In Defense of Patsy & John Ramsey [Archive] - Page 5

bandit's mom

11-01-2006, 01:37 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by docg
[B]

is guilty, why did she call 911? THAT's what you need to focus on. Searching the house isn't a big deal, calling 911 is.

You want it to fit your theory, which is natural, but for those
of us that don't subscribe to your theory, we see it differently.
I think they were both intelligent enough to understand
that they had to call 911. Not to call, would have pointed
even more clearly to their guilt, IMO. If your child disappears,
even if there is a "ransom note" you're going to contact the
authorities. Although I agree, if they really beleived it was
a ransom note they would have also alerted the police about
the threats and need for discretion. But, I beleive they were
both fully aware there had been no kidnapping and that
JonBenet was already dead. That, IMO, is one of the areas
where they simply messed up. I personally subsribe to the theory
that JonBenet was killed by one of the Ramsey's but that
it was essentially and accident, or overreaction, if you will, not
a planned out, deliberate murder. Therefore, I think the fact
that they were genuinely upset and not doing all of their
best thinking is also believable. That's why I think they failed
to mention the threats. All just my opinion, of course.

FurthurBB

11-01-2006, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by bandit's mom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by docg
[B]

is guilty, why did she call 911? THAT's what you need to focus on. Searching the house isn't a big deal, calling 911 is.

You want it to fit your theory, which is natural, but for those
of us that don't subscribe to your theory, we see it differently.
I think they were both intelligent enough to understand
that they had to call 911. Not to call, would have pointed
even more clearly to their guilt, IMO. If your child disappears,
even if there is a "ransom note" you're going to contact the
authorities. Although I agree, if they really beleived it was
a ransom note they would have also alerted the police about
the threats and need for discretion. But, I beleive they were
both fully aware there had been no kidnapping and that
JonBenet was already dead. That, IMO, is one of the areas
where they simply messed up. I personally subsribe to the theory
that JonBenet was killed by one of the Ramsey's but that
it was essentially and accident, or overreaction, if you will, not
a planned out, deliberate murder. Therefore, I think the fact
that they were genuinely upset and not doing all of their
best thinking is also believable. That's why I think they failed
to mention the threats. All just my opinion, of course.

I know myself pretty well and I would venture to say that if my little missy went missing and there was a ransome note I would not finish reading it. I would calling 911 on the way to checking her bed and giving my husband the note so a more level-headed person could decipher it. IMO

MissOtisRegrets

11-01-2006, 01:54 PM

I believe Patsy is 100% sincere in the 911 call.

No link. Just my gut reaction.

:seeya:

MissO

Ames

11-01-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by FurthurBB

There is a difference between the way things are covered up for the elite and the way this crime would have been covered up if it was. In a house full of people, a crime can be commited by a member of the elite, witnessed by many people, and somehow not only does it not come back to them ... you doubt what you actually saw. That is power. IMO

This is SO true...unfortunately.

thewhitewitch1

11-01-2006, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I believe Patsy is 100% sincere in the 911 call.

No link. Just my gut reaction.

:seeya:

MissO

I believe she is 100% sincere in the call too. After all that went on that night with the "accident" and the staging, at some point reality is going to sink in that your child is dead and you had a hand in it. IMO

Ames

11-01-2006, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by bandit's mom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by docg
[B]

is guilty, why did she call 911? THAT's what you need to focus on. Searching the house isn't a big deal, calling 911 is.

You want it to fit your theory, which is natural, but for those
of us that don't subscribe to your theory, we see it differently.
I think they were both intelligent enough to understand
that they had to call 911. Not to call, would have pointed
even more clearly to their guilt, IMO. If your child disappears,
even if there is a "ransom note" you're going to contact the
authorities. Although I agree, if they really beleived it was
a ransom note they would have also alerted the police about
the threats and need for discretion. But, I beleive they were
both fully aware there had been no kidnapping and that
JonBenet was already dead. That, IMO, is one of the areas
where they simply messed up. I personally subsribe to the theory
that JonBenet was killed by one of the Ramsey's but that
it was essentially and accident, or overreaction, if you will, not
a planned out, deliberate murder. Therefore, I think the fact
that they were genuinely upset and not doing all of their
best thinking is also believable. That's why I think they failed
to mention the threats. All just my opinion, of course.

I agree completely with you...a Ramsey did it (way over reacted)...and the other helped to cover it up...IMO. Yes, I believe that they WERE upset too...(look at the shaky writing of the ransom note)....and that could possibly be the reason that they left out the threats...but, my guess is...they already knew that she was dead..so why bother.

Ames

11-01-2006, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I believe she is 100% sincere in the call too. After all that went on that night with the "accident" and the staging, at some point reality is going to sink in that your child is dead and you had a hand in it. IMO

I agree...excellent point!!

Coloradokares

11-01-2006, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Ames

True...but, I believe that the ONLY reason that anybody suspected them, is because they were the only KNOWN people to have been in the house (besides Burke) when she was murdered. If it hadn't of been for that fact...I highly doubt that they would have ever been suspected. Yeah, the traffic ticket...thats a good idea to check that out. That would be interesting.

I know its not polite to snicker. But since I live in the area forgive me okay. I just had to snicker when I read this. Lets see Owner of Access Graphics. Holds some of the most prominent realestate on the Pearl Street Mall. Who went Billion in sales....Sold to Lockheed. Read this to mean Defense Contracts. John Ramsey was a high roller fatcat power broker whose picture was in the Paper as Businessman Entrepeneur of the Year..... He was friends and socialized with other wealthy and influential people. Lt. Governor to the state of Colorado Gail Schoettler to name only one. Her husband Don Stevens the list reads like whose who of Liberal Politics doing business as usual in Mork and Mindyland. Not only business connected but Lockheed....thats about as Political connected as it gets. He may or may not have had parking tickets ....But was he connected. Yes the Ramseys were a local household name before the murder of JonBenet.... Their house being featured in tours. These were not the cheap nor the non influential seats in Boulder. The Whites .... Oil Well I need not to continue on. I PMPT it talks about phone calls being made immediately after the 911 call came in . Don't step on Ramsey toes in the investigation of this kidnapping. Yes Boulder is nothing if not a political town. Nicknames. The Peoples Republic of Boulder. The 23 square miles surrounded by the rest of reality. Have you ever been to Boulder. Louisville Superior Colorado....Its the redeaux of Silicon Valley.

Ames

11-01-2006, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

I know its not polite to snicker. But since I live in the area forgive me okay. I just had to snicker when I read this. Lets see Owner of Access Graphics. Holds some of the most prominent realestate on the Pearl Street Mall. Who went Billion in sales....Sold to Lockheed. Read this to mean Defense Contracts. John Ramsey was a high roller fatcat power broker whose picture was in the Paper as Businessman Entrepeneur of the Year..... He was friends and socialized with other wealthy and influential people. Lt. Governor to the state of Colorado Gail Schoettler to name only one. Her husband Don Stevens the list reads like whose who of Liberal Politics doing business as usual in Mork and Mindyland. Not only business connected but Lockheed....thats about as Political connected as it gets. He may or may not have had parking tickets ....But was he connected. Yes the Ramseys were a local household name before the murder of JonBenet.... Their house being featured in tours. These were not the cheap nor the non influential seats in Boulder. The Whites .... Oil Well I need not to continue on. I PMPT it talks about phone calls being made immediately after the 911 call came in . Don't step on Ramsey toes in the investigation of this kidnapping. Yes Boulder is nothing if not a political town. Nicknames. The Peoples Republic of Boulder. The 23 square miles surrounded by the rest of reality. Have you ever been to Boulder. Louisville Superior Colorado....Its the redeaux of Silicon Valley.

Thanks...need we say more? I believe that this is the reason that NO arrest has EVER been made. Okay..think about it this way....IF an intruder had of murdered the daughter of such an influential, fat cat, pillar of the community, wellknown in elite circles, friend to the Lt. Gov. to the state of Colorado....don't you think that nobody would STOP until an arrest was made? BUT...if the murderer WAS the influential, fat cat, pillar of the community, wellknown in elite circles, friend to the Lt. Gov....then an arrest would NEVER be made. IMO

WallyCleaver

11-01-2006, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by FurthurBB

I do not even understand what part of this you find troubling. If she had been in on it she would not have called the police or anyone else. It would have given them time to get JBR out of the house. I agree with docg to an extent. The only way that it makes sense is if one of the parents staged the scene to fool the other parent. The one parent could have been JR or PR. If PR acted alone then I could see her calling the police because there would be no chance of getting JBR out of the house. IMOO

I also agree with docg to an extent. But I think it also makes sense if both parents were in on it and for some reason felt they could not get rid of the body. I like your idea that it could have been PR rather than JR - though I'd lean more to the idea of a man doing this.

The note makes the most sense -that is, a RN makes the most sense- under docg's theory, or variations on it. It makes the next most sense as a fake RN written by one of the Rs, with both of them involved, but for some reason unable to remove the body. IMO, it makes no sense at all for any intruder.

WallyCleaver

11-01-2006, 03:17 PM

A question for docg - or anybody.

...

You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier delivery pickup of your daughter.

...

Let's look at it based on the idea that "tomorrow" means the 27th.

What does "early" refer to? That is my question.

Ames

11-01-2006, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I also agree with docg to an extent. But I think it also makes sense if both parents were in on it and for some reason felt they could not get rid of the body. I like your idea that it could have been PR rather than JR - though I'd lean more to the idea of a man doing this.

The note makes the most sense -that is, a RN makes the most sense- under docg's theory, or variations on it. It makes the next most sense as a fake RN written by one of the Rs, with both of them involved, but for some reason unable to remove the body. IMO, it makes no sense at all for any intruder.

Maybe, as her parents...they could not imagine just dumping her body somewhere...on a very cold December night. They maybe had THOUGHT of it at first, but then nixed the idea....because they couldn't stand the idea of it. AND HENCE...the reason that they left her in the basement for the police to find...and when it became apparent that the police were the stupid, Barney Fife cops that they were, and were NOT going to find her, John, had to "find" the body himself. I am sure that he got tired of waiting around for the police to do it....which I am sure was part of their plan B, when they decided not to dispose of the body. IMO

WallyCleaver

11-01-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Maybe, as her parents...they could not imagine just dumping her body somewhere...on a very cold December night. They maybe had THOUGHT of it at first, but then nixed the idea....because they couldn't stand the idea of it. AND HENCE...the reason that they left her in the basement for the police to find...and when it became apparent that the police were the stupid, Barney Fife cops that they were, and were NOT going to find her, John, had to "find" the body himself. I am sure that he got tired of waiting around for the police to do it....which I am sure was part of their plan B, when they decided not to dispose of the body. IMO

We could speculate all day on why they couldn't/wouldn't ditch the body. I don't know.

Basically, I'm just saying that the real weakness of docg's theory is JR allowing PR to call 911. John isn't a passive sort of person. If it was crucial to the plan he'd have grabbed her and stopped her.

Ames

11-01-2006, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
A question for docg - or anybody.

...

You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier delivery pickup of your daughter.

...

Let's look at it based on the idea that "tomorrow" means the 27th.

What does "early" refer to? That is my question.

Are you talking about where it says..."If we monitor you getting the money early....."? I think that it means, if "tomorrow" meant the 27th......anytime BEFORE the 27th. I am sure that the banks would have been open for at least a few hours, on the 26th. IMO

Ames

11-01-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

We could speculate all day on why they couldn't/wouldn't ditch the body. I don't know.

Basically, I'm just saying that the real weakness of docg's theory is JR allowing PR to call 911. John isn't a passive sort of person. If it was crucial to the plan he'd have grabbed her and stopped her.

Yep, in the book DOI...Patsy says that John TOLD her to call 911. Why would he tell her that, IF it wasn't his idea? IMO

MissOtisRegrets

11-01-2006, 03:28 PM

If "tomorrow" referred to the 26th, then "early" would refer to before 8am on the 26th. I think John is being given 24 hours to get the money and that "tomorrow" refers to the 27th.

MOO

Ames

11-01-2006, 03:32 PM

WallyCleaver

11-01-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by docg

How do you know whether it was within minutes? Were you there? All we have is their version of what happened.

If you are assuming PR was innocent, don't you also have to assume she's telling the truth? It's her story that she came down the steps at 5:45, hopped over the note, turned and read it w/o touching it, yelled for JR, and while he was spreading it out on the floor so he could read it on his hands and knees (yeah, right.) she called 911.

The whole thing couldn't have taken more than 5-10 minutes, if that.

If you want to tell me PR didn't make the call for an hour or more after the note was found, you'll have to account for her being up earlier than claimed.

You'll also have to explain why JR couldn't convince her that calling 911 would result in JB's decapitation.

No, if PR is innocent, then it went down pretty much as she said. JR would have been ready to prevent an impulsive 911 call. If she'd mulled it over for a few hours, and decided that it wasn't smart not to involve the police, then I could see her making the call, and you're right, JR couldn't hover over her all day. But the fact that it was placed just a little before 6AM suggests that it was rather soon after the note was discovered.

That's the weak point in the theory. All the rest of it I can go along with, even if I don't really agree -the fibers and all that - ok, could be. But no way is JR letting her make that 911 shotly after the note was found. He'd have anticipated that.

Ames

11-01-2006, 03:39 PM

WallyCleaver

11-01-2006, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
If "tomorrow" referred to the 26th, then "early" would refer to before 8am on the 26th. I think John is being given 24 hours to get the money and that "tomorrow" refers to the 27th.

MOO

So if "tomorrow" means the 26th, then early means before 8AM on the 26th. Isn't it fair to say that if "tomorrow" means the 27th, then early means any time before 8AM on the 27th?

My point is if tomorrow means the 27th (and it may mean that) then the part about getting the money early becomes total nonsense. Of course he'll be getting the money early. The only way he can have the money before 8AM on the 27th is to get it the 26th.

So what does the author mean by "IF we monitor you getting the money early...etc. "? Of course he'll be getting it early. Did the author mean he might call in the afternoon on the 26th?

IMO what happened was the author couldn't quite get herself (or himself) into the mind of the made up intruder. The times got vague because there wasn't really a determined kidnapper intending to set up a definite time. There was instead a scared parent trying desperately to fake a ransom note. That's why it doesn't really make sense.

I do agree that in broad terms, the note makes sense if interpreted to mean the 27th. But as I've just shown, it doesn't make complete sense that way either.

WallyCleaver

11-01-2006, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I know that I have asked you this before...but...you ARE RDI, right? In some of your posts...I THINK you are....but, then...again..in some of them...I just don't know. LOL You are hard to figure out...:lol:

RDI, do or die :-)

When looking at the ransom note, you have to look at it as if it really were left by an intruder kidnapper, because that's what the Rs (singly or together) wanted the police to think. You have to look at it from that point of view and ask if it makes sense. That's why sometimes when I'm writting about it, it may sound as if I'm IDI.

I'm not saying PR is innocent. I'm just saying that IF she's innocent, then we have to assume she's telling us the truth. If she was asleep until JR got in the shower, and knew nothing about the killing/cover up, why would she lie about the time between when she found the note and called 911?

It was docg's point that we only have the R's word for the timeline of events that morning. A very valid point, but if PR is innocent, why would we think she might be lying about the timeline of events?

MissOtisRegrets

11-01-2006, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

So if "tomorrow" means the 26th, then early means before 8AM on the 26th. Isn't it fair to say that if "tomorrow" means the 27th, then early means any time before 8AM on the 27th?

My point is if tomorrow means the 27th (and it may mean that) then the part about getting the money early becomes total nonsense. Of course he'll be getting the money early. The only way he can have the money before 8AM on the 27th is to get it the 26th.

So what does the author mean by "IF we monitor you getting the money early...etc. "? Of course he'll be getting it early. Did the author mean he might call in the afternoon on the 26th?

IMO what happened was the author couldn't quite get herself (or himself) into the mind of the made up intruder. The times got vague because there wasn't really a determined kidnapper intending to set up a definite time. There was instead a scared parent trying desperately to fake a ransom note. That's why it doesn't really make sense.

I do agree that in broad terms, the note makes sense if interpreted to mean the 27th. But as I've just shown, it doesn't make complete sense that way either.

I've had trouble with it, too, Wally. Maybe the author of the note is telling John he will call in 24 hours to see if John has the money. This, of course, blows the "the intruder mistakenly thought John had $118K in cash in his account" theory, because he would have told John that he would call him on the night of the 26th (after the banks closed) if he did think he had it in cash.

WallyCleaver

11-01-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

I've had trouble with it, too, Wally. Maybe the author of the note is telling John he will call in 24 hours to see if John has the money. This, of course, blows the "the intruder mistakenly thought John had $118K in cash in his account" theory, because he would have told John that he would call him on the night of the 26th (after the banks closed) if he did think he had it in cash.

Yes, he'd probably want it asap. It's hard to have the note make complete sense under any theory.

Ames

11-01-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

RDI, do or die :-)

When looking at the ransom note, you have to look at it as if it really were left by an intruder kidnapper, because that's what the Rs (singly or together) wanted the police to think. You have to look at it from that point of view and ask if it makes sense. That's why sometimes when I'm writting about it, it may sound as if I'm IDI.

I'm not saying PR is innocent. I'm just saying that IF she's innocent, then we have to assume she's telling us the truth. If she was asleep until JR got in the shower, and knew nothing about the killing/cover up, why would she lie about the time between when she found the note and called 911?

It was docg's point that we only have the R's word for the timeline of events that morning. A very valid point, but if PR is innocent, why would we think she might be lying about the timeline of events?

I am RDI too....(have you noticed? ;) ) But, I think that one Ramsey...I think it was Patsy....ACCIDENTLY shoved JB (maybe she was pissed that JB wet the bed, and Patsy was tired, and knew that she had to get up early the next morning for the trip, so she took it out on JB by shoving her...or slamming her down onto the bathtub, and caused the blunt trama to her head.)....she may have thought that she had killed JB instantly...JB may have been barely breathing. And THEN the staging began.....IN MY OPINION You have to think though...Okay...Patsy had gotten up early Christmas morning to put out SANTA CLAUS stuff....and then she had the party to go to...and THEN she had to get up the next morning, and get ready for a trip. She may have been exhausted.....JB wet the bed...and that was the straw that broke the camel's back (as the saying goes)....she probably at that point, was pretty fed up with having to get up and change sheets on JB bed, almost every night...and that night in particular....she didn't feel like it, so she snapped. JUST MY OPINION....

MissOtisRegrets

11-01-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I am RDI too....(have you noticed? ;) ) But, I think that one Ramsey...I think it was Patsy....ACCIDENTLY shoved JB (maybe she was pissed that JB wet the bed, and Patsy was tired, and knew that she had to get up early the next morning for the trip, so she took it out on JB by shoving her...or slamming her down onto the bathtub, and caused the blunt trama to her head.)....she may have thought that she had killed JB instantly...JB may have been barely breathing. And THEN the staging began.....IN MY OPINION You have to think though...Okay...Patsy had gotten up early Christmas morning to put out SANTA CLAUS stuff....and then she had the party to go to...and THEN she had to get up the next morning, and get ready for a trip. She may have been exhausted.....JB wet the bed...and that was the straw that broke the camel's back (as the saying goes)....she probably at that point, was pretty fed up with having to get up and change sheets on JB bed, almost every night...and that night in particular....she didn't feel like it, so she snapped. JUST MY OPINION....

And Burke heard nothing? He didn't hear all this commotion when his mom snapped? John neither. Where did this snapping take place? Had Patsy woken up in the middle of the night and checked on JB? There were no urine stains on the sheets on JB's bed. Did Patsy do a load of laundry while writing the ransom note? Did JB come and wake Patsy, when she wet the bed? Did the snapping take place in the parents' bedroom?

Ames

11-01-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

And Burke heard nothing? He didn't hear all this commotion when his mom snapped? John neither. Where did this snapping take place? Had Patsy woken up in the middle of the night and checked on JB? There were no urine stains on the sheets on JB's bed. Did Patsy do a load of laundry while writing the ransom note? Did JB come and wake Patsy, when she wet the bed? Did the snapping take place in the parents' bedroom?

I believe that Burke DID hear something...remember he said that he had heard noises..but was too afraid to get up...so he PRETENDED to be asleep. All it would have taken is a little bit of yelling, and a shove...but, I believe that John heard it...but, by the time he got to them, Patsy had already shoved JB. No, the sheets had been changed...they were not the same ones that the housekeeper had put on the bed...and she was USUALLY the one that changed the sheets. I believe that Patsy always took care of the washing of JB's wet bedsheets though...I read that somewhere. YES...in that amount of time...those sheets could have been washed and put away...to remove evidence. The sheets on her bed were fresh ones. Yes, I think that probably JB wet the bed, and Patsy was either in the bed, or hadn't made it to bed yet....and took JB into one of the bathrooms to help her change...and probably got into an argument with her...I am sure that she was up to her eyeballs with having to change and wash sheets, and helping to change and wash JB's wet clothes. Thats when I think that she shoved her...and her head hit either the toilet or the bathtub. JB was probably barely alive...Patsy..not being a nurse...may have thought that JB was dead...and was scared to call the authorities...for fear of being arrested for abuse. SO..then the staging began....this is only my opinion of course.

FurthurBB

11-01-2006, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

I know its not polite to snicker. But since I live in the area forgive me okay. I just had to snicker when I read this. Lets see Owner of Access Graphics. Holds some of the most prominent realestate on the Pearl Street Mall. Who went Billion in sales....Sold to Lockheed. Read this to mean Defense Contracts. John Ramsey was a high roller fatcat power broker whose picture was in the Paper as Businessman Entrepeneur of the Year..... He was friends and socialized with other wealthy and influential people. Lt. Governor to the state of Colorado Gail Schoettler to name only one. Her husband Don Stevens the list reads like whose who of Liberal Politics doing business as usual in Mork and Mindyland. Not only business connected but Lockheed....thats about as Political connected as it gets. He may or may not have had parking tickets ....But was he connected. Yes the Ramseys were a local household name before the murder of JonBenet.... Their house being featured in tours. These were not the cheap nor the non influential seats in Boulder. The Whites .... Oil Well I need not to continue on. I PMPT it talks about phone calls being made immediately after the 911 call came in . Don't step on Ramsey toes in the investigation of this kidnapping. Yes Boulder is nothing if not a political town. Nicknames. The Peoples Republic of Boulder. The 23 square miles surrounded by the rest of reality. Have you ever been to Boulder. Louisville Superior Colorado....Its the redeaux of Silicon Valley.

Hmmm ... it is possible but, really none of this is too impressive to me. Though, local politics can give you some power where you live and lockheed is mildly impressive, oil is more impressive. If he was hanging out with people from the Carlyle group or the DNC or RNC, foreign heads of state or if his son married a into the Kennedy or Dupont family that would be another thing entirely. IMO

docg

11-01-2006, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

If you are assuming PR was innocent, don't you also have to assume she's telling the truth? It's her story that she came down the steps at 5:45, hopped over the note, turned and read it w/o touching it, yelled for JR, and while he was spreading it out on the floor so he could read it on his hands and knees (yeah, right.) she called 911.

Far too many assumptions have been made about this case. One of them is that if Patsy is innocent she must be telling the truth. Fine, assume that. But don't start crying for your Mommy when nothing makes sense. :no:

It's obvious to me that she is NOT telling the truth about what happened that AM. But not for the reasons everyone thinks. If she is lying because she's guilty, then her 911 call makes no sense. What does make sense is that she'd lie to support John's version of what happened. I think they must have had a huge battle over whether or not to call the police, with John arguing strongly against it. Patsy believed in John and clearly did NOT suspect him. She was always convinced it was an intruder. So why not tell a fib or two for John's sake, so he wouldn't look suspicious? You don't have to accept that, but good luck solving the case.

Anyhow we already know she lied because she provided a very different version of what happened in the first Tracey documentary.

>The whole thing couldn't have taken more than 5-10 minutes, if that.

That's THEIR story. Because they didn't want the world to know they had a big fight over what to do. The whole thing could have taken an hour or more. For all we know the note could have been discovered at 4 AM. Why accept the story put out by the ONLY real suspects?

>If you want to tell me PR didn't make the call for an hour or more after the note was found, you'll have to account for her being up earlier than claimed.

All I'm saying is that there is no reason to accept THEIR version of what happened. If John is guilty he has reason to lie. And if Patsy thinks he's innocent, she had reason to back him up, to bolster their mutual defense. I think she was manipulated. If we can agree on that then we can go ahead and solve it. If not, forget it, nothing makes sense.

>You'll also have to explain why JR couldn't convince her that calling 911 would result in JB's decapitation.

