pencil, we were TAUGHT that all paragraphs were to be indented.
None of those things point to Patsy unless you are BORG-biased to start. Clearly, Mr. Mains was.

[jameson245]

LOL - - The ransom note advised John to use his "Southern common sense" and Mains thinks that shows the person knew John was a Southerner. (Pointing to Patsy who would know that.)
Erm KEN.... John was from Michigan and that is NOT a Southern state. The fact that the note writer thought John was from the South just shows he knew John had lived in the South at some point. Anyone reading the recent newspaper stories about his company's success would know he had started that business in Atlanta, Georgia. In the South.
As someone who moved to the South from Massachusetts, I assure you NO ONE thinks you are a Southerner just because you moved in for a while, even for decades. You are never the same as a born and bred SOUTHERNER.
That tickled me.

[jameson245]

NEXT EVIDENCE - DNA - - Mains is making a big deal out of the fact there was no semen found. (Not sure where he is going but DNA isn't just found in semen.) Just saying....
He says the black light detected something on her thigh, they thought it was semen but it ended up being BLOOD - - blood that Mains says had been "WIPED AWAY".
Personally I have an issue with that presumption. I think the man put his hands down her long johns and assaulted her and anything found on her thigh was left as he pulled his hand OUT from her clothing. He's moved off to talking about autopsies and head injuries... back in a minute.
My thought - - if the killer smeared anything on her legs, and we know she was found wearing long johns, is that not a possible source for MORE evidence to test for DNA? Possibly for familial or genotype study?
PANTIES - - Mains says the panties did not belong to JonBenet. He is so wrong. He thinks they were given to Cousin Jenny then retrieved because JonBenet wanted them. How STUPID is that? Fact is, they were bought for Jenny, JBR wanted them and was given them immediately. Jenny would never know, JonBenet would be happy, no harm done. Mains thinks they were put away, high in a closet, but "they were her favorite and she liked them". Mains needs to read some interview transcripts, I think, and not just take stories repeated as true.
The panties were NEW, the only ones ever taken from the pack were WEDNESDAY panties and Christmas was on Wednesday that year. I imagine JonBenet was very proud when she knew which pair were the right ones to wear to the party that day.
Mains either doesn't have a daughter or he is not a hands-on father if he can't understand why she'd be wearing them.
For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would go into some high closet looking for a new pack of panties, decide they would put new panties on her after assaulting her. Who would struggle with redressing her in urine soaked long johns after that brutal murder?
But Clemente's group thinks it makes sense so Mains does too.
“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

[jameson245]

What a JERK!!!
Mains is dismissing the DNA evidence as useless. He clearly has NOT done the research, has not read the BODE files that are easily found online if one cares to LOOK!!!
He said the DNA found in the panties is a mixture. YES, that is true. It is JonBenet's blood co-mingled with her rapist's DNA. Mains says that it is not semen or blood, he forgets saliva, sweat and skin also are sources of DNA. If JonBenet scratched him, if he instinctively touched that injury, he would have EASILY carried that DNA to her private parts on his hand.
He goes on to say HIS lab would have separated the victims' DNA from that of the assailant - - and I wonder why he is assuming both the CBI and BODE labs wouldn't know how to do that. (No, he's BORG and that explains that.)
Mains says, since the panties weren't JonBenet's, the DNA could have come from anywhere.
He doesn't know it was ONLY in the drops of blood and not on the fabric between the drops. or maybe he does and is just ignoring that fact as a good BORG must.
If all Mains work is of this caliber, I hope people pay attention and drop all thoughts of hiring him to do a GOOD job investigating ANYTHING. He's a jerk!!!!!! (I like exclamation marks!)

[jameson245]

The MOST important evidence, to this jerk, is the PINEAPPLE because, according to him it was the last thing she ate. We should ignore the medical people who tell us food doesn't pass through our bodies in the order eaten, some foods take longer to digest. Since we have been told she had crab at the party, since crab is not mentioned in the autopsy, Mains thinks that proves pineapple was the last thing she ate. he apparently has not read where some coroners say the pineapple could easily have been eaten before the party but could NOT have been eaten just minutes before her death.
He shares a photo of the pineapple and says it is in milk. Well, it is not in milk, the white is mold that takes the shape of the fruit and is not level as a liquid would be. But BORG has the pineapple in milk so Mains will go with that story.
At 18:46, the pineapple moves from her intestines to her stomach. Typical BORG BS.
This video is over 1 1/2 hours long. I'll be lucky to get a third of the way through before I give up on this garbage.

[jameson245]

So now the pineapple is in here stomach which means she was eating it shortly before death. WRONG

Mains notes that the bowl is almost full and that is evidence that the person eating pineapple was "interrupted". I believe Burke got himself a snack - - his prints are on the bowl and spoon and to me that is evidence that HE is the one who wanted the pineapple. I think he got it out before they went to the Whites' party. Patsy was busy and he was big enough, why not? I think he had some then got distracted by his new Christmas toys and visiting neighbor kids. Again, makes sense and doesn't point to ANYONE as the killer.

To me, the pineapple is unrelated to the crime because it was eaten HOURS before her death. It is a true red herring disguised as yellow fruit.

[jameson245]

On to the flashlight - Mains is 99% sure the flashlight is the weapon used to crush JonBenet's skull. While I think it is possible, I think it is highly unlikely. Why? Because even if the flashlight was brought in by the intruder, I don't see him going back UP the stairs after the murder and scream. I think he fled asap and wouldn't risk bumping into an adult as he went up the stairs and out the door. Now, I could be wrong on that but the suitcase and footprint on it make me think that was the way he got out AND even if he did decide to leave by the first floor door - - WHY would he put the flashlight down on the way OUT???

OH GOOD GRIEF !!!! Here it is, the whole kit and kaboodle. Why does he believe what he believes? He said it - "Because I believe Werner Spitz." Seems the boys have spent time together over drinks talking case and...

I have seen people on both sides of the fence in this case sit and drink and discuss and ... get things wrong because their minds get.... well, it isn't a good idea to drink and drive or investigate.