No, YOU'LL have to explain why Patsy would want to call 911 if she's involved in a coverup. THAT's the real mystery here, not how John might or might not have convinced her of something, in a conversation we know NOTHING about.

>No, if PR is innocent, then it went down pretty much as she said. JR would have been ready to prevent an impulsive 911 call. If she'd mulled it over for a few hours, and decided that it wasn't smart not to involve the police, then I could see her making the call, and you're right, JR couldn't hover over her all day. But the fact that it was placed just a little before 6AM suggests that it was rather soon after the note was discovered.

Read Patsy's account of what happened in the Tracey documentary. She says she decided to make the call and went downstairs to make it. She told John who was UPSTAIRS. She'd probably agreed not to make it and then changed her mind, so caught him off-guard. Why is that possibility so hard to grasp?

>That's the weak point in the theory. All the rest of it I can go along with, even if I don't really agree -the fibers and all that - ok, could be. But no way is JR letting her make that 911 shotly after the note was found. He'd have anticipated that.

That's the weak point for YOU. Because you can't get past it for some reason. Not for me, I have no problem getting past it. I'm focused on the essentials of the case and the evidence, not the stuff we know nothing about.

bandit's mom

11-01-2006, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

And Burke heard nothing? He didn't hear all this commotion when his mom snapped? John neither. Where did this snapping take place? Had Patsy woken up in the middle of the night and checked on JB? There were no urine stains on the sheets on JB's bed. Did Patsy do a load of laundry while writing the ransom note? Did JB come and wake Patsy, when she wet the bed? Did the snapping take place in the parents' bedroom?

Burke was a 9 year old boy at the time. My little brother
slept through the Sylmar Earthquake which overturned my
mothers china cabinet in the Dining Room. Our house was about
1200 square feet, and I had to shake my brother awake while
my mother carried on about her precious china cabinet. The Ramsey's home was huge. I see no problem with the concept of a 9 year old sleeping through this.
As for John, he said he took something to help him sleep and
he was on a different floor.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the JB wet the bed and mom
snapped for a number of reasons. I'm not even a total believer
that Patsy was the Ramsey that accidentilly killed her, although
it's possible. I don't think it was John, but that's more instinct
than anything that can be backed up. I personally have always
leaned toward it being Burke, probably accidentally, which would
explain why both parents were so willing to stage the cover up.
But, I'm open to the Patsy did it theory, because I could see
John covering for her. I do have trouble buying Patsy covering
for John though. Again, more gut instinct than anything factual.
You know, kind of like how all the IDI's seem to base their
arguments.

Ames

11-01-2006, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by bandit's mom

Burke was a 9 year old boy at the time. My little brother
slept through the Sylmar Earthquake which overturned my
mothers china cabinet in the Dining Room. Our house was about
1200 square feet, and I had to shake my brother awake while
my mother carried on about her precious china cabinet. The Ramsey's home was huge. I see no problem with the concept of a 9 year old sleeping through this.
As for John, he said he took something to help him sleep and
he was on a different floor.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the JB wet the bed and mom
snapped for a number of reasons. I'm not even a total believer
that Patsy was the Ramsey that accidentilly killed her, although
it's possible. I don't think it was John, but that's more instinct
than anything that can be backed up. I personally have always
leaned toward it being Burke, probably accidentally, which would
explain why both parents were so willing to stage the cover up.
But, I'm open to the Patsy did it theory, because I could see
John covering for her. I do have trouble buying Patsy covering
for John though. Again, more gut instinct than anything factual.
You know, kind of like how all the IDI's seem to base their
arguments.

The only thing about that is...Burke was only nine...he would not have been arrested, if it had of been an accident...so why cover for him? On the other hand....John or Patsy could have been arrested for child abuse, if they had of taken her to the ER with a fractured skull, and told them that it was an accident...I doubt that anyone would have believed them. Even though....I DO believe that the blow to the head WAS and accident....like I have stated before...as in a shove or something...maybe it wasn't even because of bedwetting...maybe something else triggered it. But, my GUT tells me it was Patsy...and that Patsy wrote the ransom note. IMO

WallyCleaver

11-01-2006, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by docg

Far too many assumptions have been made about this case. One of them is that if Patsy is innocent she must be telling the truth. Fine, assume that. But don't start crying for your Mommy when nothing makes sense. :no:

It's obvious to me that she is NOT telling the truth about what happened that AM. But not for the reasons everyone thinks. If she is lying because she's guilty, then her 911 call makes no sense. What does make sense is that she'd lie to support John's version of what happened. I think they must have had a huge battle over whether or not to call the police, with John arguing strongly against it. Patsy believed in John and clearly did NOT suspect him. She was always convinced it was an intruder. So why not tell a fib or two for John's sake, so he wouldn't look suspicious? You don't have to accept that, but good luck solving the case.

So the argument went something like this-

JR: We can't risk JB being beheaded.

PR: I think we should risk it. They might be bluffing.

Really, she called quickly after finding the note. It doesn't make sense she'd call after JR had time to convince her of the dangers. How much is there to argue about?

JR: Do we want to risk her being killed?

PR: I don't think the danger is that great, in fact, after I call the police I'm calling the Whites and the Fernies too. That's how seriously I'm taking these threats.

Anyhow we already know she lied because she provided a very different version of what happened in the first Tracey documentary.

Right. So she might be lying because she's in on it.

>The whole thing couldn't have taken more than 5-10 minutes, if that.

That's THEIR story. Because they didn't want the world to know they had a big fight over what to do. The whole thing could have taken an hour or more. For all we know the note could have been discovered at 4 AM. Why accept the story put out by the ONLY real suspects?

Exactly. Why believe either of them is innocent?

If PR wasn't in on it, why was she up at 4AM?

IMO she was up all night. She still had the same clothes on.

All I'm saying is that there is no reason to accept THEIR version of what happened. If John is guilty he has reason to lie. And if Patsy thinks he's innocent, she had reason to back him up, to bolster their mutual defense. I think she was manipulated. If we can agree on that then we can go ahead and solve it. If not, forget it, nothing makes sense.

If she was manipulated, JR didn't do a very good job. He got her to lie to make him look less guilty but he couldn't manipulate her enough to prevent the phone call? I'm not agreeing to something for the sake of having a solution. Your theory is weak on the point of JR allowing PR to make the 911 call. You may as well just face up to that. That doesn't necessarily mean it's incorrect, but it does mean that reasonable people are going to have doubts about it.

No, YOU'LL have to explain why Patsy would want to call 911 if she's involved in a coverup. THAT's the real mystery here, not how John might or might not have convinced her of something, in a conversation we know NOTHING about.

I've already said something happened to prevent them from ditching the body. They had to make a 911 call sooner or later, they decided that was the time.

Now your turn. No getting out of it. What was PR doing up if she wasn't involved? She got up at say 4AM, noticed JR wasn't in bed and just lay there gazing at the ceiling until he came in to use the shower? She didn't ask how long he'd been up? Didn't let on she was awake? You can come up with some explanation. Why couldn't JR impress upon her the dangers of calling 911? Why didn't he run after her and grab her to stop her? He had a completely plausible reason for not wanting to call 911. You'll have to account for why JR was so passive on this matter if you want anyone to take this seriously.

Read Patsy's account of what happened in the Tracey documentary. She says she decided to make the call and went downstairs to make it. She told John who was UPSTAIRS. She'd probably agreed not to make it and then changed her mind, so caught him off-guard. Why is that possibility so hard to grasp?

It's not hard to grasp, just hard to swallow. JR is a take charge guy heading up a billion dollar corporation. Yet we are asked to believe he stood by passively and allowed PR to make the call that destroyed his plan. I think it ranks low on the probability scale. If JR was already up, he'd have finished his shower and made sure he was in a position to prevent her making a call.

That's the weak point for YOU. Because you can't get past it for some reason. Not for me, I have no problem getting past it. I'm focused on the essentials of the case and the evidence, not the stuff we know nothing about.

It's the weak point for every other poster who's responded to your theory. It's the weak point because it's not very probable. It's the weak point because it's out of character for JR. It's the weak point because it's absolutely crucial to the plan that no 911 call be made, yet JR is standing in the shower knowing full well PR might get up and go down the stairs -

shill

11-01-2006, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

So if "tomorrow" means the 26th, then early means before 8AM on the 26th. Isn't it fair to say that if "tomorrow" means the 27th, then early means any time before 8AM on the 27th?

My point is if tomorrow means the 27th (and it may mean that) then the part about getting the money early becomes total nonsense. Of course he'll be getting the money early. The only way he can have the money before 8AM on the 27th is to get it the 26th.

So what does the author mean by "IF we monitor you getting the money early...etc. "? Of course he'll be getting it early. Did the author mean he might call in the afternoon on the 26th?

IMO what happened was the author couldn't quite get herself (or himself) into the mind of the made up intruder. The times got vague because there wasn't really a determined kidnapper intending to set up a definite time. There was instead a scared parent trying desperately to fake a ransom note. That's why it doesn't really make sense.

I do agree that in broad terms, the note makes sense if interpreted to mean the 27th. But as I've just shown, it doesn't make complete sense that way either. If the author was an intruder, he might have wanted to be convincing that he has the capabilities to monitor the Ramseys movement so they would be to afraid to contact the police, and he added the verbiage to be more believable, not realizing that it was confusing and could be miss interpreted as to the time meant.
His sole intention of the note was for the Ramseys to not contact the police until 10am the 27th, at which time he would have already borded a plane out of town.

Ames

11-01-2006, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by shill
If the author was an intruder, he might have wanted to be convincing that he has the capabilities to monitor the Ramseys movement so they would be to afraid to contact the police, and he added the verbiage to be more believable, not realizing that it was confusing and could be miss interpreted as to the time meant.
His sole intention of the note was for the Ramseys to not contact the police until 10am the 27th, at which time he would have already borded a plane out of town.

Yes, I guess that the "intruder" didn't count on Patsy or John IGNORING his threats...and calling 911 right away, ANYWAY.

WallyCleaver

11-01-2006, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by shill
If the author was an intruder, he might have wanted to be convincing that he has the capabilities to monitor the Ramseys movement so they would be to afraid to contact the police, and he added the verbiage to be more believable, not realizing that it was confusing and could be miss interpreted as to the time meant.
His sole intention of the note was for the Ramseys to not contact the police until 10am the 27th, at which time he would have already borded a plane out of town.

That's plausible. IMO it's more plausible one of the Rs wrote it, and it's confusing for similar reasons - verbiage added to be more believable but only making it more confusing. A real kidnapper wouldn't have written War and Peace.

bandit's mom

11-01-2006, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Ames

The only thing about that is...Burke was only nine...he would not have been arrested, if it had of been an accident...so why cover for him? On the other hand....John or Patsy could have been arrested for child abuse, if they had of taken her to the ER with a fractured skull, and told them that it was an accident...I doubt that anyone would have believed them. Even though....I DO believe that the blow to the head WAS and accident....like I have stated before...as in a shove or something...maybe it wasn't even because of bedwetting...maybe something else triggered it. But, my GUT tells me it was Patsy...and that Patsy wrote the ransom note. IMO

Oh I definitely believe Patsy wrote the ransom note. And you
may well be right about it being Patsy. But, as to why they
wouldn't say it was Burke because he wouldn't have been
arrested, while that's true, it still would have followed him
his entire life. The boy that killed his sister. Perhaps they were
afraid of the effect it would have on him to have that hanging over his head. As it turns out, of course, I'm not the only one
who has always suspected Burke, but they would have no way
of knowing that at the time.

Ames

11-01-2006, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

That's plausible. IMO it's more plausible one of the Rs wrote it, and it's confusing for similar reasons - verbiage added to be more believable but only making it more confusing. A real kidnapper wouldn't have written War and Peace.

I personally think that Patsy was the author of that War and Peace ransom letter, and the reason that it was so long and drawn out and confusing, is because she was nervous..and kept adding to it, and kept adding to it....in her frantic mind, it probably made sense. IMO

Ames

11-01-2006, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by bandit's mom

Oh I definitely believe Patsy wrote the ransom note. And you
may well be right about it being Patsy. But, as to why they
wouldn't say it was Burke because he wouldn't have been
arrested, while that's true, it still would have followed him
his entire life. The boy that killed his sister. Perhaps they were
afraid of the effect it would have on him to have that hanging over his head. As it turns out, of course, I'm not the only one
who has always suspected Burke, but they would have no way
of knowing that at the time.

Nope, you are definately not the only one that has always suspected Burke...I had ALWAYS suspected Patsy...but, for a fleeting moment...I suspected Burke. It's possible that he did it, and they covered for him....but, I lean more toward Patsy. IMO

Hey...BTW...why do you think Burke did it? Do you think it was an accident?

WallyCleaver

11-01-2006, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by bandit's mom

Oh I definitely believe Patsy wrote the ransom note. And you
may well be right about it being Patsy. But, as to why they
wouldn't say it was Burke because he wouldn't have been
arrested, while that's true, it still would have followed him
his entire life. The boy that killed his sister. Perhaps they were
afraid of the effect it would have on him to have that hanging over his head. As it turns out, of course, I'm not the only one
who has always suspected Burke, but they would have no way
of knowing that at the time.

But wouldn't it follow him anyway? I mean if he'd accidentally killed her with say another golf club blow, then she was dead, he'd know he did it. If not at age 9 then certainly as he grew up, he'd have to wonder at the amazing coincidence of him knocking out his sister and then a perv killing and molesting her in the basement.

I think a JAR-DI theory is more plausible than a BDI.

Ames

11-01-2006, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

But wouldn't it follow him anyway? I mean if he'd accidentally killed her with say another golf club blow, then she was dead, he'd know he did it. If not at age 9 then certainly as he grew up, he'd have to wonder at the amazing coincidence of him knocking out his sister and then a perv killing and molesting her in the basement.

I think a JAR-DI theory is more plausible than a BDI.

Didn't think of that...how would they have explained the coincidences? Unless, they told Burke that he had accidently killed her, and they helped to stage a cover up...BUT...then...being a nine year old...I am SURE that he would have slipped up and said SOMETHING suspicious in his interview. I still think that HE knows which parent actually killed his sister...but he is not talking. IMO

bandit's mom

11-01-2006, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Nope, you are definately not the only one that has always suspected Burke...I had ALWAYS suspected Patsy...but, for a fleeting moment...I suspected Burke. It's possible that he did it, and they covered for him....but, I lean more toward Patsy. IMO

Hey...BTW...why do you think Burke did it? Do you think it was an accident?

An accident, or lashing out in anger. I think the reason I first
thought it was Burke was because I just couldn't fathom that
either parent would cover for the other. I mean if I knew my
husband had killed my child, assuming I didn't kill him first,
I damn well wouldn't stay with him. So, it just always seemed
logical to me that the only reason they would both lie, and
I'm convinced they both have since day one, is to protect their
remaining child. Not very scientific, as I already admitted.

However, I'm not hard and fast in my belief about which Ramsey
did it. Having seen and read more about them over the years,
I accept that it is possible that they were so concerned about
what people would think, that they just might have covered
for each other. My primary conviction is that there was no intruder that night. That's a theory I just cannot buy and yes,
I did try. I'm just convinced one of them is the killer and I lean
toward Burke or Patsy, although like you, I don't think it was
intentional.

bandit's mom

11-01-2006, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Didn't think of that...how would they have explained the coincidences? Unless, they told Burke that he had accidently killed her, and they helped to stage a cover up...BUT...then...being a nine year old...I am SURE that he would have slipped up and said SOMETHING suspicious in his interview. I still think that HE knows which parent actually killed his sister...but he is not talking. IMO

Sorry, I obviously wasn't clear. I don't think they convinced
Burke he didn't do it. I agree that would be too difficult. He
was 9, not 3, so I'd assume he'd remember. I just meant
that they didn't want the stigma of the world knowing it
to follow him. I think that's why they whisked him away
so quickly "with friends" and wouldn't allow him to be interviewed until they'd had time to talk to him about all of it and be sure
he had his story straight.

sweetcharlotte

11-01-2006, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by bandit's mom

snip

I think that's why they whisked him away
so quickly "with friends" and wouldn't allow him to be interviewed until they'd had time to talk to him about all of it and be sure
he had his story straight.

Burke was interviewed Dec 26, 1996 by BPD for over an hour without the Ramsey's consent or knowledge. He was interviewed again on January 8, 1997 for appx. 2 hrs. and again 3 more times from April through June 1997.Source PM/PT. JMO

MissOtisRegrets

11-01-2006, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by bandit's mom

Sorry, I obviously wasn't clear. I don't think they convinced
Burke he didn't do it. I agree that would be too difficult. He
was 9, not 3, so I'd assume he'd remember. I just meant
that they didn't want the stigma of the world knowing it
to follow him. I think that's why they whisked him away
so quickly "with friends" and wouldn't allow him to be interviewed until they'd had time to talk to him about all of it and be sure
he had his story straight.

By allowing Burke to be "whisked away with friends", they lost all control over what the 9 year old would say to those friends. The same applies to their sending him back to school where he would be certain to be questioned by the other children. The Ramseys claim they sent him away on the 26th because they didn't know what horrors the day would hold and didn't want Burke to experience them. A wise decision, as it turned out.

MOO

LadyFisher

11-01-2006, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by docg

Far too many assumptions have been made about this case. One of them is that if Patsy is innocent she must be telling the truth. Fine, assume that. But don't start crying for your Mommy when nothing makes sense. :no:

It's obvious to me that she is NOT telling the truth about what happened that AM. But not for the reasons everyone thinks. If she is lying because she's guilty, then her 911 call makes no sense. What does make sense is that she'd lie to support John's version of what happened. I think they must have had a huge battle over whether or not to call the police, with John arguing strongly against it. Patsy believed in John and clearly did NOT suspect him. She was always convinced it was an intruder. So why not tell a fib or two for John's sake, so he wouldn't look suspicious? You don't have to accept that, but good luck solving the case.

Anyhow we already know she lied because she provided a very different version of what happened in the first Tracey documentary.

>The whole thing couldn't have taken more than 5-10 minutes, if that.

That's THEIR story. Because they didn't want the world to know they had a big fight over what to do. The whole thing could have taken an hour or more. For all we know the note could have been discovered at 4 AM. Why accept the story put out by the ONLY real suspects?

>If you want to tell me PR didn't make the call for an hour or more after the note was found, you'll have to account for her being up earlier than claimed.

All I'm saying is that there is no reason to accept THEIR version of what happened. If John is guilty he has reason to lie. And if Patsy thinks he's innocent, she had reason to back him up, to bolster their mutual defense. I think she was manipulated. If we can agree on that then we can go ahead and solve it. If not, forget it, nothing makes sense.

>You'll also have to explain why JR couldn't convince her that calling 911 would result in JB's decapitation.

No, YOU'LL have to explain why Patsy would want to call 911 if she's involved in a coverup. THAT's the real mystery here, not how John might or might not have convinced her of something, in a conversation we know NOTHING about.

>No, if PR is innocent, then it went down pretty much as she said. JR would have been ready to prevent an impulsive 911 call. If she'd mulled it over for a few hours, and decided that it wasn't smart not to involve the police, then I could see her making the call, and you're right, JR couldn't hover over her all day. But the fact that it was placed just a little before 6AM suggests that it was rather soon after the note was discovered.

Read Patsy's account of what happened in the Tracey documentary. She says she decided to make the call and went downstairs to make it. She told John who was UPSTAIRS. She'd probably agreed not to make it and then changed her mind, so caught him off-guard. Why is that possibility so hard to grasp?

>That's the weak point in the theory. All the rest of it I can go along with, even if I don't really agree -the fibers and all that - ok, could be. But no way is JR letting her make that 911 shotly after the note was found. He'd have anticipated that.

That's the weak point for YOU. Because you can't get past it for some reason. Not for me, I have no problem getting past it. I'm focused on the essentials of the case and the evidence, not the stuff we know nothing about. I don't know what she said in the Tracey documentary....but, in the DOI she stated she first thought the HK left a note to remind her of the $2500 loan she requested, once she realized it was a ransom note, she screamed for John and tells him there's a note downstairs and JBs gone...They both run and check on Burke, then John reads the notes....she then says she asked John, "what do we do?" & he shouts "call the police, Patsy asks are you sure, and he said yes, call them" Pg. 12 HB edition of DOI!

LadyFisher

11-01-2006, 08:50 PM

docg

11-01-2006, 10:00 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WallyCleaver
[B] [/UNQUOTE]

>So the argument went something like this-

I have no idea how the argument went. And I agree, I see no reason for Patsy to call 911 if John had made it clear he did NOT want the call made. But the fact is: she DID make the call. Something she would NOT have done if they were both involved in staging a kidnapping.

>Right. So she might be lying because she's in on it.

No, she couldn't possibly have been in on it. All the real evidence points away from her. It's just the fantasy stuff, the "gut" feeling Patsy HAS to have written the note, that's gotten everyone on the wrong track. Patsy is the over the top drama queen mother everyone who resented their own mother loves to hate.

>If PR wasn't in on it, why was she up at 4AM?

I didn't say she was. I said that for all we know she could have been. We have no reason to accept their story at face value. But why is it so hard for you to accept that someone can wake up at 4 AM? I do that all the time.

>IMO she was up all night. She still had the same clothes on.

If she were up all night she'd have been sure to change. The fact that she had the same clothes on is just one more piece of evidence in her favor. John was the one who showered and changed.

>If she was manipulated, JR didn't do a very good job. He got her to lie to make him look less guilty but he couldn't manipulate her enough to prevent the phone call?

It looks that way, yes. So what? You win some, you lose some.

>I'm not agreeing to something for the sake of having a solution. Your theory is weak on the point of JR allowing PR to make the 911 call. You may as well just face up to that. That doesn't necessarily mean it's incorrect, but it does mean that reasonable people are going to have doubts about it.

I don't see that as a weakness. I see it as a strength. Because recognizing that possibility could be a key to solving the case. This is not a game of Clue or a mystery novel. The solution doesn't have to be convincing, just correct. If we accept that possibility, however unlikely it may seem, and follow all the consequences step by step, we see a clear path to a solution. Every other scenario runs very quickly into a dead end.

>Why didn't he run after her and grab her to stop her? He had a completely plausible reason for not wanting to call 911. You'll have to account for why JR was so passive on this matter if you want anyone to take this seriously.

We simply don't know what happened. Maybe he DID run and grab her. Maybe it was his determination that the call NOT be made that caused her to fear him. Maybe she called 911 because she felt vulnerable at that moment. Get real, Wally, there was a phone on every floor of the house. There's no way he could have prevented her from lifting one of those phones and dialing 911.

>It's not hard to grasp, just hard to swallow.

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. It's also hard to swallow that the Earth revolves around the Sun, not vice versa.

>JR is a take charge guy heading up a billion dollar corporation. Yet we are asked to believe he stood by passively and allowed PR to make the call that destroyed his plan.

Well, this is the weak point in YOUR theory, Wally. If Patsy wanted to call 911, she had a phone on every floor to do that with. Unless he tied her to the bed, there's no way he could have prevented her from making that call.

>It's the weak point for every other poster who's responded to your theory.

It's the part everyone has trouble swallowing, yes. The flat Earth is easy to see, the reality isn't. It's only when you carefully examine the facts that the absurdity of the flat Earth theory becomes apparent.

thewhitewitch1

11-02-2006, 01:53 AM

Docg...if he tried to stop her from making the call, why does she insist in every interview that he immediately told her to call 911? Is she lying for him? Why would she?

bandit's mom

11-02-2006, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Burke was interviewed Dec 26, 1996 by BPD for over an hour without the Ramsey's consent or knowledge. He was interviewed again on January 8, 1997 for appx. 2 hrs. and again 3 more times from April through June 1997.Source PM/PT. JMO

Then my gut instinct is wrong and it's one of the parents. As
I said, I just couldn't imagine staying with a spouse that
killed my child, even accidentally. But, the more I've seen of
JR and PR over the years, the more convinced I've become
that they have/had completely different thought processes than
I do. At any rate, as fascinating as the mystery is, it will
obviously never be solved. The only slim chance, IMO, would
have been a death bed confession from Patsy, but if she
made one it was obviously kept quiet. I don't see John
as the type to need to seek forgiveness and obviously
the current DA in Boulder is an even bigger idiot than
Alex Hunter as the entire world witnessed last summer.
So there will clearly be no justice for JonBenet.

Coloradokares

11-02-2006, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by FurthurBB

Hmmm ... it is possible but, really none of this is too impressive to me. Though, local politics can give you some power where you live and lockheed is mildly impressive, oil is more impressive. If he was hanging out with people from the Carlyle group or the DNC or RNC, foreign heads of state or if his son married a into the Kennedy or Dupont family that would be another thing entirely. IMO

He not only had local influence but broader he was connected politically in Georgia and Michigan if not nationally as well. However what I must say further is this. I LIVED there. I worked in Boulder living right outside that community. I knew of the Ramseys prior to JonBenets death. Everyone knew Access Graphics and Lockheed. Lockheed is not some little company. Oil is not more impressive than Lockheed. Lockheed Martin, Martin Marietta....etc. The University is powerful in that community and to the state. They had many friends that were with the University. Calls were made and names were named in PMPT. Even Governor Romer did not act consistently where this murder was concerned. If it had been someone elses child a special prosecutors office would have been convened ba da bing, Romer was a child welfare and education Governor. When our current Governor took over the gloves started to come off as he addressed the Ramseys. Quit hiding behind your attorneys and Public Relation people Come back and answer to the questions is how he publically made a statement to them he has never apologized for retracted. Yet even he failed to appoint an office of Special Prosecutor in the matter. Why? Its lame to say its budgetary. It is political whether anyone will acknowledge that or not. No one cares about this who lives in Colorado or at least in the Boulder Valley feels otherwise. Elections have come and gone One of the issues in the Govenors race will be what is the stand on the JonBenet murder. Who will appoint a special prosecutor. It might not sway the election but its a question being asked.

Coloradokares

11-02-2006, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by bandit's mom

Then my gut instinct is wrong and it's one of the parents. As
I said, I just couldn't imagine staying with a spouse that
killed my child, even accidentally. But, the more I've seen of
JR and PR over the years, the more convinced I've become
that they have/had completely different thought processes than
I do. At any rate, as fascinating as the mystery is, it will
obviously never be solved. The only slim chance, IMO, would
have been a death bed confession from Patsy, but if she
made one it was obviously kept quiet. I don't see John
as the type to need to seek forgiveness and obviously
the current DA in Boulder is an even bigger idiot than
Alex Hunter as the entire world witnessed last summer.
So there will clearly be no justice for JonBenet.

That is why its so imperative be it an itruder or Ramseys that Colorado takes the initiative to do whatever it takes to solve this crime of murder. The answers are there and have been since the beginning. Its time the irrefutable truth come out. No matter what that truth reveals. Colorado taxpayers have spent over $2,000,000.00 investigating a case that has been squelced at every turn from the time the 911 call was referred to the BPD. The Ramseys spent a fortune to either find her murderer or to hide that fact away from the public under that guise one the other. Its time JonBenet mattered. Not politics and business as usual Boulder style.

docg

11-02-2006, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Docg...if he tried to stop her from making the call, why does she insist in every interview that he immediately told her to call 911? Is she lying for him? Why would she?

Here's what she said in Tracey's 1st documentary:

Man: The ransom note said, speaking to anyone about your situation such as the police, FBI etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies.

Patsy - "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911."

That's what is known in the legal trade as a contradiction.

It looks very much like the whole story about what happened prior to the 911 call is a fabrication. The first version was put out by John, before millions of viewers, on CNN. Patsy was sitting next to him. Would you expect her to correct him, accuse him of lying? "No, John, you got it wrong, calling 911 was MY idea, you were against it." Sorry, I can't see her saying that, even if she's innocent. Nor do I see any reason for her to want to contradict John publicly on any aspect of the case unless she suspected him, which clearly she never did. If it came out that John was against making the 911 call, then their defense is considerably weakened. And remember, this is a MUTUAL defense, they are in it together, anything that weakens the case for one weakens it for both.

Obviously Patsy lied. But if she were lying because she's guilty, then how can we explain her making the 911 call knowing the body is still in the house and that her carefully crafted note will be rendered both meaningless and suspicious as soon as the body is found? We have no choice but to assume she lied because she didn't want John to look bad and contradicting his version of what happened would have in fact made both of them look bad.

Coloradokares

11-02-2006, 02:43 PM

WallyCleaver

11-02-2006, 02:52 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by docg
[/UNQUOTE]

> I have no idea how the argument went. And I agree, I see no reason for Patsy to call 911 if John had made it clear he did NOT want the call made. But the fact is: she DID make the call. Something she would NOT have done if they were both involved in staging a kidnapping.

She might have if they couldn't go through with their original plan.

> No, she couldn't possibly have been in on it. All the real evidence points away from her. It's just the fantasy stuff, the "gut" feeling Patsy HAS to have written the note, that's gotten everyone on the wrong track. Patsy is the over the top drama queen mother everyone who resented their own mother loves to hate.

LOL! And I really do mean LOL! Just because you've convinced yourself the JR wrote the note doesn't mean it's a fact. There's at least as good a chance that PR wrote.

> I didn't say she was. I said that for all we know she could have been. We have no reason to accept their story at face value. But why is it so hard for you to accept that someone can wake up at 4 AM? I do that all the time.

It's not hard to accept someone getting up at 4, but what we're really talking about is getting up before JR gets done with his business. Under your scenario, that couldn't possibly happen. So when do you think JR finished up? If the shower signals the end of "business" then she couldn't have gotten up much sooner.

> If she were up all night she'd have been sure to change. The fact that she had the same clothes on is just one more piece of evidence in her favor. John was the one who showered and changed.

Wow. I hope you have a jury of contrarians to sell that to. Most non-murderers get up in the morning and take a shower and put on clean clothes, so nothing suspicious in JR's behavior. When a wealthy woman with a closet full of clothes, one who's a former beauty queen, wears the same thing two days in a row, it arrouses suspicion.

> It looks that way, yes. So what? You win some, you lose some.

OK.

> I don't see that as a weakness. I see it as a strength. Because recognizing that possibility could be a key to solving the case. This is not a game of Clue or a mystery novel. The solution doesn't have to be convincing, just correct. If we accept that possibility, however unlikely it may seem, and follow all the consequences step by step, we see a clear path to a solution. Every other scenario runs very quickly into a dead end.

So for you, any weakness in the theory is actually a strength because recognizing the weakness helps us accept the solution. Ooookayyyyy.

I don't see why them being in on it together runs into a dead end.

> We simply don't know what happened. Maybe he DID run and grab her. Maybe it was his determination that the call NOT be made that caused her to fear him. Maybe she called 911 because she felt vulnerable at that moment. Get real, Wally, there was a phone on every floor of the house. There's no way he could have prevented her from lifting one of those phones and dialing 911.

Get real yourself. You start out with a theory that PR is completely ignorant of JR's involvement. Now you are implying she was afraid of him. If she feared him, that means she suspected him. If she suspected him, why would she lie for him?

I agree he couldn't physically stop her, but he certainly needed to make her believe her child would be killed if she called the police. That he apparently didn't do. But like you said, you win some you loose some.

> Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. It's also hard to swallow that the Earth revolves around the Sun, not vice versa.

Actually that's not hard to swallow.

> Well, this is the weak point in YOUR theory, Wally. If Patsy wanted to call 911, she had a phone on every floor to do that with. Unless he tied her to the bed, there's no way he could have prevented her from making that call.

Again, we aren't talking about preventing her physically, but rather by convincing her of the danger of calling.

Basically your theory is that PR didn't know about JR's involvment, yet she didn't believe the note, yet she never suspects JR, yet she might have been afraid of him. Let me know if you want me to throw you a rope.

> It's the part everyone has trouble swallowing, yes. The flat Earth is easy to see, the reality isn't. It's only when you carefully examine the facts that the absurdity of the flat Earth theory becomes apparent.

It's a cleaver little debate trick, but it doesn't wash.
There is nothing "flat earth" about recognizing that in your scenario it is absoultely crucial that PR not call 911. Yet, she did, and it doesn't seem JR tried very hard to stop her.

thewhitewitch1

11-02-2006, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by docg

Here's what she said in Tracey's 1st documentary:

Man: The ransom note said, speaking to anyone about your situation such as the police, FBI etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies.

Patsy - "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911."

That's what is known in the legal trade as a contradiction.

It looks very much like the whole story about what happened prior to the 911 call is a fabrication. The first version was put out by John, before millions of viewers, on CNN. Patsy was sitting next to him. Would you expect her to correct him, accuse him of lying? "No, John, you got it wrong, calling 911 was MY idea, you were against it." Sorry, I can't see her saying that, even if she's innocent. Nor do I see any reason for her to want to contradict John publicly on any aspect of the case unless she suspected him, which clearly she never did. If it came out that John was against making the 911 call, then their defense is considerably weakened. And remember, this is a MUTUAL defense, they are in it together, anything that weakens the case for one weakens it for both.

Obviously Patsy lied. But if she were lying because she's guilty, then how can we explain her making the 911 call knowing the body is still in the house and that her carefully crafted note will be rendered both meaningless and suspicious as soon as the body is found? We have no choice but to assume she lied because she didn't want John to look bad and contradicting his version of what happened would have in fact made both of them look bad.

I see your point but I don't believe that the CNN interview was the first time they had told someone what transpired prior to the 911 call. I'm sure the BPD questioned them on it and as far as I know, the story has always been that John told her to call 911. It's funny how the story changed to her telling him she was going to call from him telling her to do it.
I don't see that it matters all that much if Patsy knew and was involved in the murder that the body was still in the house. The ransom note had to be written just to explain the body period, regardless of where it was found. To not have any explaination of JBs disapearance at all would have looked pretty incriminating towards the Ramseys anyway. IMO
If JR had tried to stop PR from calling the police, one would think that would cast suspicion on him from her, don't you think? There was no gaurentee that she wouldn't have just picked up the phone and called them right away anyway without even consulting him. In all of his interviews, he said he didn't think twice about the threats and calling 911. If he had tried to stop Patsy, don't you think him lying about it to LE would have sent up some red flags with her? I don't believe she had nothing to do with it, knows HE did and would cover for him. No way.
How did the fibers from her sweater (or gee...is it her jacket?) get in the garrote, on the tape and in the paint tray? Why didn't she touch the ransom note; chosing instead to hover over it to read? How did she know to tell the 911 operator how it was signed when she had only read the first couple of lines? Why did she change her story so many times about her dealings with the ransom note? If she had to lie about so many things, if she wasn't involved, she had to be lying for JR. Why would she do that if she didn't know that he was involved? She "forgets" things or changes her story around so much to fit the facts and evidence that there is no way on earth that she had no idea what went on that night. Unless JR came up with some great story, I don't believe for one second that she would cover for him.
You have a great theory, Docg, and I respect it immensely but like every other theory, yours has unanswerable questions. IMO

thewhitewitch1

11-02-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

By allowing Burke to be "whisked away with friends", they lost all control over what the 9 year old would say to those friends. The same applies to their sending him back to school where he would be certain to be questioned by the other children. The Ramseys claim they sent him away on the 26th because they didn't know what horrors the day would hold and didn't want Burke to experience them. A wise decision, as it turned out.

MOO

Either that or they did know.

WallyCleaver

11-02-2006, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I see your point but I don't believe that the CNN interview was the first time they had told someone what transpired prior to the 911 call. I'm sure the BPD questioned them on it and as far as I know, the story has always been that John told her to call 911. It's funny how the story changed to her telling him she was going to call from him telling her to do it.
I don't see that it matters all that much if Patsy knew and was involved in the murder that the body was still in the house. The ransom note had to be written just to explain the body period, regardless of where it was found. To not have any explaination of JBs disapearance at all would have looked pretty incriminating towards the Ramseys anyway. IMO
If JR had tried to stop PR from calling the police, one would think that would cast suspicion on him from her, don't you think? There was no gaurentee that she wouldn't have just picked up the phone and called them right away anyway without even consulting him. In all of his interviews, he said he didn't think twice about the threats and calling 911. If he had tried to stop Patsy, don't you think him lying about it to LE would have sent up some red flags with her? I don't believe she had nothing to do with it, knows HE did and would cover for him. No way.
How did the fibers from her sweater (or gee...is it her jacket?) get in the garrote, on the tape and in the paint tray? Why didn't she touch the ransom note; chosing instead to hover over it to read? How did she know to tell the 911 operator how it was signed when she had only read the first couple of lines? Why did she change her story so many times about her dealings with the ransom note? If she had to lie about so many things, if she wasn't involved, she had to be lying for JR. Why would she do that if she didn't know that he was involved? She "forgets" things or changes her story around so much to fit the facts and evidence that there is no way on earth that she had no idea what went on that night. Unless JR came up with some great story, I don't believe for one second that she would cover for him.
You have a great theory, Docg, and I respect it immensely but like every other theory, yours has unanswerable questions. IMO

I gree with you.

I think docg's theory is good too. It's his insistance that it MUST be correct that makes me want to argue against it.

nuisanceposter

11-02-2006, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Either that or they did know.

I think they did know, or else they would not have risked their other child's saftey and life like that. If they had actually thought this was a real kidnapping, I don't think Patsy would have allowed Burke to leave to go anywhere.

shill

11-02-2006, 04:51 PM

If someone really wanted to get some money by kidnapping someone, the Ramseys would be a good choice.
You certainly wouldn't choose someone flipping burgers at McDonalds.
It's ironic that in the movie "Ransom" that was playing at the time in Boulder, Mel Gibsons character flies planes and drives a Jaguar just like John.

Coloradokares

11-02-2006, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I think they did know, or else they would not have risked their other child's saftey and life like that. If they had actually thought this was a real kidnapping, I don't think Patsy would have allowed Burke to leave to go anywhere.

It was said in PMPT that Burke was sent so that he couldn't perhaps slip up if the police interviewed him as to where his sister was. However in DOI they said to protect him from whatever horrors the day might hold. Remember however as he was taken to the Whites . They did Not know nor grant permission for Burke to be interviewed over there. They were stunned when they found out that had occured and became even more aggressive in protecting Burke from the possiblity that would occur again. Through the attorneys they made it clear that would NOT happen twice. They set the terms of the next interview which came as we all are aware much later on down the road. Is their any significance to that beyond protection only they could answer to that . Would anyone believe them if they did answer to that. Could anyone believe them if they did answer to that? That is a million dollar question isn't it.

bandit's mom

11-02-2006, 06:37 PM

I could maybe buy that they were concerned what effect
questioning could have on Burke, even if they were innocent.
Maybe. What I cannot understand is that they themselves
were so uncooperative. I also agree that if they really believed
JB had been murdered by the ever popular "intruder" they would
not have let Burke out of their sight. The knew full well Burke
wasn't at risk.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Coloradokares
[B]

It was said in PMPT that Burke was sent so that he couldn't perhaps slip up if the police interviewed him as to where his sister was. However in DOI they said to protect him from whatever horrors the day might hold. Remember however as he was taken to the Whites . They did Not know nor grant permission for Burke to be interviewed over there. They were stunned when they found out that had occured and became even more aggressive in protecting Burke from the possiblity that would occur again.

sweetcharlotte

11-02-2006, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

It was said in PMPT that Burke was sent so that he couldn't perhaps slip up if the police interviewed him as to where his sister was
<snip>

I don't think so.......

He was interviewed on the 26th for about an hour by BPD. JMO

Athena

11-02-2006, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

It was said in PMPT that Burke was sent so that he couldn't perhaps slip up if the police interviewed him as to where his sister was. However in DOI they said to protect him from whatever horrors the day might hold. Remember however as he was taken to the Whites . They did Not know nor grant permission for Burke to be interviewed over there. They were stunned when they found out that had occured and became even more aggressive in protecting Burke from the possiblity that would occur again. Through the attorneys they made it clear that would NOT happen twice. They set the terms of the next interview which came as we all are aware much later on down the road. Is their any significance to that beyond protection only they could answer to that . Would anyone believe them if they did answer to that. Could anyone believe them if they did answer to that? That is a million dollar question isn't it.

Another request Colorado..... for a few days now you have been saying that you don't have your books or you don't have access to them so you can't provide a link. But I would surely like to know the page # of PMPT where it says Burke was sent to the Whites so he wouldn't slip up about his sister. I am one that checks and verifies statements and I can't find it (not saying I couldn't have missed it) but statements made without links is extremely frustrating and it appears that a couple of them have been incorrect. No I don't expect you to go to the library however if you are not sure about a statement you really shouldn't make it.

Burke was interviewed at the Whites without the permission of the Ramseys and that is stated in PMPT.

JMO

Athena

11-02-2006, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I don't think so.......

He was interviewed on the 26th for about an hour by BPD. JMO

LOL - totally missed your response before I answered.

thewhitewitch1

11-02-2006, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I don't think so.......

He was interviewed on the 26th for about an hour by BPD. JMO

I believe that prior to calling 911, the Ramseys had plenty of time to tell Burke what or what not to say. If anyone here believes that Burke woke up after hearing all of the screaming and commotion and stayed in his room without trying to see what was going on....well...I have some swampland in Boulder I'd like to sell you. IMO

Athena

11-02-2006, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I believe that prior to calling 911, the Ramseys had plenty of time to tell Burke what or what not to say. If anyone here believes that Burke woke up after hearing all of the screaming and commotion and stayed in his room without trying to see what was going on....well...I have some swampland in Boulder I'd like to sell you. IMO

OK how much because I believe Burke knows nothing and as a mom I would not rely on my 9 year old son or daughter to keep a story straight nor would I put either one of them in that position. JMO

sweetcharlotte

11-02-2006, 09:33 PM

Coloradokares

11-02-2006, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I don't think so.......

He was interviewed on the 26th for about an hour by BPD. JMO

I am picking up the book again tomorrow at the library. He was interviewed at the Whites on the 26th. Not in the presense of John or Patsy Ramsey nor did they learn of it till after the fact. Let me read till I get to the page number once again. Then If I am wrong I'll bake my own humble pie. Eat the first slice as well.

Coloradokares

11-02-2006, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

All I can say is that Burke must have been an exceptional 9 - 11 year old..............lol

Yes he was 9 years old. Not even 10 yet. Exceptional why? He was actually a very shy child.

sweetcharlotte

11-02-2006, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Yes he was 9 years old. Not even 10 yet. Exceptional why? He was actually a very shy child.

I believe he was 9 when JonBenet was murdered. I think he was 11 when he testified before the GJ. Exceptional? He was interviewed for over 8 hours and didn't reveal anything anyone could use against his parents or him. Yep, exceptional young man - IF he knows as much as some people seem to think. JMO

Athena

11-02-2006, 10:10 PM

Ames

11-02-2006, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by docg
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WallyCleaver
[B] [/UNQUOTE]

>So the argument went something like this-

I have no idea how the argument went. And I agree, I see no reason for Patsy to call 911 if John had made it clear he did NOT want the call made. But the fact is: she DID make the call. Something she would NOT have done if they were both involved in staging a kidnapping.

<snipped>

But in the book DOI, she said that John TOLD her to call 911. Is she lying about that too???

docg

11-02-2006, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I gree with you.

I think docg's theory is good too. It's his insistance that it MUST be correct that makes me want to argue against it.

The bottom line for me is the 911 call. I can't see Patsy making that call if she is involved in the murder and/or coverup. It totally contradicts the whole point of the note. This is a HUGE obstacle to any RDI theory because it goes to the very heart of the case. No prosecutor could possibly get a conviction if he were unable to explain why two people who had written a phoney ransom note would then agree to call the cops on themselves with the body in the house as evidence that there was no kidnapping and the note is therefor phoney. If you really believe that then I suggest you go over to the dark side and opt for IDI.

And if for some reason they couldn't dump the body, as Wally suggests, then it would have been sheer folly for them to stick with the note anyhow. With the body in the house, the note does NOTHING for them. And if, as you say, it's so obvious that Patsy wrote it, then why on Earth would she want to hand it over to the police for no reason?

On the other hand, most people do find it hard to accept that an innocent Patsy would want to lie for John and that his deceptions wouldn't have made her suspicious.

This, as I see it, is the central contradiction of the RDI position. If you can't accept that Patsy would lie for John, then there's no point in suspecting either of them. You are better off switching to IDI. If both of them agreed to make that call then both of them must be innocent. It's that simple. And if you don't believe me, picture yourself as a prosecutor trying to convince a jury otherwise.

WallyCleaver

11-02-2006, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Athena

...

Burke was interviewed at the Whites without the permission of the Ramseys and that is stated in PMPT.

JMO

Did the police need the R's permission?

sweetcharlotte

11-02-2006, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Athena

:beer:

I have really enjoyed your posts and I appreciate the fact that you post links as appropriate. :seeya:

Ames

11-02-2006, 10:26 PM

DOCG...ignore the question about Patsy lying when it came to the 911 call. I just missed your response to TWW...she had the same question as I did....sorry about that. No need to post your reply again.

Ames

11-02-2006, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I believe that prior to calling 911, the Ramseys had plenty of time to tell Burke what or what not to say. If anyone here believes that Burke woke up after hearing all of the screaming and commotion and stayed in his room without trying to see what was going on....well...I have some swampland in Boulder I'd like to sell you. IMO

HA HA..I agree with you. Hope you have plenty of swampland...because I have a feeling that people are going to be lining up to buy it.

sweetcharlotte

11-02-2006, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I believe that prior to calling 911, the Ramseys had plenty of time to tell Burke what or what not to say. If anyone here believes that Burke woke up after hearing all of the screaming and commotion and stayed in his room without trying to see what was going on....well...I have some swampland in Boulder I'd like to sell you. IMO

So you have swampland in Boulder. Why am I not surprised? JMO

thewhitewitch1

11-02-2006, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by Athena

OK how much because I believe Burke knows nothing and as a mom I would not rely on my 9 year old son or daughter to keep a story straight nor would I put either one of them in that position. JMO

I don't think he knew much of anything...just that something was up. That's even assuming that there was all of the yelling and commotion prior to the dramatic 911 call. You all KNOW he was awake because it's been proven that he was. Why would he just stay in his bedroom if he heard his parents up and about knowing that they were leaving on a trip very soon that morning?
The kid had to know something was wrong.
I don't think the Ramseys were so worried about what he might "spill" because I don't think he knew that they had his sisters body stashed in the basement. I think they wanted him out of the house before her body was found. I also find it reasonable that they sent him out of the house so he wouldn't have to deal with all that was going on....but I think they should have requested police protection for him. Wouldn't you have? Nope, I don't think they asked for it because they knew he didn't need it. IMO

WallyCleaver

11-02-2006, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by docg

The bottom line for me is the 911 call. I can't see Patsy making that call if she is involved in the murder and/or coverup. It totally contradicts the whole point of the note. This is a HUGE obstacle to any RDI theory because it goes to the very heart of the case. No prosecutor could possibly get a conviction if he were unable to explain why two people who had written a phoney ransom note would then agree to call the cops on themselves with the body in the house as evidence that there was no kidnapping and the note is therefor phoney. If you really believe that then I suggest you go over to the dark side and opt for IDI.

And if for some reason they couldn't dump the body, as Wally suggests, then it would have been sheer folly for them to stick with the note anyhow. With the body in the house, the note does NOTHING for them. And if, as you say, it's so obvious that Patsy wrote it, then why on Earth would she want to hand it over to the police for no reason?

On the other hand, most people do find it hard to accept that an innocent Patsy would want to lie for John and that his deceptions wouldn't have made her suspicious.

This, as I see it, is the central contradiction of the RDI position. If you can't accept that Patsy would lie for John, then there's no point in suspecting either of them. You are better off switching to IDI. If both of them agreed to make that call then both of them must be innocent. It's that simple. And if you don't believe me, picture yourself as a prosecutor trying to convince a jury otherwise.

I have to agree that the note makes the most sense if JR was planning to get rid of the body.

I wouldn't argue with you so much if you weren't so insistant on being right. You may be right, but it's a wierd case so any of us could be wrong.

The RN, IMO, makes no sense at all from any IDI perspective.

I still think it's a problem that JR let PR make that call.

Clearly PR reacted in one of two ways -

1) She called within moments of realizing it was a ransom note. This is understandable and foreseeable. JR could have at least reduced the likelihood of this happening. Had he placed the RN on JB's bed ( a very logical place for a RN) , he could well have been in the kitchen by the time PR found it (when she went in to wake JB) He'd have been in a position to read it (pretend to) and prevent PR from making the call, even by physical force. Then he'd show her the part about the beheading, etc. Hopefully, from JR's point of view, that would convince her not to call 911. And you're right, he couldn't stop her from calling at all w/o arrousing her suspiscion, so lets not argue about that. But he could have stopped her at least once, on the pretense he was concerned about the threats.

2) JR could have gone over the note with her, but she thought it better to call 911 anyway. If this is what happened, then it shows she didn't believe the note, even though she understood the threats made. If she didn't suspect JR, why wouldn't she believe the note? She totally disregards the threats.

I think the first scenario is more likely, and if you want to say JR simply didn't plan well, or was too confident that PR would take the note at face value - or read it in full before reacting, then OK. But I think you can see why many people would regard that as a bit weak, given the overwhelming importance of preventing a 911 call. Much better I think to place himself between PR and a phone.

Lastly what do you make of PR watching the cops through splayed fingers? That seems suspicious to me; as if she want's to see if the act is being "bought". If she's really innocent she wouldn't care how the police were reacting to her.

WallyCleaver

11-02-2006, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I don't think he knew much of anything...just that something was up. That's even assuming that there was all of the yelling and commotion prior to the dramatic 911 call. You all KNOW he was awake because it's been proven that he was. Why would he just stay in his bedroom if he heard his parents up and about knowing that they were leaving on a trip very soon that morning?
The kid had to know something was wrong.
I don't think the Ramseys were so worried about what he might "spill" because I don't think he knew that they had his sisters body stashed in the basement. I think they wanted him out of the house before her body was found. I also find it reasonable that they sent him out of the house so he wouldn't have to deal with all that was going on....but I think they should have requested police protection for him. Wouldn't you have? Nope, I don't think they asked for it because they knew he didn't need it. IMO

I'm RDI but I've always had trouble with this notion that Burke was in some great danger by going to the Whites.

It's not like he was going to the vacant lot to play by himself. He was going to the home of trusted friends who'd keep him under constant supervision. Even if JB's body wasn't in the house (e.g. it was plausible a kidnapping actually took place) it doens't seem likely the kidnapper would have struck again. Even if he would have, the R's house is where he'd be looking for Burke. Better to have him elsewhere.

But as it is, the body was in the house. Therefore even if it was an intruder (and it wasn't) they knew there was no kidnapper. Therefore there is little to protect Burke from.

Ames

11-02-2006, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

<snipped>
Lastly what do you make of PR watching the cops through splayed fingers? That seems suspicious to me; as if she want's to see if the act is being "bought". If she's really innocent she wouldn't care how the police were reacting to her.

This is something that has always bothered me too, and apparently the investigator that saw her doing it.

thewhitewitch1

11-02-2006, 11:09 PM

WallyCleaver

11-02-2006, 11:23 PM

Athena

11-03-2006, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Did the police need the R's permission?

I can't even believe I typed that. That should have read without their knowledge not permission.

In NY parents of any child under 16 have to be notified by the police except in cases of suspected child abuse. They can question them if every attempt to notify the parents has been done but anything they say has to be recorded and their statements cannot be held against them.

I do not know what the state of Colorado's law is -- I believe there are about 20 states that require parental notification. JMO

Athena

11-03-2006, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I have really enjoyed your posts and I appreciate the fact that you post links as appropriate. :seeya:

Thanks much sweet....! It's been real. Unfortunately unless new evidence is revealed in this case, my time on this board is coming to an end. Waiting to hear more on the Jason Midyette case -- but that is at a standstill right now. Until we meet again.......

Stay sweet!!! ;)

shill

11-03-2006, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by Athena

I can't even believe I typed that. That should have read without their knowledge not permission.

In NY parents of any child under 16 have to be notified by the police except in cases of suspected child abuse. They can question them if every attempt to notify the parents has been done but anything they say has to be recorded and their statements cannot be held against them.

I do not know what the state of Colorado's law is -- I believe there are about 20 states that require parental notification. JMO I think the police could easily say they thought this was a case of suspected child abuse.

nuisanceposter

11-03-2006, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I believe he was 9 when JonBenet was murdered. I think he was 11 when he testified before the GJ. Exceptional? He was interviewed for over 8 hours and didn't reveal anything anyone could use against his parents or him. Yep, exceptional young man - IF he knows as much as some people seem to think. JMO

Except for when he contradicted his parents' story, saying JonBenet had been awake when they got home Christmas night, and walked into the house and up the stairs ahead of their mother.

Personally, I don't think Burke knows anything about what really happened to his baby sister.

sweetcharlotte

11-03-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Except for when he contradicted his parents' story, saying JonBenet had been awake when they got home Christmas night, and walked into the house and up the stairs ahead of their mother.

Personally, I don't think Burke knows anything about what really happened to his baby sister.

But even Steve Thomas thought Burke was "confused" when questioned about that evening. :)

nuisanceposter

11-03-2006, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

But even Steve Thomas thought Burke was "confused" when questioned about that evening. :)

And that's Thomas's opinion. Where does the confusion end? Maybe Burke was confused during the entire interview, and nothing he said can be replied upon.

LindaA

11-03-2006, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

And that's Thomas's opinion. Where does the confusion end? Maybe Burke was confused during the entire interview, and nothing he said can be replied upon.

Exactly. I think the point is that Thomas, the "King of the RDIs" , had to concede that Burke's memories were unreliable.

docg

11-03-2006, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

On the contrary, Docg....it's precisely the fact that they called 911 with the body still in the house that saved them. Who would suspect them if they called for help? I still believe the ransom note had to have been written. If it wasn't, what then? They call 911, the police do a search of the house, find the body and who do you think they are going to suspect right away? The ransom note was written to throw suspicion from themselves. You can't make such a big deal out of the handwriting because obviously it couldn't be conclusively matched to either of them.
It is only your opinion that there is no point in suspecting either one of them if they both agreed to make the call. I think they were both in on it from the start. Your version makes sense to you but it doesn't necessarily make sense to everyone; nor does it make it the only way it could have happened. You have no way of knowing that; just like the rest of us have no way of knowing whether what we think is right or not.

If they are both guilty, then yes the ransom note has helped them. But ONLY because the "experts" ruled John out and decided it was unlikely that Patsy wrote it. When the 911 call was made they'd have had no way of knowing those "experts" would be so inept. Handing the authorities a patently phoney ransom note printed IN YOUR OWN HAND is handing them evidence against you. And if they already knew the body was in the house then they knew the police would realize there'd been no kidnapping and the note was phoney. Why go to all that trouble to stage a phoney kidnapping when it was obvious there was none?

And no, this is not only my opinion. It is common sense applied to solid evidence. We can only speculate regarding whose decision it was to make that call. We can only speculate regarding Patsy's reasons for making the call despite the warnings in the note. We can only speculate on why Patsy might want to cover for John despite her innocence. But we need not speculate regarding the 911 call. We know for a fact it was made by Patsy, NOT John. And simple common sense tells us she would NOT have made that call if she'd written the note.

bullmoose

11-03-2006, 03:22 PM

To docg: I could not have put it so well as you did, but I totally agree with your logic. Patsy Ramsey absolutely did not write that note; whether a person is an IDI or an RDI the logic is overwhelming: there was no way on earth that on the morning Jonbenet's body was found, that Patsy could have had any idea what handwriting 'experts' would conclude about the 'ransom' note. So it is, IMO ludicrous to think she wrote it.

Coloradokares

11-03-2006, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Another request Colorado..... for a few days now you have been saying that you don't have your books or you don't have access to them so you can't provide a link. But I would surely like to know the page # of PMPT where it says Burke was sent to the Whites so he wouldn't slip up about his sister. I am one that checks and verifies statements and I can't find it (not saying I couldn't have missed it) but statements made without links is extremely frustrating and it appears that a couple of them have been incorrect. No I don't expect you to go to the library however if you are not sure about a statement you really shouldn't make it.

Burke was interviewed at the Whites without the permission of the Ramseys and that is stated in PMPT.

JMO

On another thread I saw a post by you that said no you would not provide the link and to look it up to whom you were addressing. !!!! Now I provide information from my personal handwritten notes taken while reading PMPT ( admittedly I didn't realize when I read the book I'd be in a forum requiring page numbers ( embarassed yes intentionally misleading NO!!)
I went to the Library they will get the book in for me once again. I have my handwritten notes here. I suppose its always a possiblity that I wrote a personal thought or observation but that would not be my norm unless I put my thought in the margins as such. How would you feel if the accusation you made was leveled toward you. Not cool. I think actually what I state was he was interviewed without the Ramseys knowledge. When they found out there were not happy campers and closed that vulnerability to occur again with their attorneys. I may have omitted where it was Burke was interviewed. I also said since I don't have the book here. I would gladly bake and eat the first slice of humble pie if I was in error. I would never intentionally post misleading info. However there is conflicting and contradictory information out in the public domain. It is subjective on whose information you would consider valid. Even the Ramseys have contradicted in testimony or interview information answered otherwise in a prior testimony or interview. That was proven in this forum was it yesterday. Regards whose idea it was to call 911. :shrug: No one is perfect. However just because I am willing to entertain till proven either way in a court of law that the Ramseys may have had either knowledge or guilt does not make me intentionally misleading or evasive. I don't own the books. I think its wrong to profit from JonBenets death be you a parent or otherwise.

shill

11-03-2006, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

I don't own the books. I think its wrong to profit from JonBenets death be you a parent or otherwise. Best quote yet!:beer:

sweetcharlotte

11-03-2006, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by shill
Best quote yet!:beer:

If people didn't profit from their books, I doubt many would be written. JMO

Athena

11-03-2006, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

On another thread I saw a post by you that said no you would not provide the link and to look it up to whom you were addressing. !!!! Now I provide information from my personal handwritten notes taken while reading PMPT ( admittedly I didn't realize when I read the book I'd be in a forum requiring page numbers ( embarassed yes intentionally misleading NO!!)
I went to the Library they will get the book in for me once again. I have my handwritten notes here. I suppose its always a possiblity that I wrote a personal thought or observation but that would not be my norm unless I put my thought in the margins as such. How would you feel if the accusation you made was leveled toward you. Not cool. I think actually what I state was he was interviewed without the Ramseys knowledge. When they found out there were not happy campers and closed that vulnerability to occur again with their attorneys. I may have omitted where it was Burke was interviewed. I also said since I don't have the book here. I would gladly bake and eat the first slice of humble pie if I was in error. I would never intentionally post misleading info. However there is conflicting and contradictory information out in the public domain. It is subjective on whose information you would consider valid. Even the Ramseys have contradicted in testimony or interview information answered otherwise in a prior testimony or interview. That was proven in this forum was it yesterday. Regards whose idea it was to call 911. :shrug: No one is perfect. However just because I am willing to entertain till proven either way in a court of law that the Ramseys may have had either knowledge or guilt does not make me intentionally misleading or evasive. I don't own the books. I think its wrong to profit from JonBenets death be you a parent or otherwise.

You took my quote out of context re: not providing a link. I realize you haven't been posting on this thread for long but I can assure you everything I have posted on this board has been supported by a link. The post to which you are referencing is beause I have REPEATEDLY provided a link to the very same question that was asked and I said I wasn't going to type it yet again. Out of most of the posters on the thread I would venture to guess that I provide more links and research than anyone else. JMHO

What you posted above is not what I was referring to. This is the specific statement I was referring to that I copied from the first sentence of your post. Before asking for a link I looked for it and that statement nor anything close to it was made in PMPT. JMO

Originally posted by Coloradokares:

"It was said in PMPT that Burke was sent so that he couldn't perhaps slip up if the police interviewed him as to where his sister was."

thewhitewitch1

11-03-2006, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To docg: I could not have put it so well as you did, but I totally agree with your logic. Patsy Ramsey absolutely did not write that note; whether a person is an IDI or an RDI the logic is overwhelming: there was no way on earth that on the morning Jonbenet's body was found, that Patsy could have had any idea what handwriting 'experts' would conclude about the 'ransom' note. So it is, IMO ludicrous to think she wrote it.

Bullmoose, you could apply that logic the other way as well. If she had no idea what the handwriting "experts" would conclude about the note, then it is also very possible that she wrote it. I believe the Ramseys wrote it together.
Because there was an attempt to disguise the writing and because it was written with a Sharpie pen, which would have distorted the writing even more, I don't think you can conclusively say that there "is no way" or that it is ludicrous to say that she wrote it. I know that is your opinion and you stated that but nothing is out of the realm of possiblility. Her making the 911 call does not mean that she wasn't involved either. Who better to make the call and make it sound authentic than her? I doubt if JR could have mustered up the hysteria like she did.
What some of you seem to forget is that if this was indeed an accident and they had to cover up, they would NOT be thinking clearly and logically and "common sense" would fly right out the window. I believe neither one of the Ramseys went to bed that night, so if you put the lack of sleep together with the horrible thing that had happened, you'd have to think that a lot of mistakes would have been made. IMO
Docg...I know you've posted this before, but if JR acted alone, as you believe...what do you think his motive was?

Coloradokares

11-04-2006, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Athena

You took my quote out of context re: not providing a link. I realize you haven't been posting on this thread for long but I can assure you everything I have posted on this board has been supported by a link. The post to which you are referencing is beause I have REPEATEDLY provided a link to the very same question that was asked and I said I wasn't going to type it yet again. Out of most of the posters on the thread I would venture to guess that I provide more links and research than anyone else. JMHO

What you posted above is not what I was referring to. This is the specific statement I was referring to that I copied from the first sentence of your post. Before asking for a link I looked for it and that statement nor anything close to it was made in PMPT. JMO

Originally posted by Coloradokares:

"It was said in PMPT that Burke was sent so that he couldn't perhaps slip up if the police interviewed him as to where his sister was."

That is word for word almost what was written in my handwritten notes. Till I get the book back. I got Diddly. As I say above it could be a personal observation but if so I'd of put in margins and made note it was a personal observation. Well at least normally I would. I have the book on order from my Library again. This had to do with something to do with a tabloid reporter I think if memory is serving me. Like I say Athena I am careful to usually say JMHO but perhaps I do need to do that . You are right I probably had no idea why you'd post that regarding links. Thankyou for the explanation of that. It does make me feel at least that if taken to task at least it wasn't by a pot calling kettle.... you get the picture. I don't want or need issues but once again I will say it is not my intent to promote error. There is enough contradicting opinion and error out there without intentional misconstruence. I take this personal Athena. I lived very close to the murders. I knew of the Ramseys prior to the murder. I also had seen JonBenet and Patsy before shopping in Boulder. I passed by their home several times a week. I remember right where I was when I heard JonBenet was dead. Kind of like the Kennedy killing. I read both the Boulder Daily Camera and the RMNews each article I saw. In general I have followed the case before books were written. I could give you some names of people I know. I don't know if you'd be impressed or just say well D___N. So ....what ever that is worth. Whatever. I didn't mean to get you upset ok. But perhaps you can appreciate why when my intent was good and I'd read that other post on the other thread ....well I had obvious concerns.

shill

11-04-2006, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

What some of you seem to forget is that if this was indeed an accident and they had to cover up, they would NOT be thinking clearly and logically and "common sense" would fly right out the window. I believe neither one of the Ramseys went to bed that night, so if you put the lack of sleep together with the horrible thing that had happened, you'd have to think that a lot of mistakes would have been made. IMO
Docg...I know you've posted this before, but if JR acted alone, as you believe...what do you think his motive was?
Just the idea of them plotting a cover up shows they weren't thinking clearly.

There has been a lot posted on all the sights about how the Ramseys where behaving that morning, but I haven't read anything about them looking like they had not got any sleep or looked exausted from lack of sleep. I agree with you, if the Ramseys did this, I can't see them getting any sleep. They must have been smoking crack. (which would fit a lot of the RDI theories)

thewhitewitch1

11-04-2006, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by shill

Just the idea of them plotting a cover up shows they weren't thinking clearly.

There has been a lot posted on all the sights about how the Ramseys where behaving that morning, but I haven't read anything about them looking like they had not got any sleep or looked exausted from lack of sleep. I agree with you, if the Ramseys did this, I can't see them getting any sleep. They must have been smoking crack. (which would fit a lot of the RDI theories)

Shill, I appreciate the fact that you seem to be trying to "play nice" lately but really, can't you leave out the little digs? How does an exhausted person look? Does everyone look the same? Have you never heard of the adrenelin rush from the "fight or flight" instinct? I think you can file that in the same category as "How a grieving person is supposed to act". Nobody thinks the Ramseys were smoking crack. :rolleyes:
Most of us are trying to figure out what happened using the evidence that we have. Some theories are a bit "out there"; both IDI and RDI but nobody has the right to call them stupid, ridicule them or put words in their mouthes. Really, no matter how dumb something sounds to you, it really doesn't take much self control to pass it by with no comment. You have no idea how much of a fool you portray yourself to be when you make your snide comments. IMO

lucky13

11-04-2006, 10:47 AM

For the record, I'd like to congratulate docg for having the only theory that makes any sense. (IMO) I've yet to read another, whether it be RDI or IDI, that, from beginning to end, makes any sense.
Why is it so hard to believe that Patsy made the 911 call entirely on her own? Each interview where John & Patsy are together, John always does most of the talking.(for many reasons I'm sure) Why would he(the calm, level headed one) allow a frantic, out of breath Patsy to make the all important 911 call?? Maybe John was in the shower, waiting for the alarm to wake Patsy up. Patsy got up before the alarm went off, went downstairs, read some of the note, flew into a panic, searched JB's room & ran back downstairs, grabbed the note & called 911. Maybe she was screaming out to John as she dailed, & he(& possibly Burke) made it downstairs as Patsy was ending the call, hence the abrupt 'hang-up' on the 911 operator. Maybe Patsy's fibers were found entwined into the cord/garrote because she had styled JB's hair that day while wearing that sweater. And maybe her fibers were on the duct tape because she had fashioned a 'sling'(from duct tape & cord) for the painting that she was giving as a gift that day -while wearing the sweater. John wanted to stage JB with duct tape on her mouth & couldn't find any tape anywhere, so he removed the piece from Patsy's painting. Maybe thats why Aunt Pam removed a painting(of all things!!!) from the house right after the murder. Maybe.
MOO

docg

11-04-2006, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

<snip>

Docg...I know you've posted this before, but if JR acted alone, as you believe...what do you think his motive was?

I can't look into John Ramsey's head. All I can do is evaluate the evidence. But, since you are twisting my arm here ( :) ) I'll venture an opinion.

As I see it, all the evidence points to John doing the crime and coverup on his own. If I'm right, it's not that difficult to imagine why a father might kill his daughter -- obviously not over bedwetting or "by accident." I think he was molesting her sexually, as indicated by the signs of "chronic" damage to the vagina AND the presence of his fibers in her panties. I think he must have decided she was about to blow the whistle on him and couldn't afford to allow her to do that. I think he probably struck her on the head first, from behind, so she wouldn't "suffer" and wouldn't know who had attacked her. I think he then strangled her, either by hand or using the "garotte."

IF that's what happened I can't imagine him going to his wife, confessing the crime, and begging her to cooperate with him in a coverup. I find such a notion utterly fantastic. I think he devised a plan, involving a staged kidnapping and wrote the note as part of that plan. His motive? To avoid ruin, disgrace, prison and possibly the electric chair.

sweetcharlotte

11-04-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by docg

<snip>

AND the presence of his fibers in her panties.

<snip>

What fibers? Link please. TIA

thewhitewitch1

11-04-2006, 03:40 PM

Twisting your arm...:D Thanks for your thoughts. I respect them.
Of course, I don't agree with them but that's par for the course. ;)
I feel certain that Patsy is no innocent in this. It's obvious that someone had molested her previously and I believe that the staged "violation" was to cover that up, but at this point, I don't know if it was John, Burke or who knows? Even Patsy.
I still think the head wound was an accident. JB adored her dad by anyones account. I don't think it would have taken much to stop her from "telling" if he was molesting her. He could have simply stopped doing it and bribed her into not telling, or even threatened her. I can't see killing her as being an option.
Burke and Patsy were up sometime that night, as evidenced by that mysterious bowl of pineapple. I think it's safe to assume that JonBenet was up too. From there, I have no clue as to what transpired. I believe the housekeeper when she says that the sheets on JBs bed were not the ones she put on there just two days before, so for some reason the sheets were changed. I believe that the blanket was also washed and was taken from the dryer to "wrap" her in.
The only thing I am certain of is this was definately, as John said, "an inside job"...a very inside job. IMO

shill

11-05-2006, 05:36 AM

If the Ramseys were crack heads, no one would doubt they did this.
If you can show me they were crack heads, I'll join your RDI bandwagon.

docg

11-05-2006, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Twisting your arm...:D Thanks for your thoughts. I respect them.
Of course, I don't agree with them but that's par for the course. ;)
I feel certain that Patsy is no innocent in this. It's obvious that someone had molested her previously and I believe that the staged "violation" was to cover that up, but at this point, I don't know if it was John, Burke or who knows? Even Patsy.
I still think the head wound was an accident. JB adored her dad by anyones account. I don't think it would have taken much to stop her from "telling" if he was molesting her. He could have simply stopped doing it and bribed her into not telling, or even threatened her. I can't see killing her as being an option.
Burke and Patsy were up sometime that night, as evidenced by that mysterious bowl of pineapple. I think it's safe to assume that JonBenet was up too. From there, I have no clue as to what transpired. I believe the housekeeper when she says that the sheets on JBs bed were not the ones she put on there just two days before, so for some reason the sheets were changed. I believe that the blanket was also washed and was taken from the dryer to "wrap" her in.
The only thing I am certain of is this was definately, as John said, "an inside job"...a very inside job. IMO

The head wound is not consistent with an accident. Take a look at the horrible autopsy photo if you can stand it. This was a tremendous, carefully aimed, blow that literally cracked her skull open. And for all we know he DID try to bribe and threaten her. Maybe that didn't work. Again, we have no way of reading John's mind. But we DO know JonBenet was murdered, we DO know there was no intruder, and, given the 911 call (plus other evidence), it's very difficult to see how Patsy could be involved -- or why she'd WANT to be involved. Burke could not have delivered such a massive blow, nor could he have written the note. That leaves only one suspect.

Patsy's prints on the pineapple bowl mean nothing. She's the one who took it out of the dishwasher and placed it in the cupboard, so why wouldn't her prints be on it? Burke's prints could have gotten there in any number of ways. Maybe he helped her put the dishes away.

It WAS an inside job, I agree with you on that.

docg

11-05-2006, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

What fibers? Link please. TIA

Patsy and John were both questioned regarding this very damaging piece of evidence in the last interviews they provided to the authorities, in 2000. Their lawyer would not permit them to respond. You can find these at the acandyrose website.

rashomon

11-05-2006, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by docg

Burke could not have delivered such a massive blow, nor could he have written the note. That leaves only one suspect.

It WAS an inside job, I agree with you on that.
I doubt that it would take trememdous force to crack the skull of a six-year-old child, especially when you are wielding an instrument like e. g. a golf club or a heavy flashlight. But I don't think Burke had anything to do with JB'd death.

But since the note was quite obviously written by Patsy, this links her to he staging of the scene, if not to much more:

http://www.acandyrose.com/02182003dh911motion.pdf

The similarities betwen the ransom note and Patsy's handwriting are striking. A must-read!

I addition, the whole ransom note has Patsy's drama queen style written all over it.

Then there is the totally incriminating fiber evidence against Patsy: fibers from the jacket she wore to the Whites' party were found in the wrappings of the garrote, on the sticky side of the duct tape, in the paint tote and on the blanket which covered JB.

And fibers from John's shirt were found in the crotch area of the size 12 panties JB was wearing.

It was indeed an inside job: imo both John and Patsy were involved in this up to their neck.

docg

11-05-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

I doubt that it would take trememdous force to crack the skull of a six-year-old child, especially when you are wielding an instrument like e. g. a golf club or a heavy flashlight. But I don't think Burke had anything to do with JB'd death.

But since the note was quite obviously written by Patsy, this links her to he staging of the scene, if not to much more:

http://www.acandyrose.com/02182003dh911motion.pdf

The similarities betwen the ransom note and Patsy's handwriting are striking. A must-read!

I addition, the whole ransom note has Patsy's drama queen style written all over it.

Then there is the totally incriminating fiber evidence against Patsy: fibers from the jacket she wore to the Whites' party were found in the wrappings of the garrote, on the sticky side of the duct tape, in the paint tote and on the blanket which covered JB.

And fibers from John's shirt were found in the crotch area of the size 12 panties JB was wearing.

It was indeed an inside job: imo both John and Patsy were involved in this up to their neck.

Gee, I thought the note was "quite obviously" written by Karr. :shrug:

While all the many printing comparisons we've seen are interesting (including the ones at Brugnatelli's website, featuring John's exemplars) it's impossible to determine a match simply by compairing one person's exemplars with the note. I'm sure you could find "striking" similarities between all sorts of people's printing if you looked hard enough. The BPD, CBI and Secret Service "experts" who examined Patsy's printing and also studied many other exemplars from other "persons of interest," were not able to conclude she wrote the note. Other "experts" hired by Darnay Hoffmann did so conclude, but on the basis of pitifully inadequate exemplars.

More significant, Patsy had no reason to write such a note. It never did anything for her and never could have done anything for her. All it did was cast suspicion on her. It certainly didn't convince anyone a kidnapping had taken place!

Patsy's fibers could easily have transferred to JonBenet, with whom she'd been in close contact. It stands to reason they could have then been transferred to the crime scene via the victim herself. There is no reason to suspect Patsy.

shill

11-05-2006, 03:38 PM

rashomon

11-05-2006, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by docg

Gee, I thought the note was "quite obviously" written by Karr. :shrug:

While all the many printing comparisons we've seen are interesting (including the ones at Brugnatelli's website, featuring John's exemplars) it's impossible to determine a match simply by compairing one person's exemplars with the note. I'm sure you could find "striking" similarities between all sorts of people's printing if you looked hard enough. The BPD, CBI and Secret Service "experts" who examined Patsy's printing and also studied many other exemplars from other "persons of interest," were not able to conclude she wrote the note. Other "experts" hired by Darnay Hoffmann did so conclude, but on the basis of pitifully inadequate exemplars.

More significant, Patsy had no reason to write such a note. It never did anything for her and never could have done anything for her. All it did was cast suspicion on her. It certainly didn't convince anyone a kidnapping had taken place!

Patsy's fibers could easily have transferred to JonBenet, with whom she'd been in close contact. It stands to reason they could have then been transferred to the crime scene via the victim herself. There is no reason to suspect Patsy.
There is every reason to suspect Patsy. You mentioned the incriminatig fibers pointing to John, but at the same time downplay the equally damaging fiber evidence implicating Patsy.
How did fibers from Pasty's clothing get transferred inside the wrappings of the garrote handle? And into the paint tote and on the duct tape? Who would do painting with her party clothes on? Patsy denied having been down in the wine cellar, still fibers from clothes which she had been wearing on that fatal night were found there.

You say Patsy had no reason to write the note, and that it never did anything for her. But the same applies to John. What reason had he to write it? What would it do for him? Suppose John wrote it, did the note convince anyone that a kidnapping had taken place? Of course not. The note pointed to someone belonging to the Ramsey household.

I don't think that either of the Ramseys could have carried out all that staging for hours without the other one becoming aware of what was going on. Most people wake up at least once during the night, and what would either Patsy or John have thought if their spouse was not on their side of the bed? Wouldn't they have gone looking?

The forensic evidence found at the crime scene links both Ramseys to the staging of the scene. The only reason why the GJ did not indict them was because they could not prove which of them had actually killed JonBenet.

Patsy btw was among the few people who could not be ruled out as the author of the ransom note.

sweetcharlotte

11-05-2006, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by docg

Patsy and John were both questioned regarding this very damaging piece of evidence in the last interviews they provided to the authorities, in 2000. Their lawyer would not permit them to respond. You can find these at the acandyrose website.

Yes, I've read all about it.

The reason they didn't answer the question about fibers is because their attorney asked to see the "evidence" and there was NONE to be produced.

No fibers were ever connected to the Ramseys clothes. None.

JMO (PM/PT).

Athena

11-05-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Yes, I've read all about it.

The reason they didn't answer the question about fibers is because their attorney asked to see the "evidence" and there was NONE to be produced.

No fibers were ever connected to the Ramseys clothes. None.

JMO (PM/PT).

Being from NY I remember what happened in the Cenral Park Jogger case and the prosecutors were just as much to blame for getting these teens convicted and then released and this was an article written re: what should be done to prevent something like that from happening again:

Sixth, and finally, prosecutors should be held to their duty to do justice. Because they are immune from suit, they are unaccountable--except to voters--for negligence and fraud. Requiring them to vouch for the evidence produced by their investigators and law enforcement, might make them think twice about putting on any evidence and hoping it sticks.

Defense attorneys can lose their licenses for putting on false and misleading evidence, even though their duty is to defend zealously. Prosecutors, on the other hand, often do so with impunity, even though their duty is to serve justice, not to convict. That needs to stop. Prosecutors should be held as closely accountable for what they do as are defense attorneys.

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/cassel/20021217.html#Scene_1

Athena

11-05-2006, 04:47 PM

Of course, we know that Prosecutors don't distort the truth :rolleyes:

There are many more - just do search for Prosecutorial Misconduct

Prosecutorial Misconduct:

Hold unscrupulous prosecutors criminally accountable for their misconduct

Too often misconduct by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges is routinely tolerated. This blatant tolerance by district attorneys, judges, and appellate courts robs defendants of their right to a fair trial and worse has caused people to be wrongly convicted and sentenced to long prison terms. Prosecutors who lie, distort , or withhold evidence must be held accountable with criminal charges for their routine misconduct.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=15182

Too many to provide excerpts:

http://www.truthinjustice.org/p-pmisconduct.htm

rashomon

11-05-2006, 04:55 PM

sweetcharlotte

11-05-2006, 05:05 PM

Yes. What I posted is true and has been discussed - with links - on several occasions.

If you want to base your opinion on this misinformation - enjoy.

JMO

Athena

11-05-2006, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

This is simply not true. Read the Ramsey interviews with lawyer Levin who confronted them with the damagin fiber evidence.
Lawyers, unlike the police, are not allowed to lie in interrogations. And I don't think that a lawyer is legally required to hold the evidentiary records under the suspects' nose just because they refuse to acknowledge the CBI lab's findings.

Apparently you missed the articles I posted about prosecutorial misconduct. Happens across the US. JMO

docg

11-05-2006, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by shill
IMO It shouldn't have been any easier to crack a 6yr olds skull then an adults skull. Maybe even more difficult. Kids seem to take head wounds better then adults.
We need the opinion of a bone specialist. (or a crack head specialist)

And Karr was matched to the handwriting by a couple of experts, and not by others.

Yeah, kids have very hard heads and can survive all sorts of "accidents." Another thing to consider is the nature of the wound. If she got "accidently" slammed against a sink or fell down the stairs, whatever, her scalp would have lacerated and there would have been tons of blood all over the place. Not so in this case, no lacerations or external bleeding at all. This was a carefully directed blow, probably from the rubber tipped maglite.
The person who struck the blow knew what he was doing, probably as the result of military training.

And yes, Karr was matched to the note by some experts and not by others, just like Patsy. I don't for a moment think Karr wrote it. Neither did she.

thewhitewitch1

11-05-2006, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by docg

The head wound is not consistent with an accident. Take a look at the horrible autopsy photo if you can stand it. This was a tremendous, carefully aimed, blow that literally cracked her skull open. And for all we know he DID try to bribe and threaten her. Maybe that didn't work. Again, we have no way of reading John's mind. But we DO know JonBenet was murdered, we DO know there was no intruder, and, given the 911 call (plus other evidence), it's very difficult to see how Patsy could be involved -- or why she'd WANT to be involved. Burke could not have delivered such a massive blow, nor could he have written the note. That leaves only one suspect.

Patsy's prints on the pineapple bowl mean nothing. She's the one who took it out of the dishwasher and placed it in the cupboard, so why wouldn't her prints be on it? Burke's prints could have gotten there in any number of ways. Maybe he helped her put the dishes away.

It WAS an inside job, I agree with you on that.

Yes, Docg...but how do you explain the undigested pineapple in JB's intestines? The bowl of pineapple wasn't IN the cupboard. It was on the counter, so it would seem that both Burke and Patsy touched it. Too much of a coincidence for the bowl to be there with their prints on it and JB having it in her intestines. Why will no one in the family admit to even getting the pineapple out or eating it?
I can't agree either that the blow to her head was calculated. How does one calculate how hard and where to hit someone on the head to deliver a blow that doesn't bleed or lacerate? It was speculated that she could have fallen against a rounded surface such as a bathtub or sink. I believe her skull could crack like that if she struck such a surface in just the right place.
I don't think - no - I KNOW that Burke did not write the note. It isn't that difficult to see Patsy involved. If something happened that either she or Burke indirectly caused (the head injury), there could still be repercussions on their family. Burke could be taken away. Patsy could be accused of child abuse. If JB had lived, she would have suffered brain damage. There are quite a few reasons why Patsy could be involved. All it would take is cool level-headed John to talk her out of calling for an ambulance for any of the reasons I just gave...or maybe for one I haven't even thought of. Patsy was ALL about appearances. Accidentally murdering your child or injuring her that severely would certainly not put you in a very favorable social light. IMO

docg

11-05-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

>Yes, Docg...but how do you explain the undigested pineapple in JB's intestines? The bowl of pineapple wasn't IN the cupboard. It was on the counter, so it would seem that both Burke and Patsy touched it. Too much of a coincidence for the bowl to be there with their prints on it and JB having it in her intestines. Why will no one in the family admit to even getting the pineapple out or eating it?

If both John and Patsy were in on it together, the pineapple wouldn't have been a problem for them, they'd have told the truth, that JonBenet was fed pineapple. Big deal, why lie about that? It's only if one was in the kitchen with her while the other was asleep that the pineapple becomes a problem. I think John fed her the pineapple, but couldn't admit it, because it would have made him look too suspicious, to say the least. Forget about Patsy's prints, she handled all the bowls, silverware, whatever, she was a housewife, remember?

>I can't agree either that the blow to her head was calculated. How does one calculate how hard and where to hit someone on the head to deliver a blow that doesn't bleed or lacerate?

This is the sort of thing people learn in the military, either from direct training, or indirectly, from buddies in, say, the Special Forces. John was in the military.

>It was speculated that she could have fallen against a rounded surface such as a bathtub or sink. I believe her skull could crack like that if she struck such a surface in just the right place.

I really don't think such an injury would be possible without lacerating the scalp and producing external bleeding. None was seen.

>I don't think - no - I KNOW that Burke did not write the note. It isn't that difficult to see Patsy involved.

It's impossible. She called 911, thus nullifying the staging implicit in the note. Why would she do that if she'd written it or was involved in any way?

shill

11-06-2006, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Patsy was ALL about appearances. Accidentally murdering your child or injuring her that severely would certainly not put you in a very favorable social light. IMO To remain in a favorable social light, the proper etiquette is to stage a murder using lovely white lace with nice bows, and to write a ransom note of entertaining value as to not bore your readers. Then you gently stuff your victim in a closet wrapped in a cozy bed sheet.
This is how one of proper manors in the social world is expected to behave properly.

rashomon

11-06-2006, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Apparently you missed the articles I posted about prosecutorial misconduct. Happens across the US. JMO
And what do articles about prosecutorial misconduct have to do with the CBI lab's incriminating fiber findings? Do you think the CBI lab techs wated to railroad the poor innocent Ramseys?

If you want an example of classic prosecutorial misconduct in the Ramsey case, you have only got to study Alex Hunter.
Many an expert has stated that Hunter indeed should have been charged with prosecutrial misconduct and obstruction of justice.

rashomon

11-06-2006, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Yes. What I posted is true and has been discussed - with links - on several occasions.

If you want to base your opinion on this misinformation - enjoy.

JMO
Read the Ramsey interview with laywer Levin and enjoy too.
The incriminating fiber evidence was found out by the CBI lab, and therefore was not something Levin pulled out of thin air.
Of course John Ramsey went through the roof when he was told about his shirt fibers in JB's panties, accusing Levin of wanting to "disgrace the relationship with his daughter".

But I'm afraid a suspects' outrage when confronted with damaging evidence does no extinguish this evidence in any way.

It is quite obvious that the incriminating fiber evidence is a thorn in side of IDIs, for it just can't be explained away innocently.

sweetcharlotte

11-06-2006, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

Read the Ramsey interview with laywer Levin and enjoy too.
The incriminating fiber evidence was found out by the CBI lab, and therefore was not something Levin pulled out of thin air.
Of course John Ramsey went through the roof when he was told about his shirt fibers in JB's panties, accusing Levin of wanting to "disgrace the relationship with his daughter".

But I'm afraid a suspects' outrage when confronted with damaging evidence does no extinguish this evidence in any way.

It is quite obvious that the incriminating fiber evidence is a thorn in side of IDIs, for it just can't be explained away innocently.

I told you. I've read it. Levin dropped the issue like a hot potato when asked by Wood to see the evidence.

There fact that there was NO FIBER evidence found connected to any of the Ramseys' clothes explains it very nicely for this IDI.

Now, moving on..........

JMO

nuisanceposter

11-06-2006, 11:27 AM

I agree, Rashomon, the fiber evidence and the lack of evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey in their house that night plus the crime scene being atypical of what we know as standard with an intruder killing is a challenge for IDIs to explain. Many are adept at making valid arguments, but none have been conclusive enough to sway me. I think the fiber evidence is the bugaboo more so than the pineapple.

Some people say the reason they think BPD or Levin lied about the existence of the fiber evidence is because they haven't seen the reports from CBI (because they aren't public) and because Levin ended the line of questioning rather than reveal more information about it to the Ramsey team.

As I understood it, and perhaps I am wrong, I thought police are under no obligation to provide the prime suspects in a murder investigation with the inside information of evidence against the suspects. Are BPD required to submit all information about the fiber evidence to the Ramsey attorneys?

nuisanceposter

11-06-2006, 11:29 AM

sweetcharlotte

11-06-2006, 11:41 AM

Prove that there is fiber evidence - other than Levin questioning the Ramseys about it..........which - as I said he dropped when asked to see the evidence. JMO..........

And by all means discuss all you want. I have absolutely no control over what is discussed on these boards.

rashomon

11-06-2006, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by docg
If both John and Patsy were in on it together, the pineapple wouldn't have been a problem for them, they'd have told the truth, that JonBenet was fed pineapple. Big deal, why lie about that? [/B]

The Ramseys' story was that JB had been asleep when they got home, and how would it have looked if they, confronted with the pineapple evidence, now suddenly had stated: "Oh, now that you mention it, I remember JB wasn't asleep at all, but had a pineapple snack before bedtime." They would have looked like guilty people trying to make their story fit the evidence, which is why they had no choice but to stick to their original version that JB had been asleep.
I believe they simply forgot that the pineapple would leave evidence in JB's digestive tract which would later contradict their story. The fatal attack on JB happened while the child was awake after they got home, and the Ramseys wanted to avoid any connection to JB having been awake after the family arrived home - that's why they lied about the pineapple imo.

Instead their self-serving story was: when they got home, JB was already deeply asleep, they all went to bed, nobody heard anything, and then the sexual predator snuck in there at dead of night ...

rashomon

11-06-2006, 11:56 AM

sweetcharlotte

11-06-2006, 12:13 PM

Don't you think if there had been fiber evidence connecting the Ramseys to JonBenet Thomas' list would have contained 17 rather than 16 reasons why RDI? JMO

nuisanceposter

11-06-2006, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Prove that there is fiber evidence - other than Levin questioning the Ramseys about it..........which - as I said he dropped when asked to see the evidence. JMO..........

And by all means discuss all you want. I have absolutely no control over what is discussed on these boards.

Nuh-uh, I asked you first. You said that it is a fact that there is NO fiber evidence. Your proof is apparently Levin ending the line of questioning and moved on - that is not fact, that's Levin not giving the suspects any more information. That does not mean that he was lying or BPD or even CBI was lying and the evidence does not exist at all. Until we can see the reports from CBI (and we may never be able to see them), the only proof fiber evidence placing the Rs in the crime scene is what Levin has said BPD told him CBI found. And as I have said before, if BPD said CBI found this, I think CBI actually found it. It would be pretty easy for CBI to correct them if they were wrong, and I assume they would have done so by now.

Thanks much, Rashomon, I'm interesting in hearing whether police are required to give suspects all information about evidence or not. If not, then there's no solid reason to believe the fiber evidence was a lie and does not exist (other than people don't want to believe it.)

Coloradokares

11-06-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I told you. I've read it. Levin dropped the issue like a hot potato when asked by Wood to see the evidence.

There fact that there was NO FIBER evidence found connected to any of the Ramseys' clothes explains it very nicely for this IDI.

Now, moving on..........

JMO

Your opinion of that matter is not necessarily correct or wrong either one. It was not dropped Levin had the last word on that as I read the questioning. What Levin said was he would not provide them the fiber evidence till court or was it grand jury. I think he said some things are matters for the grand jury or words to that effect. Which was his right. The Prosecution does not have to share every itty bitty bit of evidence just because defense want to see it . In may peoples humble opinion way to much was shared with defense council by the DA Office in the fist place. Some things had to be witheld till Grand Jury or until in Court. So to say the fibers that were gathered tested and compared to and from furnished garments then traced to origin of fiber was a lot of ballyhoo if it never existed. If the matter ever gets prosecuted....we shall see if it was a bluff or not. Till then DA Lacy said in her interview when they announced they were not proceeding against JMK. There is not anything they have that is not in the public domain. You are entitled to your belief and opinion. Just don't be shocked if this ever does go to trial if fiber evidence is produced and expert testimony regarding it provided. JMHO

docg

11-06-2006, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
As I understood it, and perhaps I am wrong, I thought police are under no obligation to provide the prime suspects in a murder investigation with the inside information of evidence against the suspects. Are BPD required to submit all information about the fiber evidence to the Ramsey attorneys?

You are NOT wrong. Wood's demands were ludicrous, pure grandstanding. It would have been irresponsible in the extreme for Levin to have produced such evidence, assuming it was on hand for him to produce at the time, which was highly unlikely. He was already going out on a limb just by mentioning it, something he did simply because he was hoping John could provide an innocent reason for his fibers to be where they were found. There is no history of any of the interviewers either lying to or misleading the Ramseys at any time. They bent over backwards to be accommadating and were in fact far too accomodating.

The law requires the prosecution to share all evidence with the defense only AFTER an indictment, NOT during the investigation. Wood ought to have known that. His only excuse is his incompetence. He wasn't trained as a defense lawyer and has always been out of his depth in that area.

bullmoose

11-06-2006, 02:09 PM

As to the so-called fiber evidence, that rashoman and others take on faith so unquestioning it staggers me; I have a lawyerly question to pose anyone that will answer a simple yes or no. Here it is: Have you stopped beating your wife senseless on a daily basis? Now if such a line of questioning were to be used on a assault suspect, his lawyer would refuse to let him answer such a leading, slanted question. His lawyer would quite possibly demand to see what evidence[if any] the line of questioning was based upon. All John Ramsey's lawyer did was his job, to keep the questioner from trying to implicate his client for a crime for which the claimed evidence was nonexistant. If the fiber evidence was more than a fabrication, it would have been examined during the Grand Jury investigation; they could have called John Ramsey to answer the same question, under oath. However, since they didn't I continue to strongly believe that there was no matching fibers found.

sweetcharlotte

11-06-2006, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose

<snip>

I have a lawyerly question to pose anyone that will answer a simple yes or no. Here it is: Have you stopped beating your wife senseless on a daily basis?
<snip>

:lol:

sweetcharlotte

11-06-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by docg

<snip>

The law requires the prosecution to share all evidence with the defense only AFTER an indictment, NOT during the investigation. Wood ought to have known that. His only excuse is his incompetence. He wasn't trained as a defense lawyer and has always been out of his depth in that area.

Incompetent? I don't see a Ramsey sitting in jail anywhere. lol

WallyCleaver

11-06-2006, 03:41 PM

Responding to several things.

The idea that Patsy couldn't possibly be the writter because she made the 911 call doesn't wash. Sure, ideally, someone other than the murderer should have made the call - or no call at all should have been made.

But, There were only two people who could have wrote it - if one accepts it's an RDI case. Someone had to write it. Docg's theory is that JR planned to get rid of the body, and he'd never have handed the note to the cops -he'd have claimed the kidnappers wanted the original, and that he had made a copy (or maybe no copy). OK, that's fine, but he ran a very substantial risk in leaving it all up to chance that PR wouldn't call. That means he ran a substantial risk of handing over to the cops a phoney ransom note written in his own hand - extactly what it is claimed that PR would never do. What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

It's been said that the note does nothing for PR. Seems to me it does the same thing for her as for JR - attempts (with pitiful inadequacey) to point to an intruder.

On fiber evidence, one can't pick and choose which fibers were transfered innocently and which by foul deed. But we can say that it's more likely that fibers innocently transfer to a girl's long hair than to her underwear.

While there is evidence of chronic penetration, it seems, from what I've read, that it was most likely digital penetration. Does anyone have more info about this?

IMO docg's theory is the best so far, but it's not ironclad.

bullmoose

11-06-2006, 04:11 PM

Not only can we not pick and choose which fibers ended up wherever they did by fair means or foul; but we cannot be certain from where we are standing[ or sitting] that the fibers in question are in any way relevant to the RDI or IDI points of view. We know there were fibers found, but in fact the ones found on Jonbenet's genital area do not and did not match any from her fathers' clothes. So what is the significance to the theories? You decide---- As to Patsy not being the writer of the ransom note because she made the call to 911, it still makes sense to me, but as you know, I'm an IDI

WallyCleaver

11-06-2006, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
Not only can we not pick and choose which fibers ended up wherever they did by fair means or foul; but we cannot be certain from where we are standing[ or sitting] that the fibers in question are in any way relevant to the RDI or IDI points of view. We know there were fibers found, but in fact the ones found on Jonbenet's genital area do not and did not match any from her fathers' clothes. So what is the significance to the theories? You decide---- As to Patsy not being the writer of the ransom note because she made the call to 911, it still makes sense to me, but as you know, I'm an IDI

How do you know the fibers found on her genital area do not and did not match any from her father's clothes? You seem to be making a conclusion for which there is no evidence.

thewhitewitch1

11-06-2006, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by shill
To remain in a favorable social light, the proper etiquette is to stage a murder using lovely white lace with nice bows, and to write a ransom note of entertaining value as to not bore your readers. Then you gently stuff your victim in a closet wrapped in a cozy bed sheet.
This is how one of proper manors in the social world is expected to behave properly.

Is it possible for you to even BE a bigger jerk?
'Nuff said.

rashomon

11-06-2006, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Nuh-uh, I asked you first. You said that it is a fact that there is NO fiber evidence. Your proof is apparently Levin ending the line of questioning and moved on - that is not fact, that's Levin not giving the suspects any more information. That does not mean that he was lying or BPD or even CBI was lying and the evidence does not exist at all. Until we can see the reports from CBI (and we may never be able to see them), the only proof fiber evidence placing the Rs in the crime scene is what Levin has said BPD told him CBI found. And as I have said before, if BPD said CBI found this, I think CBI actually found it. It would be pretty easy for CBI to correct them if they were wrong, and I assume they would have done so by now.

Thanks much, Rashomon, I'm interesting in hearing whether police are required to give suspects all information about evidence or not. If not, then there's no solid reason to believe the fiber evidence was a lie and does not exist (other than people don't want to believe it.)
You were right, Nuisanceposter: there was no legal obligaton for Levin to disclose anything to the Ramseys.
Today I posted this on FFJ:

"Many posters here have a lot of legal knowledge, and I'd appreciate your help with this question:

Do suspects have the right to be shown the evidentiary record, like e. g. lab findings when they have not yet been charged with a crime?

For in many discussions about the fiber evidence, die-hard IDIs try to dilute this damaging fiber evidence against the Ramseys by alleging that since lawyer Levin (who confronted them with this evidence) did not show the Ramseys the CBI lab findings, there is no proof that the fibers were actually found there.
But I suppose Levin had no legal obligation to show the Ramseys anything."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BluesStrat on FFJ answered: (Today, Mon Nov 6 14:50:01 CST 2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rashomon
"Do suspects have the right to be shown the evidentiary record, like e. g. lab findings when they have not yet been charged with a crime?"

[BluesStrat]"No they don't. Hunter and his morons gave the evidence away to Team Ramsey by using the excuse that they would see it anyway if there was a trial. The Ramseys refused to cooperate and submit to interviews unless they saw the evidence against them."

bullmoose

11-06-2006, 05:42 PM

To WC: I realize that it is impossible to prove absolutely that there was no matchup on the fibers. But I base my certainty in this regard on the matter that, if there were a match that the cops or the prosecuters could take to the bank, they would have, long since. It would be damning to have the question asked, then when your lawyer asks for proof show it to him. But it never happened. We would have heard about it a thousand times over because it would be unexplainable, in an innocent way. But since it didn't occur, I remain absolutely convinced that there is and was no match.

WallyCleaver

11-06-2006, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To WC: I realize that it is impossible to prove absolutely that there was no matchup on the fibers. But I base my certainty in this regard on the matter that, if there were a match that the cops or the prosecuters could take to the bank, they would have, long since. It would be damning to have the question asked, then when your lawyer asks for proof show it to him. But it never happened. We would have heard about it a thousand times over because it would be unexplainable, in an innocent way. But since it didn't occur, I remain absolutely convinced that there is and was no match.

IOW you are basing your opinion on the fact that the lawyer didn't hand over the evidence when the Ramsey's lawyer asked for it? That's absolutely nothing.

Does anyone know if the fiber evidence was looked at by the GJ?

shill

11-06-2006, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Is it possible for you to even BE a bigger jerk?
'Nuff said. YES, you make it to easy.

shill

11-06-2006, 06:13 PM

Coloradokares

11-06-2006, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

IOW you are basing your opinion on the fact that the lawyer didn't hand over the evidence when the Ramsey's lawyer asked for it? That's absolutely nothing.

Does anyone know if the fiber evidence was looked at by the GJ?

This could be rumor. Not even mine ...but from another forum that is the evidence that was being awaited by the grand jury when it put forth its opinion. That the Ramseys had delayed so long in furnishing clothing. They were also closing any blind spots that similar clothing but replacement articles would or would not match the scrutiny test as some of the clothing appeared to be new and never worn. I am not sure. I didn't copy the link from the other forum so that is all pure speculation and maybe I shouldn't even post it here. Just sharing what I read from another forum:shrug:

Ames

11-06-2006, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

<snipped>
It was indeed an inside job: imo both John and Patsy were involved in this up to their neck.

I am with you on this one! I think that they both were involved too. Who KNOWS....John AND Patsy could have been molesting JB. That sort of thing DOES happen...even though people would like to think that it didn't. I still believe that it was a horrible accident turned staged coverup, though. IMO

Athena

11-06-2006, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

This could be rumor. Not even mine ...but from another forum that is the evidence that was being awaited by the grand jury when it put forth its opinion. That the Ramseys had delayed so long in furnishing clothing. They were also closing any blind spots that similar clothing but replacement articles would or would not match the scrutiny test as some of the clothing appeared to be new and never worn. I am not sure. I didn't copy the link from the other forum so that is all pure speculation and maybe I shouldn't even post it here. Just sharing what I read from another forum:shrug:

The Ramseys submitted their clothing a year after JBR's death which would have been Dec-Jan. 1997. The Grand Jury convened iin September 1998 and stayed in session for over a year. According to PMPT they wanted more DNA evidence. JMO

The Grand Jury's job is to review the evidence but the proceedings are sealed and the only thing I could find was this article:

Grand Jury Convenes: On Sept. 16, 1998, five months after they were chosen, Boulder County grand jurors began their investigation. They heard forensic evidence, analysis of handwriting, DNA evidence, and hair and fiber evidence. They visited the Ramsey's former Boulder home in October 1998. In December of 1998 the grand jury recesses for four month while DNA evidence from other members of the Ramsey family, who were not suspects, can be compared to that found at the scene.

http://crime.about.com/od/unsolved/p/jonbenet_case.htm

Ames

11-06-2006, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Is it possible for you to even BE a bigger jerk?
'Nuff said.

Shill is obviously trying to be funny. Perhaps this whole case is nothing but a joke to him (or her).

Coloradokares

11-07-2006, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Athena

The Ramseys submitted their clothing a year after JBR's death which would have been Dec-Jan. 1997. The Grand Jury convened iin September 1998 and stayed in session for over a year. According to PMPT they wanted more DNA evidence. JMO

The Grand Jury's job is to review the evidence but the proceedings are sealed and the only thing I could find was this article:

Grand Jury Convenes: On Sept. 16, 1998, five months after they were chosen, Boulder County grand jurors began their investigation. They heard forensic evidence, analysis of handwriting, DNA evidence, and hair and fiber evidence. They visited the Ramsey's former Boulder home in October 1998. In December of 1998 the grand jury recesses for four month while DNA evidence from other members of the Ramsey family, who were not suspects, can be compared to that found at the scene.

http://crime.about.com/od/unsolved/p/jonbenet_case.htm

As I said I wasn't any to sure what evidence they were waiting on. This forum is now closed. There is much out there that is not correct. That is why I was careful to state what I did. That I didn't consider that info to be the Gospel. They seemed pretty confident on the fibers in question being from Patsy's clothing. :confused: Thanks for the information. DNA will always be a thorn in the side of this whole situation JMHO. It may not be a case for DNA at all . It is what it is you know . Grand Jurys are sealed as you say.

shill

11-07-2006, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Shill is obviously trying to be funny. Perhaps this whole case is nothing but a joke to him (or her). The only joke is what you RDIs come up with as motive for the Ramseys.
But I'm sure you think that of the IDIs.
So what if John goes to his grave with Patsy, knowing he did it. Do you think putting him in prison is going to be a worse punishment then he has had to face from people like you.
But if they didn't do it, you show total disregard for justice of killer running loose.

LindaA

11-07-2006, 07:15 AM

So the Ramsey's turned over the clothes they were wearing tht night a full year after the murder. If they had done it, it looks like they would have gotten rid of them in that time. It's not like they didn't have an opportunity to do so -- one item at a time.

Athena

11-07-2006, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by LindaA
So the Ramsey's turned over the clothes they were wearing tht night a full year after the murder. If they had done it, it looks like they would have gotten rid of them in that time. It's not like they didn't have an opportunity to do so -- one item at a time.

And what about the fibers that cannot be attributed to the Ramseys or their home that were found on JBR's body? You can't pick and choose fibers to fit a theory. The fibers that can't be accounted for IMO are what should be addressed. They all must be accounted for. JMO

sweetcharlotte

11-07-2006, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by LindaA
So the Ramsey's turned over the clothes they were wearing tht night a full year after the murder. If they had done it, it looks like they would have gotten rid of them in that time. It's not like they didn't have an opportunity to do so -- one item at a time.

No link here - from "DOI" - the Ramseys couldn't remember which "black" shirt John was wearing on the 26th so they sent two black shirts for analysis. Interesting, huh? JMO

docg

11-07-2006, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Ames

I am with you on this one! I think that they both were involved too. Who KNOWS....John AND Patsy could have been molesting JB. That sort of thing DOES happen...even though people would like to think that it didn't. I still believe that it was a horrible accident turned staged coverup, though. IMO

If John and Patsy were both involved, then:

1. The 911 call would not have been made while the body was still in the house. Clearly, the purpose of the note was to explain why the cops were NOT called right away. And if they couldn't get the body out of the house for some reason, then they would NOT have handed the police a patently phoney "ransom note."

2. "The Ramseys" would have gotten their story together from the beginning and "fully cooperated" with the police. No need to stonewall for months, making themselves look even more suspicious.

3. They'd have had no problem with the pineapple evidence. If JonBenet had some pineapple after returning from the White's, there'd have been no need to hide that fact. Instead of describing her as asleep, they could easily have described her as awake and hungry for a snack before bedtime. Her eating pineapple before bed doesn't make an intruder scenario any less likely.

4. They would have gotten rid of all the clothing they'd been wearing that night and substituted other clothing with less incriminating fibers.

Finally, if JonBenet's death had been due to either an accident or a dispute, in which one of them was responsible for her death and the other guilty in some other way (e.g., by sexually molesting her), then it's very hard to understand why they'd have remained together all these years, with no sign of any tension between them.

docg

11-07-2006, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

The Ramseys' story was that JB had been asleep when they got home, and how would it have looked if they, confronted with the pineapple evidence, now suddenly had stated: "Oh, now that you mention it, I remember JB wasn't asleep at all, but had a pineapple snack before bedtime." They would have looked like guilty people trying to make their story fit the evidence, which is why they had no choice but to stick to their original version that JB had been asleep.
I believe they simply forgot that the pineapple would leave evidence in JB's digestive tract which would later contradict their story. The fatal attack on JB happened while the child was awake after they got home, and the Ramseys wanted to avoid any connection to JB having been awake after the family arrived home - that's why they lied about the pineapple imo.

Instead their self-serving story was: when they got home, JB was already deeply asleep, they all went to bed, nobody heard anything, and then the sexual predator snuck in there at dead of night ...

Yes, but if JonBenet had NOT been asleep AND had some pineapple before going to bed, then their story would have been different from the start. There was no need to concoct a phoney story about her being asleep -- that doesn't make them look any more innocent than her being awake and eating pineapple before going to bed. Why go to the trouble and risk of lying about her being asleep when she wasn't, that makes no sense. But if she WAS asleep when they returned home and was later awakened by John, after Patsy and Burke went to sleep, and THEN had pineapple, obviously John wouldn't want that known, would he?

lucky13

11-07-2006, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Athena

And what about the fibers that cannot be attributed to the Ramseys or their home that were found on JBR's body? You can't pick and choose fibers to fit a theory. The fibers that can't be accounted for IMO are what should be addressed. They all must be accounted for. JMO

Since Patsy 'can't remember' the last time that JB had a bath!, which is neglectful & disgusting IMO, those unknown fibers could be days old & from anyone or anywhere. An unbathed, active child is probably full of foreign fibers. She wasn't bathed on Christmas day- so hopefully she had been cleaned sometime on the 24th. Lets hope so... She had played with friends Christmas day & gone to the Whites party that night- with numerous people. Fibers galore! And she often asked 'whoever' to help her wipe herself.... Poor JB. She was a bedwetter who even sometimes soiled herself at 6 years old. And Mom doesn't even bother cleaning her before going to a party, & she obviously had no plans of bathing her before their trip on the 26th either. Eww,. It just shows that hoity-toity Patsy wasn't as clean a person as one would think. Fibers?? I'm sure that poor child was covered in them alright.
MOO

LindaA

11-07-2006, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by lucky13

Since Patsy 'can't remember' the last time that JB had a bath!, which is neglectful & disgusting IMO, those unknown fibers could be days old & from anyone or anywhere. An unbathed, active child is probably full of foreign fibers. She wasn't bathed on Christmas day- so hopefully she had been cleaned sometime on the 24th. Lets hope so... She had played with friends Christmas day & gone to the Whites party that night- with numerous people. Fibers galore! And she often asked 'whoever' to help her wipe herself.... Poor JB. She was a bedwetter who even sometimes soiled herself at 6 years old. And Mom doesn't even bother cleaning her before going to a party, & she obviously had no plans of bathing her before their trip on the 26th either. Eww,. It just shows that hoity-toity Patsy wasn't as clean a person as one would think. Fibers?? I'm sure that poor child was covered in them alright.
MOO

Well, that certainly cinches it for me! Anyone who would not remember when their child took a bath is certainly capable of killing them in cold blood. But then not remembering when they bathed is not the same as not bathing them. or telling them to bathe.

And if what yu say is true then all the fibers on her could have come from Lord know who or what -- even those attributed to her parents/ clothing.

thewhitewitch1

11-07-2006, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by docg

If John and Patsy were both involved, then:

1. The 911 call would not have been made while the body was still in the house. Clearly, the purpose of the note was to explain why the cops were NOT called right away. And if they couldn't get the body out of the house for some reason, then they would NOT have handed the police a patently phoney "ransom note."

2. "The Ramseys" would have gotten their story together from the beginning and "fully cooperated" with the police. No need to stonewall for months, making themselves look even more suspicious.

3. They'd have had no problem with the pineapple evidence. If JonBenet had some pineapple after returning from the White's, there'd have been no need to hide that fact. Instead of describing her as asleep, they could easily have described her as awake and hungry for a snack before bedtime. Her eating pineapple before bed doesn't make an intruder scenario any less likely.

4. They would have gotten rid of all the clothing they'd been wearing that night and substituted other clothing with less incriminating fibers.

Finally, if JonBenet's death had been due to either an accident or a dispute, in which one of them was responsible for her death and the other guilty in some other way (e.g., by sexually molesting her), then it's very hard to understand why they'd have remained together all these years, with no sign of any tension between them.

Docg, if they had premeditated the murder and were cold and calculating, yes, they would have done all of those things. Criminals think like that ("got to chjange clothes so as not to leave fiber evidence" etc). A parent that has just accidentally killed their child and panics, decides they have to stage something to hide their involvement, would not have the presence of mind to think of all of these details...such as not knowing that the pineapple would have been detected and used to estimate a time of death.
Personally, I think too much is read into the RN. I don't see it as anything other than an attempt to make it sound like what a naive person thinks a kidnapper would sound like.
Finally, how do you know that there has been no tension between the Ramseys all these years? A secret such as that could most definately bind two people together. Together, the secret is safe...apart; there's a risk of one telling on the other or simply confiding in someone to get it off of their consciences. IMO

docg

11-07-2006, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Docg, if they had premeditated the murder and were cold and calculating, yes, they would have done all of those things. Criminals think like that ("got to chjange clothes so as not to leave fiber evidence" etc). A parent that has just accidentally killed their child and panics, decides they have to stage something to hide their involvement, would not have the presence of mind to think of all of these details...such as not knowing that the pineapple would have been detected and used to estimate a time of death.
Personally, I think too much is read into the RN. I don't see it as anything other than an attempt to make it sound like what a naive person thinks a kidnapper would sound like.
Finally, how do you know that there has been no tension between the Ramseys all these years? A secret such as that could most definately bind two people together. Together, the secret is safe...apart; there's a risk of one telling on the other or simply confiding in someone to get it off of their consciences. IMO

Please give me one good reason why the Ramseys would decide to write a phoney ransom note and then call the police first thing in the morning, knowing the body is in the house. How does a patently phoney ransom note printed in your own hand tell the police there was an intruder? The Ramseys were both educated, successful people, why would they want to do anything that stupid? Once the body was found, which was sure to happen, the note would point toward THEM, not an intruder.

Also, please give me one good reason the Ramseys would want to stonewall the police for months, if they are both in on it together.

As far as tension is concerned, they must be really great actors to show the world NO sign of any problem between them in all that time. If John had been molesting JonBenet and that led, however indirectly, to her death, and Patsy knew about it, it's very hard to see how they'd have remained together for all those years.

Coloradokares

11-07-2006, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by docg

If John and Patsy were both involved, then:

1. The 911 call would not have been made while the body was still in the house. Clearly, the purpose of the note was to explain why the cops were NOT called right away. And if they couldn't get the body out of the house for some reason, then they would NOT have handed the police a patently phoney "ransom note."

2. "The Ramseys" would have gotten their story together from the beginning and "fully cooperated" with the police. No need to stonewall for months, making themselves look even more suspicious.

3. They'd have had no problem with the pineapple evidence. If JonBenet had some pineapple after returning from the White's, there'd have been no need to hide that fact. Instead of describing her as asleep, they could easily have described her as awake and hungry for a snack before bedtime. Her eating pineapple before bed doesn't make an intruder scenario any less likely.

4. They would have gotten rid of all the clothing they'd been wearing that night and substituted other clothing with less incriminating fibers.

Finally, if JonBenet's death had been due to either an accident or a dispute, in which one of them was responsible for her death and the other guilty in some other way (e.g., by sexually molesting her), then it's very hard to understand why they'd have remained together all these years, with no sign of any tension between them.

One OBVIOUS reason that should come to mind whether your IDI or RDI or FS. A spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse. If you divorce. Game Over. You can be compelled in court to testify under oath. Patsy was also whether in remission or not stage 4 cancer. That is Never not ever most especially in her type of cancer's case a diagnosis that suggests excellent mortality expectations.. Life expectancy for this is shorter than she actually lived. One thing should be clear they didn't know how long Patsy had. She made it a very long time for her situation and diagnosis.

allyoop

11-07-2006, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Ames

snipped
...and that Patsy wrote the ransom note. IMO

There was a My Twinn doll JBR received for Christmas that PR was bothered by --- that JBR didn't like it. Could be another 'sore spot' for "Mom".:shrug:

LadyFisher

11-07-2006, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by allyoop

There was a My Twinn doll JBR received for Christmas that PR was bothered by --- that JBR didn't like it. Could be another 'sore spot' for "Mom".:shrug: Excuse me! I've bought many a gifts for my children and grandchildren that they weren't too please over....I never killed one of them over it! :chicken:

Coloradokares

11-07-2006, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by docg

Please give me one good reason why the Ramseys would decide to write a phoney ransom note and then call the police first thing in the morning, knowing the body is in the house. How does a patently phoney ransom note printed in your own hand tell the police there was an intruder? The Ramseys were both educated, successful people, why would they want to do anything that stupid? Once the body was found, which was sure to happen, the note would point toward THEM, not an intruder.

Also, please give me one good reason the Ramseys would want to stonewall the police for months, if they are both in on it together.

As far as tension is concerned, they must be really great actors to show the world NO sign of any problem between them in all that time. If John had been molesting JonBenet and that led, however indirectly, to her death, and Patsy knew about it, it's very hard to see how they'd have remained together for all those years.

Well no one knows what goes on behind closed doors. If they are guilty and that is for the court to decide not me, they had to do something and there is a famous comedienne who has a line. You can't fix stoopid!! I mean they had to do SOMETHING, anything would have been better than nothing cause nothing would have gotten them at least 80 years behind bars, they way the evidence was looking. Some things can't be fixed you do the best you can think of to do to save your backside in a very bad situation. It does not get much worse than a dead child without evidence of an intruder. Even John admitted it "looked" like an inside job. Had they done nothing the execution dates may well have run out of appeals by this time. If they did what many believe they did do, it kept them out of jail 10 years. That sounds pretty smart in retrospect if they are guilty. If it is true. Patsy did what she did best she turned to her journalistic skills and cast just enough doubt to live out her life free and not behind prison bars. If their was an intruder. Then they had the worst PR teams, worst lawyers, worst advise any couple in their shoes could ever have had. They paid a heavy personal price in reputation. However they did not cooperate. That isn't true. The facts regarding that can't be embellished enough to make a silk purse out of that. Even other parents of murdered children agree the Ramseys totally did not cooperate in the best interest of finding the murderer.

allyoop

11-07-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Excuse me! I've bought many a gifts for my children and grandchildren that they weren't too please over....I never killed one of them over it! :chicken:

I also bet that wouldn't be something you ruminated over after their death. :no: <<<Going back to lurking>>>

WallyCleaver

11-07-2006, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by docg

Please give me one good reason why the Ramseys would decide to write a phoney ransom note and then call the police first thing in the morning, knowing the body is in the house. How does a patently phoney ransom note printed in your own hand tell the police there was an intruder? The Ramseys were both educated, successful people, why would they want to do anything that stupid? Once the body was found, which was sure to happen, the note would point toward THEM, not an intruder.

Same reason that you think JR wrote a patently phoney ransom note then left it very much up to chance whether or not the note would fall into the hands of the police.

They had to call police at some point. I don't know why they'd choose first thing in the morning - maybe for some reason they couldn't ditch the body as planned. If they were going to leave the body in the house, then morning is as good a time as any.

Please note that your theory has JR taking a very high risk of doing substantially the same thing.

Also, please give me one good reason the Ramseys would want to stonewall the police for months, if they are both in on it together.

Why not? Why would they want to cooperate with police if they were in on it together?

As far as tension is concerned, they must be really great actors to show the world NO sign of any problem between them in all that time. If John had been molesting JonBenet and that led, however indirectly, to her death, and Patsy knew about it, it's very hard to see how they'd have remained together for all those years.

Not really, some women allow the men in their lives to molest their children, rather than loose the man.

What's hard to see is if JR did it why Patsy never got a clue in all those years. If they were in on it together that's an excellent reason not to show any sign of problems.

bullmoose

11-07-2006, 03:43 PM

CK: Are we talking about Colorado here? Appeals on execution dates? How many people have been put to death in Colorado since 12/96? I think that there has been one up here in Idaho, but he stopped all appeals, so its not the same. You are obviously absolutely certain of the Ramseys' guilt; thats OK by me because we all have our honest opinion. Believe it or not, when I first started into this case, I too was convinced it was probably the parents, if not them a family member. But the deeper I went, the more I came to think it was not them, my conclusions changed. Over in Coeur D'Alene, Idaho,about 38 miles from here a family, the Groenes, were murdered horribly last spring; the two youngest children disappeared without a trace. It was widely believed that it was either a drug deal gone bad or that the estranged husband, Steve had it done or did it. I mean, nobody thought that someone just came off the freeway at random and did it; the only problem is that that is what happened. And now it looks like cancer is going to kill him, at last report he had his voicebox removed and it has spread to his lymph nodes. And the real serial murderer that killed the Groenes will quite possibly die in jail--of old age. I guess my point in this post is that just because the Ramseys wouldn't cooperate with the BPD and confess like Steve Thomas[and The Globe] wanted doesn't make them guilty.

rashomon

11-07-2006, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
CK: Are we talking about Colorado here? Appeals on execution dates? How many people have been put to death in Colorado since 12/96? I think that there has been one up here in Idaho, but he stopped all appeals, so its not the same. You are obviously absolutely certain of the Ramseys' guilt; thats OK by me because we all have our honest opinion. Believe it or not, when I first started into this case, I too was convinced it was probably the parents, if not them a family member. But the deeper I went, the more I came to think it was not them, my conclusions changed. Over in Coeur D'Alene, Idaho,about 38 miles from here a family, the Groenes, were murdered horribly last spring; the two youngest children disappeared without a trace. It was widely believed that it was either a drug deal gone bad or that the estranged husband, Steve had it done or did it. I mean, nobody thought that someone just came off the freeway at random and did it; the only problem is that that is what happened. And now it looks like cancer is going to kill him, at last report he had his voicebox removed and it has spread to his lymph nodes. And the real serial murderer that killed the Groenes will quite possibly die in jail--of old age. I guess my point in this post is that just because the Ramseys wouldn't cooperate with the BPD and confess like Steve Thomas[and The Globe] wanted doesn't make them guilty.
The Ramseys' unwillingness to cooperate with the police is just one of the many things which point to their guilt, and in perfect consistence with the rest of the circumstantial evidence pointing to their involvement.

rashomon

11-07-2006, 05:48 PM

bullmoose

11-07-2006, 05:48 PM

To rashoman: The perfect consistance of circumstantial evidence that points to the guilt of the Ramseys was insufficent to even bring back an indictment by a Grand Jury in Colorado. While I am cheerfully willing to listen to all theories and all circumstantial evidence presented[after all, we are all posting here] I remain totally unconvinced of any Ramsey involvement, beyond that of victims, as of this moment.

sweetcharlotte

11-07-2006, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

<snip>

And yes, the Ramseys are great actors. Sociopaths almost always are. Which is exactly why they are so successful at fooling people.

Two sociopaths with four additional children between them, an ex-wife, and two sets of in-laws none of whom have had an unkind word for either John or Patsy. Boy, they had everyone fooled, huh?

thewhitewitch1

11-07-2006, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Two sociopaths with four additional children between them, an ex-wife, and two sets of in-laws none of whom have had an unkind word for either John or Patsy. Boy, they had everyone fooled, huh?

Sure...they were all very perfect. Just like The Brady Bunch. Right. When something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

docg

11-07-2006, 11:31 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WallyCleaver

>Same reason that you think JR wrote a patently phoney ransom note then left it very much up to chance whether or not the note would fall into the hands of the police.

He did not leave it up to chance. The note is so long because it had so much to accomplish, including frightening Patsy into NOT calling the police. It was the act of a desperate man who had no choice but to take the risk that she'd call anyhow, despite those warnings, which as it happened she did. If they'd been in on it together, they would NOT have called the police at that time, because that's the whole point of the note, to give them an excuse not to call. And if something had gone wrong and they decided to call anyhow, then they'd have destroyed that note, because with the body in the house it no longer served any purpose.

>They had to call police at some point. I don't know why they'd choose first thing in the morning - maybe for some reason they couldn't ditch the body as planned. If they were going to leave the body in the house, then morning is as good a time as any.

If they were going to leave the body in the house then they'd have been sure to display it in a prominent place, not hide it in the most remote room in the basement. And if they decided to use a note, they certainly wouldn't have left a ransom note, but a taunting note, pinned to the body.

>Why not? Why would they want to cooperate with police if they were in on it together?

If in on it together they would have had every reason to "cooperate fully" with the police. Why not? Get your story straight and cooperate. What point would there be in stalling? What would they have had to gain, other than making the whole world suspect them of murdering their own child?

On the other hand, if John is our culprit and Patsy innocent, then it would be important that John not allow her to speak with the authorities until he'd had a chance to convince her to be a "team player" in their MUTUAL defense.

LadyFisher

11-08-2006, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by allyoop

I also bet that wouldn't be something you ruminated over after their death. :no: <<<Going back to lurking>>> If you are thinking Patsy ruminated over JBs not being too happy about her doll....in DOI it was mentioned along with the other things they did that Christmas morning....you do realize that JB received other gifts, that I'm certain she was happy with! A 40 y/o mother just doesn't up and kill her daughter because she wasn't happy with a doll she received! :confused:

LadyFisher

11-08-2006, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Sure...they were all very perfect. Just like The Brady Bunch. Right. When something seems too good to be true, it probably is. Good evening, White! No family is perfect, but not all are dysfunctional either. A great majority of people live quite normal family lives...The Ramseys enjoyed the benefits of a successful business, they, as a family, had survived probably the worst trial during their marriage, which was Patsy's serious cancer diagnosis...it was in remission, and life was back on track for them....they really seem to me to be living life to the fullest and realizing what was important! IMHO

Coloradokares

11-08-2006, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by bullmoose
CK: Are we talking about Colorado here? Appeals on execution dates? How many people have been put to death in Colorado since 12/96? I think that there has been one up here in Idaho, but he stopped all appeals, so its not the same. You are obviously absolutely certain of the Ramseys' guilt; thats OK by me because we all have our honest opinion. Believe it or not, when I first started into this case, I too was convinced it was probably the parents, if not them a family member. But the deeper I went, the more I came to think it was not them, my conclusions changed. Over in Coeur D'Alene, Idaho,about 38 miles from here a family, the Groenes, were murdered horribly last spring; the two youngest children disappeared without a trace. It was widely believed that it was either a drug deal gone bad or that the estranged husband, Steve had it done or did it. I mean, nobody thought that someone just came off the freeway at random and did it; the only problem is that that is what happened. And now it looks like cancer is going to kill him, at last report he had his voicebox removed and it has spread to his lymph nodes. And the real serial murderer that killed the Groenes will quite possibly die in jail--of old age. I guess my point in this post is that just because the Ramseys wouldn't cooperate with the BPD and confess like Steve Thomas[and The Globe] wanted doesn't make them guilty.

Colorado has a couple of death row inmates whose time for appeals is shorter. As to execution itself. Lethal injection of Gary L. Davis comes to mind. That was a few years ago. Even John Ramsey seemed to have the inkling he was fighting for their lives. He said as much in DOI. I read some on that Groene's case. Horrific.....totally.

allyoop

11-08-2006, 03:52 AM

docg, IIRC you were theorizing that something changed the direction of the cover-up. Could it have been Burke waking earlier than expected?

shill

11-08-2006, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

One OBVIOUS reason that should come to mind whether your IDI or RDI or FS. A spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse. If you divorce. Game Over. You can be compelled in court to testify under oath. Patsy was also whether in remission or not stage 4 cancer. That is Never not ever most especially in her type of cancer's case a diagnosis that suggests excellent mortality expectations.. Life expectancy for this is shorter than she actually lived. One thing should be clear they didn't know how long Patsy had. She made it a very long time for her situation and diagnosis. Now that Patsys dead, can they legally compel John to testify against her?

shill

11-08-2006, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Well no one knows what goes on behind closed doors. If they are guilty and that is for the court to decide not me, they had to do something and there is a famous comedienne who has a line. You can't fix stoopid!! I mean they had to do SOMETHING, anything would have been better than nothing cause nothing would have gotten them at least 80 years behind bars, they way the evidence was looking. Some things can't be fixed you do the best you can think of to do to save your backside in a very bad situation. It does not get much worse than a dead child without evidence of an intruder. Even John admitted it "looked" like an inside job. Had they done nothing the execution dates may well have run out of appeals by this time. If they did what many believe they did do, it kept them out of jail 10 years. That sounds pretty smart in retrospect if they are guilty. If it is true. Patsy did what she did best she turned to her journalistic skills and cast just enough doubt to live out her life free and not behind prison bars. If their was an intruder. Then they had the worst PR teams, worst lawyers, worst advise any couple in their shoes could ever have had. They paid a heavy personal price in reputation. However they did not cooperate. That isn't true. The facts regarding that can't be embellished enough to make a silk purse out of that. Even other parents of murdered children agree the Ramseys totally did not cooperate in the best interest of finding the murderer. Wouldn't they have been taking a bigger risk of serving more jail time and public humileation from staging the whole thing and then getting caught, instead of calling 911 immediately after they killed her and saying it was an accident?

shill

11-08-2006, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

And yes, the Ramseys are great actors. Sociopaths almost always are. Which is exactly why they are so successful at fooling people. If Sociopaths fall in love with each other, are they still Sociopaths?
Sociopaths almost always are great actors, are great actors almost always Sociopaths?

Two Sociopaths meet and fall in love, get married, have kids, live an extremely social lifestyle so no one suspects anything, and then decide one day to kill their daughter, but don't stage a convincing enough cover story and now everyone can see them for the Sociopaths they are.

Well they sure fooled me.:biggrin:

nuisanceposter

11-08-2006, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Sure...they were all very perfect. Just like The Brady Bunch. Right. When something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

I have to agree. The stories that Patsy never, ever once raised her voice to her children and that she and John never argued and the children excelled at everything they did, all fitting together to form the idyllic Christian family is just a liitle too wholesome and perfect to be believed. I would have felt better about the Ramseys if some of their own had said that they behaved more like average humans with normal relationships than like Dick and Jane's family in a squeaky clean Disney lifestyle.

nuisanceposter

11-08-2006, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good evening, White! No family is perfect, but not all are dysfunctional either. A great majority of people live quite normal family lives...The Ramseys enjoyed the benefits of a successful business, they, as a family, had survived probably the worst trial during their marriage, which was Patsy's serious cancer diagnosis...it was in remission, and life was back on track for them....they really seem to me to be living life to the fullest and realizing what was important! IMHO

I've always felt bad for Patsy because she faced much of her cancer alone. John wasn't there with her all that much - she talks in DOI of going for treatments with her mother instead, and sometimes she is going alone all the way to Bethesda. I realize John was focused on business and out of town a lot himself, but I think it sounds like Patsy faced the cancer ordeal mostly on her own. I have to give her credit for being strong and fighting it.

My personal opinion, but I think Patsy dealt with cancer while John dealt with business. I'm not sure how much stronger it made their marriage, because I don't think they faced it together. JMO.

ETA: I think there was a good bit of dysfunction in the Ramsey house that has been attempted to be covered up. Things like Patsy's friends, including Barbara Fernie, planning to have a talk with Patsy about the "mega JonBenet thing" when they got back from the cruise.

sweetcharlotte

11-08-2006, 10:07 AM

I doubt that anyone posting here really knows the Ramseys the way they think they do. RDIs and IDIs. JMO

Athena

11-08-2006, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I've always felt bad for Patsy because she faced much of her cancer alone. John wasn't there with her all that much - she talks in DOI of going for treatments with her mother instead, and sometimes she is going alone all the way to Bethesda. I realize John was focused on business and out of town a lot himself, but I think it sounds like Patsy faced the cancer ordeal mostly on her own. I have to give her credit for being strong and fighting it.

My personal opinion, but I think Patsy dealt with cancer while John dealt with business. I'm not sure how much stronger it made their marriage, because I don't think they faced it together. JMO.

ETA: I think there was a good bit of dysfunction in the Ramsey house that has been attempted to be covered up. Things like Patsy's friends, including Barbara Fernie, planning to have a talk with Patsy about the "mega JonBenet thing" when they got back from the cruise.

I do agree with you re: Patsy's ordeal with facing cancer alone for much of the time without John. I don't think under the circumstances it would have made the marriage necessarily stronger at all but it may have not had any adverse affect on it either. Alot of it would have to do with whether or not Patsy was OK and accepting of the minimal support she received from John.

I have a good friend who had breast cancer and had to have one of her breasts removed. I know for a fact that she is in a good marriage but her husband felt uncomfortable talking about it -- he was supportive in other ways and she really understood; but she did rely more on her female friends and mom at the time she was going through it.

8 years later she is doing very well and her marriage is great. We've been friends for over 25 years. :) JMO

LindaA

11-08-2006, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I doubt that anyone posting here really knows the Ramseys the way they think they do. RDIs and IDIs. JMO

Absolutely. I often wonder where people get all the information they seem to have about how dysfunctional they were, or how there family life was not all it appeared to be.

LindaA

11-08-2006, 10:29 AM

Hurray for you friend, Athena. I think a lot of men are very uncomfortable with "female" health issues. Like you friend's husband. JR may have been one of them also. We just don't know.

Coloradokares

11-08-2006, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by shill
Now that Patsys dead, can they legally compel John to testify against her?

Great Question!!! I am not sure to be honest with you. I would think if its bacon ever in the fire and they have them on anything be it murder or coverup, John would be inclined to want to stay out of prison. But it might mean everything to him to keep from sullying her reputation as he envisions it to be. Great Question. Anyone here an attorney or know one. My cousin is one. But he's out in SanFran at the moment.....Corporate Law.

Coloradokares

11-08-2006, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

Absolutely. I often wonder where people get all the information they seem to have about how dysfunctional they were, or how there family life was not all it appeared to be.

Ever heard of the 6 degrees of separation thing. It goes like this. Everyone knows someone who knew someone..... something like that. Whether you accept it or not I knew some who knew them and quite well. Go figure like I say I lived and worked less than 10 miles from the scene. If you were to have the relationship we do with these friends of ours, across the kitchen table conversation with them. You'd learn alot and I have. That is as far as I'll go. I cherish the friendship I have. I plan to keep it.

LindaA

11-08-2006, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Ever heard of the 6 degrees of separation thing. It goes like this. Everyone knows someone who knew someone..... something like that. Whether you accept it or not I knew some who knew them and quite well. Go figure like I say I lived and worked less than 10 miles from the scene. If you were to have the relationship we do with these friends of ours, across the kitchen table conversation with them. You'd learn alot and I have. That is as far as I'll go. I cherish the friendship I have. I plan to keep it.

Yes, I have heard of the six degrees thing. And by the time info has gone through 6 degrees, it bears little resemblance to the truth. But, actually I wasn't referring to you. You probably do have a better picture than the rest of us. I've suspected all along that you were closr to them than you''ve let on.

rashomon

11-08-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To rashoman: The perfect consistance of circumstantial evidence that points to the guilt of the Ramseys was insufficent to even bring back an indictment by a Grand Jury in Colorado. While I am cheerfully willing to listen to all theories and all circumstantial evidence presented[after all, we are all posting here] I remain totally unconvinced of any Ramsey involvement, beyond that of victims, as of this moment.
The reason why the GJ could not indict was probably because it couldn't be proved which of the Ramseys had actually killed JonBenet. For a GJ can't just say: "We have two suspects, the forensic and other circumstantial evidence points to their involvement, so let's charge them both. This is not allowed in a democratic justice system.

rashomon

11-08-2006, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by docg
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WallyCleaver

>Same reason that you think JR wrote a patently phoney ransom note then left it very much up to chance whether or not the note would fall into the hands of the police.

He did not leave it up to chance. The note is so long because it had so much to accomplish, including frightening Patsy into NOT calling the police. It was the act of a desperate man who had no choice but to take the risk that she'd call anyhow, despite those warnings, which as it happened she did. If they'd been in on it together, they would NOT have called the police at that time, because that's the whole point of the note, to give them an excuse not to call. And if something had gone wrong and they decided to call anyhow, then they'd have destroyed that note, because with the body in the house it no longer served any purpose.

>They had to call police at some point. I don't know why they'd choose first thing in the morning - maybe for some reason they couldn't ditch the body as planned. If they were going to leave the body in the house, then morning is as good a time as any.

If they were going to leave the body in the house then they'd have been sure to display it in a prominent place, not hide it in the most remote room in the basement. And if they decided to use a note, they certainly wouldn't have left a ransom note, but a taunting note, pinned to the body.

>Why not? Why would they want to cooperate with police if they were in on it together?

If in on it together they would have had every reason to "cooperate fully" with the police. Why not? Get your story straight and cooperate. What point would there be in stalling? What would they have had to gain, other than making the whole world suspect them of murdering their own child?

On the other hand, if John is our culprit and Patsy innocent, then it would be important that John not allow her to speak with the authorities until he'd had a chance to convince her to be a "team player" in their MUTUAL defense.
Docg - remember it was John who told Patsy to call the police.

And why should the Ramseys have destroyed the note? What would have happened if the police had found the two parents with a dead child in their own home? They would have been arrested on the spot. Therefore they absolutely needed to keep that note, even if it was written on pen and paper from their own home. A way out of it for them was to throw the housekeeper under the bus - that's all what John's 'inside job' comment was about.

ITA with Wally Cleaver who said that the Ramseys had to call the police at some point. For how long should they have waited? Two days? Three days? And let JB's body rot away in the cellar?
No kidnappers would have called anyway, and what do you think the police would have told the Ramseys then: "So the deadline passed, you got no call from the kidnappers and did not call us for days???" That would not wash.
I think the Ramseys originally planned to dump JB's body somewhere outside, which is why they wrote the ransom note. But then did not dare to do it for fear of being seen.
So what should they do? How explain their daughter's dead body in their own home? So they decided to stage it as "a kidnapping gone wrong" (hence the duct tape and ligatures), and also added the paintbrush injury to camouflage the signs of prior abuse. The garrote was then applied to suggest a sexual predator.

Imo the reason why the Ramseys did not display the body in a prominent place in the house was because they wanted to stage it as a kidnapping gone wrong, i. e. the perp took JB to the wine cellar and then could not get the body out of the house anymore ...

And if they were in on it together, cooperating fully with the police would not have been a smart move at all: for the danger to get caught in their own contradictions by when being questioned separately would have been immense. Perp and accomplice just can't think of every single detail, especially immediately after the crime, when they haven't even had time to think everything through in their concocted story. Which is why they more or less fled from the crime scene: they wanted to buy time, and the neighbors they called over served as a perfect layer of protection between them and the police. That's why they called them over.

rashomon

11-08-2006, 01:45 PM

docg

11-08-2006, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by allyoop
docg, IIRC you were theorizing that something changed the direction of the cover-up. Could it have been Burke waking earlier than expected?

Interesting question. If Burke woke up, they could have shown him the note, explained that JonBenet had been kidnapped, and that they needed to cooperate with the kidnapper. Everything could then have proceeded as planned. I don't see anything that Burke could have done that could have caused them to decide to call the police with the body still in the house. If John and Patsy were in on it together, they'd have called friends over to take Burke to safety while they dealt with the kidnappers. If John is guilty and Patsy innocent, he'd have probably planned on having Patsy join Burke. The note names HIM as the one who must deal with the kidnappers.

rashomon

11-08-2006, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

Realizing what was important?
Hmm, it obviously was very 'important' to the cancer survivor Patsy Ramsey to dress up her six-year-old daughter looking like a hooker.
Or getting herself and her daughter dressed up like Marilyn Monroe, the ultimate sex symbol. These were the things which Patsy considered important.

docg

11-08-2006, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

The reason why the GJ could not indict was probably because it couldn't be proved which of the Ramseys had actually killed JonBenet. For a GJ can't just say: "We have two suspects, the forensic and other circumstantial evidence points to their involvement, so let's charge them both. This is not allowed in a democratic justice system.

The reason that neither the grand jury nor the prosecution could indict was that no one could put together a Ramsey did it scenario that wouldn't be laughed out of court. Patsy killing JonBenet "by accident" over bedwetting, writing a ransom note that couldn't be matched to her, and then calling the police on herself will never cut it in court, trust me.

rashomon

11-08-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by docg

The reason that neither the grand jury nor the prosecution could indict was that no one could put together a Ramsey did it scenario that wouldn't be laughed out of court. Patsy killing JonBenet "by accident" over bedwetting, writing a ransom note that couldn't be matched to her, and then calling the police on herself will never cut it in court, trust me.
But remember that the prosecution is not required to provide a motive for the crime. All they need to prove is that the perp did it -not why he/she did it.
For the prosecution it does not matter if e. g. Patsy snapped over bedwetting or because she caught John molesting JB.
The Ramseys profited from the fact that the GJ had to deal with two suspects and could not conclusively prove which one had done it.
In addition, that whole GJ was a farce anyway. The main detective in the case, S. Thomas, didn't even testify, but Lou Smit and Trip DeMuth, two firm believers in the intruder theory, helped pick the panel, lol.
Is it surprising then that a grand juror later said they all just couldn't believe that parents could have done this to their child? So obviously the grand jurors didn't even realize that the scene in the wine cellar might have been done for staging purposes.

nuisanceposter

11-08-2006, 02:23 PM

Rashomon, here is a question that was asked recently that I would like to ask of you, maybe you know -

Were the results of the meeting with CASKU that Thomas and Smit attended presented during the GJ at all, and if so, by who?

LindaA

11-08-2006, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

Re your comments about PAtsy and JB'scostumes.

So?

nuisanceposter

11-08-2006, 02:34 PM

Many people, myself included, find it questionable that Patsy seemed to encourage a sexy appearance for her daughter in pageants, dressing her in costumes that were rather mature for a child her age. The mother-daughter Marilyn Monroe choice is one of them. Why choose to dress like a known sex symbol for a six year old girl, or like a Las Vegas showgirl? No wonder Patsy's friends were intending to talk to her about JonBenet when they got back from the cruise.

LindaA

11-08-2006, 02:45 PM

Well, NP & Rashomon, I have a different view. I've seen the pictures and find the majority of them just cute. The cowgirls and the patriotic one in particular. And if you've seen a real Las Vegas showgirl's costume, you know that JB and PR's costumes were nothing like them. They were covered up to the neck!!

Also, you should see what is sold to dance teachers for recital costumes. The Ramsey's costumes were nothing compared to the skimpy little thinks little girls taking dance lessons may wear in a recital.

That Patsy chose to do that means nothing in reltionship to the crime. IMO.

Coloradokares

11-08-2006, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by shill
Wouldn't they have been taking a bigger risk of serving more jail time and public humileation from staging the whole thing and then getting caught, instead of calling 911 immediately after they killed her and saying it was an accident?

Put yourself in their shoes. If they call say its an accident. With an 8 inch skull fracture .....your going to jail for the rest of your accidental days. If it was Patsy....lets just say if.....she had cancer to do the rest of your life in prison with cancer well that is not acceptable. Their objective if all this is true is to stay out of jail keep their millions live their life enjoying the wealth the privelege and prestige they had. Granted it got tarnished they took some hits to their reputation along the way but they were never destitute. They have not graced the jail cells yet. They KNEW Boulder they lived there. Maybe their attorneys told them do as I say and keep away from any interviews with the police you stay out of jail. They were there to raise Burke. Hypothetically of course...What if somone in fact did kill JonBenet and they knew who...and knew they were dead if they made one false move? What then? All this is hypothetical of course.

Coloradokares

11-08-2006, 03:27 PM

shill

11-08-2006, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

But remember that the prosecution is not required to provide a motive for the crime. All they need to prove is that the perp did it -not why he/she did it.
For the prosecution it does not matter if e. g. Patsy snapped over bedwetting or because she caught John molesting JB.
The Ramseys profited from the fact that the GJ had to deal with two suspects and could not conclusively prove which one had done it.
In addition, that whole GJ was a farce anyway. The main detective in the case, S. Thomas, didn't even testify, but Lou Smit and Trip DeMuth, two firm believers in the intruder theory, helped pick the panel, lol.
Is it surprising then that a grand juror later said they all just couldn't believe that parents could have done this to their child? So obviously the grand jurors didn't even realize that the scene in the wine cellar might have been done for staging purposes. If the prosecution is going with the RDI, and the defence is going with IDI and will bring evidence to prove their claim, don't you think the GJ needs to see both sides of the case to see if it's strong enough to take to trial?
IMO the prosecution would present the best evidence the could to support their RDI claim.
Maybe if they had presented John's shirt fiber evidence in JB's crotch area they could of convinced the GJ. Oh wait, they don't have that.

Coloradokares

11-08-2006, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

Yes, I have heard of the six degrees thing. And by the time info has gone through 6 degrees, it bears little resemblance to the truth. But, actually I wasn't referring to you. You probably do have a better picture than the rest of us. I've suspected all along that you were closr to them than you''ve let on.

You are correct. Not closer to the Ramseys. Closer to those involved in such a way with the case in a professional capacity that you would recognize the name in a snip snap. How far dare I go in clarifying without exposing. I am going to ask this person if it would be in any way unethical for them to open themselves up for some questioning by the forum. This person of course has the right to say no. Lets leave it there. I may or may not know more than the average boo boo bear. Alot of that is living here and living the Boulder Factor for alot of years. Alot is due to everyone involved in this case at any level has friends families etc. Their own personal lives.. That is the end of this discussion I treasure the relationship with the friends I mentioned and also what I just informed you of. I will tell you this. I have no inside track to the legal end of it.

docg

11-08-2006, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

But remember that the prosecution is not required to provide a motive for the crime. All they need to prove is that the perp did it -not why he/she did it.
<snip>

Not only is there no proof Patsy killed JonBenet, either deliberately or by accident, there is not the slightest evidence for such a theory. All the business about bedwetting, a dispute between John and Patsy, an accident, that's all the product of Steve Thomas's imagination. What a pair: Steve and Lou Smit. Each out to prove the impossible. Neither much interested in addressing ALL the evidence -- just whatever suits them.

sweetcharlotte

11-08-2006, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Not exactly. Patsy had real problems managing the home she loved to showcase. Real issues with JonBenet who even kicked her at a pageant. Some things were unraveling...Yet image was everything. Barbara Fernie wanted to speak to about the Mega JonBenet thing. When its all too good to be true it usually is. JMHO

I think these issues may very well have been more of a problem to those "observing" than they ever were for Patsy. JMO

Coloradokares

11-08-2006, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by docg

Not only is there no proof Patsy killed JonBenet, either deliberately or by accident, there is not the slightest evidence for such a theory. All the business about bedwetting, a dispute between John and Patsy, an accident, that's all the product of Steve Thomas's imagination. What a pair: Steve and Lou Smit. Each out to prove the impossible. Neither much interested in addressing ALL the evidence -- just whatever suits them.

WRONG!! Sorry don't mean to be so blunt. My apologies sincerely. But the bed wetting. Sorry it happened. Pullups hanging out of the closet. Sheets in the washer and dryer. Lets not resort to distorting the facts. Burke used to have the same problem. Did it lead Patsy to snap and harm JonBenet. That is speculative. That may not have a thing to do with what happened that night. lets not say that its all a product of imagination. Patsy and John did not deny it why are you?

rashomon

11-08-2006, 05:27 PM

docg

11-08-2006, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

>Docg - remember it was John who told Patsy to call the police.

That's their official story, yes. But in the first Tracey documentary Patsy says it was her idea. I think she was manipulated into ultimately backing up John's version of what happened. The alternative would have been a dispute that would have wrecked their defense and made both of them look bad.

>And why should the Ramseys have destroyed the note? What would have happened if the police had found the two parents with a dead child in their own home? They would have been arrested on the spot.

The note in itself only made them look more suspicious, not less. It helped them ONLY because the "experts" couldn't match it to either one of them, something they'd have had no way of anticipating. The reason they were not arrested on the spot had nothing to do with the note. The authorities simply couldn't figure out what happened. For all they knew the Ramseys could have been victims. IMO Patsy WAS.

>Therefore they absolutely needed to keep that note, even if it was written on pen and paper from their own home.

The note and the 911 call don't mix. There is no way they'd need that note if they decided at the last minute not to get rid of the body. The note is all about a kidnapping that never took place. Why do you think it was something they needed? Without the note they'd have looked less guilty, not more. And if they thought they needed a note at all, they'd have a written a very different sort of note, not a patenely phoney ransom note. And they'd have pasted something together from a magazine or something, not written it by hand.

>ITA with Wally Cleaver who said that the Ramseys had to call the police at some point. For how long should they have waited?

Until the body was out of the house. The note gave them a reason to dump it somewhere under the guise of delivering the ransom.

>I think the Ramseys originally planned to dump JB's body somewhere outside, which is why they wrote the ransom note.

Agreed!

>But then did not dare to do it for fear of being seen.

Then forget about the kidnapping scam and figure out some other way to stage it.

>So what should they do? How explain their daughter's dead body in their own home? So they decided to stage it as "a kidnapping gone wrong" (hence the duct tape and ligatures), and also added the paintbrush injury to camouflage the signs of prior abuse. The garrote was then applied to suggest a sexual predator.

Staging a kidnapping gone wrong is a HUGE stretch. It's much more likely to have been staging gone wrong. You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

>And if they were in on it together, cooperating fully with the police would not have been a smart move at all: for the danger to get caught in their own contradictions by when being questioned separately would have been immense.

They knew they'd have to be interrogated sooner or later. Why not get your story straight, "fully cooperate" and get it over with?

Coloradokares

11-08-2006, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I think these issues may very well have been more of a problem to those "observing" than they ever were for Patsy. JMO

Nope your right it didn't really get to Patsy as long as her chosen rooms were immaculate Dishs could stack up in the sink till the maid came. It was not however pleasing, lets be frank John. Who was said to have been disappointed in that area. Whoever it was that said it. It was said enough it made into the books. It was hinted at by those who knew them. I didn't so I have no proof that it was ever said other than books and heresay. So maybe your right maybe it was a more minor issue than it was construed to be. Or maybe a much more major issue than it was construed to be. Who knows :shrug: Unless you knew them personally or know personally those who did know them or been over to their home you don't know but those who did the investigations knew enough to know there were supposedly issues regarding it.

Athena

11-08-2006, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

WRONG!! Sorry don't mean to be so blunt. My apologies sincerely. But the bed wetting. Sorry it happened. Pullups hanging out of the closet. Sheets in the washer and dryer. Lets not resort to distorting the facts. Burke used to have the same problem. Did it lead Patsy to snap and harm JonBenet. That is speculative. That may not have a thing to do with what happened that night. lets not say that its all a product of imagination. Patsy and John did not deny it why are you?

There is absolutely NO evidence that JBR wet the bed that night. Nor were there any sheets found in a washer or dryer. And I do not see where Patsy or John said anything about her wetting the bed that night. They did admit she wet the bed but not that night. The housekeeper's interview (who worked for Schiller for over a year while he was writing the book) said that JBR had not worn pull-ups since the early part of the summer.

Source:PM/PT

The sheets were never tested for urine either - even Steve Thomas admitted that in his depo and he's the one that come up with the theory of an accident over a bed-wetting incident.

I haven't the slightest problem with people believing the Ramseys killed their daughter -- but what does bother me is the misinformation that continues to be stated as if they are facts. JMO

Athena

11-08-2006, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I think these issues may very well have been more of a problem to those "observing" than they ever were for Patsy. JMO

I agree. When you have young children especially, housekeeping can be let go as far as I'm concerned. You make sure the house is not "dirty" but the priority is doing things for and with the children and by all accounts I've read, Patsy was very involved with Burke and his school prior to JBR and was very involved with JBR and school functions as well. Patsy admitted she wasn't a good housekeeper and hated doing laundry -- so what! JMO

Athena

11-08-2006, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

Well, that certainly cinches it for me! Anyone who would not remember when their child took a bath is certainly capable of killing them in cold blood. But then not remembering when they bathed is not the same as not bathing them. or telling them to bathe.

And if what yu say is true then all the fibers on her could have come from Lord know who or what -- even those attributed to her parents/ clothing.

I'm glad I decided to read further because your comments about the fibers would have been what I would have said as well. :)

thewhitewitch1

11-08-2006, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Athena

There is absolutely NO evidence that JBR wet the bed that night. Nor were there any sheets found in a washer or dryer. And I do not see where Patsy or John said anything about her wetting the bed that night. They did admit she wet the bed but not that night. The housekeeper's interview (who worked for Schiller for over a year while he was writing the book) said that JBR had not worn pull-ups since the early part of the summer.

Source:PM/PT

The sheets were never tested for urine either - even Steve Thomas admitted that in his depo and he's the one that come up with the theory of an accident over a bed-wetting incident.

I haven't the slightest problem with people believing the Ramseys killed their daughter -- but what does bother me is the misinformation that continues to be stated as if they are facts. JMO

There IS evidence that she wet the bed that night. The housekeeper stated that the sheets on the bed were different ones than she had put on just two days ago.
The blanket was clearly not on the bed in the photos. The housekeeper said that if the blanket wasn't on the bed, it would have been in the dryer. It makes sense that it was in the dryer because not only would it explain why it wasn't on the bed, but also how the Barbie night gown wound up in the cellar (static cling). People make a big to-do about that being JBs favorite nightgown or a "pageant" nightgown, when, in fact it was neither. Patsy made it pretty clear that that nightgown had no special meaning and even seemed confused about where it came from. It was thought to have been from a life size Barbie doll.
The sheets on the bed could have easily been washed and dried that night and put away. No one would be the wiser (except the housekeeper who should know if the sheets were different from the ones she put on). No need for the pull-ups. There was a plastic mattress cover on her bed. Pull-ups were being taken on the trip with them on "the Big Red Boat" in case she had an accident so she wouldn't soil the mattress.
Not only that, but Patsy even said herself that if JB wasn't woken up during the night to use the bathroom, chances were good that she would wet the bed. We all know that JB was asleep when they got home and was put in bed without getting her up to urinate so I'd say the chances were pretty good that she did wet the bed...and that is by Patsys own admission. Unless you'd prefer to believe that on this one night she suddenly achieved bladder control and Patsy changed the sheets just for the heck of it only two days after they'd already been changed...
You may or may not believe LHP about the sheets, but why would she lie?

shill

11-08-2006, 08:36 PM

Was Patsy known to be abusive to JB when she wet the bed?
Is that why Thomas came up with his theory?

LindaA

11-08-2006, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I'm glad I decided to read further because your comments about the fibers would have been what I would have said as well. :)

;)

Athena

11-08-2006, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

There IS evidence that she wet the bed that night. The housekeeper stated that the sheets on the bed were different ones than she had put on just two days ago.
The blanket was clearly not on the bed in the photos. The housekeeper said that if the blanket wasn't on the bed, it would have been in the dryer. It makes sense that it was in the dryer because not only would it explain why it wasn't on the bed, but also how the Barbie night gown wound up in the cellar (static cling). People make a big to-do about that being JBs favorite nightgown or a "pageant" nightgown, when, in fact it was neither. Patsy made it pretty clear that that nightgown had no special meaning and even seemed confused about where it came from. It was thought to have been from a life size Barbie doll.
The sheets on the bed could have easily been washed and dried that night and put away. No one would be the wiser (except the housekeeper who should know if the sheets were different from the ones she put on). No need for the pull-ups. There was a plastic mattress cover on her bed. Pull-ups were being taken on the trip with them on "the Big Red Boat" in case she had an accident so she wouldn't soil the mattress.
Not only that, but Patsy even said herself that if JB wasn't woken up during the night to use the bathroom, chances were good that she would wet the bed. We all know that JB was asleep when they got home and was put in bed without getting her up to urinate so I'd say the chances were pretty good that she did wet the bed...and that is by Patsys own admission. Unless you'd prefer to believe that on this one night she suddenly achieved bladder control and Patsy changed the sheets just for the heck of it only two days after they'd already been changed...
You may or may not believe LHP about the sheets, but why would she lie?

Of course the blanket isn't in the photos; it was in the basement. Even if LHP changed the sheets TWO days before there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that JBR wet the bed THAT night. The sheets weren't even collected by the BPD until TEN (10) days later. And noone knows what significance that Barbie nightgown may have had to the killer and it did have blood stains on it.

So in addition to killing their daughter; they did laundry too; wrote the ransom note, and staged the crime scene. Yea - ok. LOL JMO

thewhitewitch1

11-08-2006, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Of course the blanket isn't in the photos; it was in the basement. Even if LHP changed the sheets TWO days before there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that JBR wet the bed THAT night. The sheets weren't even collected by the BPD until TEN (10) days later. And noone knows what significance that Barbie nightgown may have had to the killer and it did have blood stains on it.

So in addition to killing their daughter; they did laundry too; wrote the ransom note, and staged the crime scene. Yea - ok. LOL JMO

Well, we already discussed how the blanket couldn't have been taken off the bed without pulling the comforter off with it, right? So either the blanket was never on the bed at all that night, or it was taken off and the bed remade (at least the comforter was straightened and folded back). It doesn't matter that the sheets weren't collected until TEN (10) days later. They were photographed the day OF the murder ON the bed and LHP says they were not the same sheets she put on it. There is no concrete PROOF that JB wet the bed but there is evidence to suggest that the sheets were changed. I doubt that with all of the activity going on with Christmas that Patsy was going to change the sheets for no reason. We can pretty much rule out that she wet the bed Christmas Eve since she was photographed wearing the same pajamas Christmas morning that she went to bed in that night...so what does that leave us as far as when the sheets had been changed? Only the night after LHP changed them and Christmas night. Since nobody woke her up to go to the bathroom that night, I don't think it's too unreasonable to think that it is very possible that she wet the bed.
As far as washing and drying the sheets...well, how hard is it to do that and how time consuming? Not very.
You seem to forget that they had at least 4 1/2 - 7 hours to do all of these things. None of the staging would have taken that long to do, including the ransom note. It really is not a very long note at all. It only took up so many pages because of what it was written with. Using a Sharpie pen would make you write larger than normal too because to write smaller would make the words illegible.
I don't see why you felt the need to "LOL" when everything I said was quite within the realm of possibility.
I have NEVER seen anything anywhere that said there were blood stains on the Barbie nightgown. Please give me your theory on what that nightgown might mean to an intruder. It meant nothing. John said it best: "That shouldn't be there".
It got stuck to the blanket coming out of the dryer. It was probably on her bed when the sheets and blanket got washed. IMO

docg

11-09-2006, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

But there is no proof that John killed JonBenet either. Simple as that.

No, no proof. But there IS evidence. Lots of it. For starters, you can go here: http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20Note

There was evidence of prior sexual abuse. That points strongly to the only mature male in the home, John. John's fibers were found in JonBenet's crotch. When questioned about this he made no effort to explain. While Patsy's fibers were also found they can easily be explained via innocent transfer to the victim from her mother and from the victim to her attacker. Her father's fibers found in her crotch CANNOT be so easily explained.

John admits finding the basement window open and then closing it without telling anyone. That's consistent with my theory that John first staged a breakin at that point and later decided to unstage.

John's story about breaking the window months earlier is not credible. See his testimony on that in the '97 and '98 police interviews and see if you can make sense of it.

Patsy is the one who called 911, NOT John. In the Tracey documentary she strongly implied this was HER idea, NOT his.

The court document presented on Brugnatelli's website strongly resembles the ransom note. Brugnatelli has 9 pages of comparisons, based on that one short example. This document was NOT examined by the handwriting experts who ruled him out. All the exemplars he provided look nothing like it, according to one of his chief defenders, Jameson herself.

shill

11-09-2006, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by docg

John's fibers were found in JonBenet's crotch. Her father's fibers found in her crotch CANNOT be so easily explained.
Objection, hearsay by the detective and never proven.

shill

11-09-2006, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Since nobody woke her up to go to the bathroom that night, I don't think it's too unreasonable to think that it is very possible that she wet the bed.
So it's Patsy's fault JB wet the bed, because Patsy didn't wake her. So Patsy's anger was misdirected at JB and not justified. Patsy should have bashed her own head in for not waking JB IMO.

shill

11-09-2006, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by shill
Was Patsy known to be abusive to JB when she wet the bed?
Is that why Thomas came up with his theory? Doesn't anybody have an answer to this?

Coloradokares

11-09-2006, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by shill
Was Patsy known to be abusive to JB when she wet the bed?
Is that why Thomas came up with his theory?

Although I am not going to start dropping names I was told that is one of the issues that came up time and again in their investigations. I have no idea about abuse. But that the issues surrounding the wetting and soiling were drawing some attention and were getting discussed in the investigations.

shill

11-09-2006, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Although I am not going to start dropping names I was told that is one of the issues that came up time and again in their investigations. I have no idea about abuse. But that the issues surrounding the wetting and soiling were drawing some attention and were getting discussed in the investigations. What does that mean? Sounds like gossip around the water cooler.

Coloradokares

11-09-2006, 01:41 AM

Coloradokares

11-09-2006, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by shill
What does that mean? Sounds like gossip around the water cooler.

Not hardly thats not dropping a name you'd recognize if I dropped it .

shill

11-09-2006, 01:49 AM

A good friend of mine's daughter had bed wetting problems and wore diapers past the age of six. They felt nothing but sympathy for her and went out of their way to not make her uncomfortable about it and she frequented the doctor like JB to help her with her problem.
Having cancer is something that would upset me, not my child having a bed wetting problem, especially if I had a maid to do laundry.

shill

11-09-2006, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Not hardly thats not dropping a name you'd recognize if I dropped it . Don't need a name.
What did Patsy do?

Coloradokares

11-09-2006, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by shill
Don't need a name.
What did Patsy do?

The issues had been somewhat resolved for a while and started back in again worse than ever including soiling herself not just wetting. I have no information what all was told to the investigators by those who were questioned. I was informed that time and again it was coming up as a ISSUE in their investigations. I will not go into any details that I don't know but it was surfacing as an issue from many sources. That is eluded to in books on the subject. Most child abuse issues are hidden or come to light as little accidents seen in the doctors offices or ER. Oh they fell, whatever. But if it was surfacing this was an issue in investigations .. one has to consider the problem was known by more than just one or two people?

shill

11-09-2006, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

The issues had been somewhat resolved for a while and started back in again worse than ever including soiling herself not just wetting. I have no information what all was told to the investigators by those who were questioned. I was informed that time and again it was coming up as a ISSUE in their investigations. I will not go into any details that I don't know but it was surfacing as an issue from many sources. That is eluded to in books on the subject. Most child abuse issues are hidden or come to light as little accidents seen in the doctors offices or ER. Oh they fell, whatever. But if it was surfacing this was an issue in investigations .. one has to consider the problem was known by more than just one or two people? Like I said, gossip around the water cooler.

shill

11-09-2006, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by shill
Was Patsy known to be abusive to JB when she wet the bed?
The question wasn't , did the detectives talk about whether Patsy was abusive to JB when she wet the bed.

What known abuse did Patsy do to JB for wetting the bed?

bullmoose

11-09-2006, 03:13 AM

To docg: Its always the false innuendos about John's shirt fibers found in Jonbenet's genital area that keep getting stated as fact, that John never explained them. He didn't have to explain non-existing evidence during a spurious line questioning; his lawyer asked to see what evidence, if any, that the questioner was basing his spurious line of questions on. None was shown John's lawyer, probably because there was no such match, so no answer was necessary. All they were attempting to do was to try to trip up John with bogus questions about pipedream evidence , nothing more.

WallyCleaver

11-09-2006, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To docg: Its always the false innuendos about John's shirt fibers found in Jonbenet's genital area that keep getting stated as fact, that John never explained them. He didn't have to explain non-existing evidence during a spurious line questioning; his lawyer asked to see what evidence, if any, that the questioner was basing his spurious line of questions on. None was shown John's lawyer, probably because there was no such match, so no answer was necessary. All they were attempting to do was to try to trip up John with bogus questions about pipedream evidence , nothing more.

You have no reason to dismiss the shirt fibers. No matter how badly you want this to be made up by the police, you simply don't know what the true story is. Just because they didn't turn over the evidence to Wood upon demand doesn't mean they made it up. You've lept to a conclusion for which you don't have a sound basis.

bullmoose

11-09-2006, 06:30 AM

The reason that I think the fiber evidence is made up is my own experience with the ISP in 2003, when I was questioned on an evidentory matter. I was assured at that time that the video from the trooper's copcam did in fact back up the female trooper's sworn statement as to the facts of the case. My lawyer however obtained the official videotape, which we viewed and realized had been edited and redubbed by the ISP; even so, the edited tape clearly proved that the arresting officer's statement was a perjury in its entirety; there were numerous contradictions between her story and the tape. As to the false charges and accusations made by the officer, they were never brought up at trial as I had hoped: you see the when it came for the day to start my trial, having refused all pleadeals offered; the Idaho State Patrol simply failed failed to show up in court. The trial judge was more than slightly angry and dismissed the charges with prejudice,so that the ISP or the KCPA's office could not refile charges so as to harass me. In other words, I know from experience that officers of the court routinely lie through their teeth and that they are not punished for lying and committing perjury. It is my conclusion that if the fiber evidence had been more than a BPD wet dream they would have nailed John Ramsey to the wall with it; I mean, they had, by asking the question already told him they had such evidence. But I believe, as in my own case, that it was a lie, a ruse to trip him up or scare or shock him into making a potentially damaging respose. It had been clear by this point for quite some time that the Ramseys were their only suspects, so Lin Wood did his job as John's lawyer and demanded to see what if any evidence they had to make such a question. The cops didn't produce any, so I remain convinced they had no fiber evidence.

nuisanceposter

11-09-2006, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Athena

<snip>

And noone knows what significance that Barbie nightgown may have had to the killer and it did have blood stains on it.

Oh, really? Whose blood? Link, please?

nuisanceposter

11-09-2006, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by bullmoose
The reason that I think the fiber evidence is made up is my own experience with the ISP in 2003, when I was questioned on an evidentory matter. I was assured at that time that the video from the trooper's copcam did in fact back up the female trooper's sworn statement as to the facts of the case. My lawyer however obtained the official videotape, which we viewed and realized had been edited and redubbed by the ISP; even so, the edited tape clearly proved that the arresting officer's statement was a perjury in its entirety; there were numerous contradictions between her story and the tape. As to the false charges and accusations made by the officer, they were never brought up at trial as I had hoped: you see the when it came for the day to start my trial, having refused all pleadeals offered; the Idaho State Patrol simply failed failed to show up in court. The trial judge was more than slightly angry and dismissed the charges with prejudice,so that the ISP or the KCPA's office could not refile charges so as to harass me. In other words, I know from experience that officers of the court routinely lie through their teeth and that they are not punished for lying and committing perjury. It is my conclusion that if the fiber evidence had been more than a BPD wet dream they would have nailed John Ramsey to the wall with it; I mean, they had, by asking the question already told him they had such evidence. But I believe, as in my own case, that it was a lie, a ruse to trip him up or scare or shock him into making a potentially damaging respose. It had been clear by this point for quite some time that the Ramseys were their only suspects, so Lin Wood did his job as John's lawyer and demanded to see what if any evidence they had to make such a question. The cops didn't produce any, so I remain convinced they had no fiber evidence.

Police are under no obligation whatsoever to share details of evidence against the suspects. It happens all the time, and not giving more detail does not mean the evidence was fabricated.

And if you think the Ramseys were their only suspects, you need to do some reading about who all police investigated in this case.

sweetcharlotte

11-09-2006, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by bullmoose

<snip for bandwidth - not content>

It had been clear by this point for quite some time that the Ramseys were their only suspects, so Lin Wood did his job as John's lawyer and demanded to see what if any evidence they had to make such a question. The cops didn't produce any, so I remain convinced they had no fiber evidence.

And Levin didn't waste a minute in moving right along with the interview...........which - IMO - solidifies the fact that they had no evidence.

nuisanceposter

11-09-2006, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

And Levin didn't waste a minute in moving right along with the interview...........which - IMO - solidifies the fact that they had no evidence.

In your opinion, exactly. Levin didn't want to give the Rs any more details about the fiber evidence - that does not mean he fabricated there being any in the first place.

Just because that evidence isn't released to the public does not mean it does not exist. Just because Levin didn't persue the line of questioning does not mean the evidence does not exist.

Police were not required to give details of evidence to the suspects in a murder investigation. That does not mean that anytime police ask about evidence and don't go into detail about it that it was made up and does not exist.

Lack of detail about evidence does not equal lying about it existing in the first place. I can't believe rational-thinking people can't accept that.

sweetcharlotte

11-09-2006, 08:53 AM

And I'll say again - if there had been this evidence - you think Steve's list wouldn't have included it?

nuisanceposter

11-09-2006, 09:17 AM

I don't recall you ever asking about Thomas in relation to the fiber evidence. He talks about the fiber evidence in his book, specifically the fibers on the back of the duct tape being chemically and microscopically consistent with Patsy's jacket.

docg

11-09-2006, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

In your opinion, exactly. Levin didn't want to give the Rs any more details about the fiber evidence - that does not mean he fabricated there being any in the first place.

Just because that evidence isn't released to the public does not mean it does not exist. Just because Levin didn't persue the line of questioning does not mean the evidence does not exist.

Police were not required to give details of evidence to the suspects in a murder investigation. That does not mean that anytime police ask about evidence and don't go into detail about it that it was made up and does not exist.

Lack of detail about evidence does not equal lying about it existing in the first place. I can't believe rational-thinking people can't accept that.

Neither can I. While it IS true, as Bullmoose argues, that police can and do make things up to intimidate suspects, there is absolutely NO sign ANY of the Ramsey interviewers did anything of the sort. If you read over the interviews you'll see that they were bending over backwards to be polite and accomodating. The information regarding the fibers was not provided in the context of the sort of grilling Bullmoose invoked. The interviewer even suggested that the fibers might have been transferred via the laundry.

The fiber evidence is NOT rumor, NOT media spin, not even second hand, but taken directly from police interview transcripts. That's about as solid as you can get in this case.

sweetcharlotte

11-09-2006, 09:47 AM

I just posted two LKL transcripts where Lin Wood talks about the fact that there were no black fibers from John's shirt found in JonBenet's underwear. See "links" above.

JMO

docg

11-09-2006, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
And I'll say again - if there had been this evidence - you think Steve's list wouldn't have included it?

Steve set his sights on Patsy very early on, long before the fiber match was discovered. He very publicly gave John a "pass." His theory involved Patsy losing it over bedwetting, not sexual abuse on John's part. It was not in his interest to emphasize John's fibers but only Patsy's.

Why didn't the fiber evidence trigger the immediate arrest of John? Well, why didn't the obviously phoney note trigger an arrest? Why didn't the lack of any sign of a breakin trigger an arrest? Why didn't the obvious staging at the basement window trigger an arrest? Why didn't John's absurd story about breaking the window earlier trigger an arrest?

Clearly, the investigators were, and remain, totally out of their depth on this case. They don't have a clue as to what happened.

Ames

11-09-2006, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

You know I can't tell you as it was local not link or book but it was told to me sheets were found in the washer. Pullups half out of the closet.... I trust my source.

CK...I had also heard those things...the sheets in the washer..and about the pullups being half out of the closet. I had actually forgotten about that...because I had heard about those things, right after the murder happened.

docg

11-09-2006, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I just posted two LKL transcripts where Lin Wood talks about the fact that there were no black fibers from John's shirt found in JonBenet's underwear. See "links" above.

JMO

Lin Wood has been free to grandstand, exaggerate, mislead and even lie as part of his vigorous public relations effort on behalf of his clients. He is not really so much a lawyer as a PR man, a job he does extremely well. The other side has been constrained by 1. a tight lid of silence imposed by the DA; 2. the fear of a Wood lawsuit. Therefore even Wood's most outrageous statements are rarely challenged by officials in a position to know.

sweetcharlotte

11-09-2006, 10:02 AM

John & Patsy submitted clothes for analysis in early 1998.

The Grand Jury meet from Sept 1998 - October 1999.

The interviews with John (if I'm not mistaken) were in 2000.

I find it hard to believe that the first "fiber" evidence presented to the GJ wouldn't have included all evidence found on JonBenet.

Therefore, I don't think the black fibers existed and that the 2000 interviews with John were in fact a fishing expedition.

JMO

sweetcharlotte

11-09-2006, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by docg

Lin Wood has been free to grandstand, exaggerate, mislead and even lie as part of his vigorous public relations effort on behalf of his clients. He is not really so much a lawyer as a PR man, a job he does extremely well. The other side has been constrained by 1. a tight lid of silence imposed by the DA; 2. the fear of a Wood lawsuit. Therefore even Wood's most outrageous statements are rarely challenged by officials in a position to know.

Who would fear a lawsuit from Wood? I would think if the evidence is there - no one would have to "fear" a lawsuit. JMO

lucky13

11-09-2006, 10:31 AM

Ames

11-09-2006, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by lucky13

No offense, Athena, because I totally respect you, but isn't the intruder theory just as laughable?
An intruder breaks in, leaving no evidence of a break in, wanders around the house for hours, digs through Johns desk finding his check stubs & then writes a ransom note that really wasn't even a ransom note, somehow gets JB up & into the kitchen to eat some pineapple, then garrotes & kills her, CLEANS her body, redresses her in fresh panties, lovingly covers her body with her blanket, & then leaves without a trace!! Yea- ok. lol ??????

I agree...In my opinion the IDI theory is way more laughable than the RDI theory. Not to mention that we KNOW that the Ramsey's were in the house that night. I wonder why the RDI theory is SO laughable to the IDI's? Most of them seem to think that it is SO farfetched to think that the Ramsey's were involved...and I just don't get why they would think that. IMO

nuisanceposter

11-09-2006, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Ames

I agree...In my opinion the IDI theory is way more laughable than the RDI theory. Not to mention that we KNOW that the Ramsey's were in the house that night. I wonder why the RDI theory is SO laughable to the IDI's? Most of them seem to think that it is SO farfetched to think that the Ramsey's were involved...and I just don't get why they would think that. IMO

People don't want to believe this can happen in a family. People don't want to believe that a parent could do that to their own child. It's much safer to conjure up a boogeymen who is the essence of all evil and lay the blame on him, regardless of whether there is any forensic evidence of anyone other than Ramsey in that house that night or not.

The Ramseys were extremely likeable. The dad was a quiet, intelligent businessman who liked to sail, and the mom was outgoing, generous, and friendly. They belonged to a church, and Patsy helped out at the school. They seem like average, normal everyday people. No one wants to believe one of them could possibly be responsible for their daughter's brutal murder. No one wants to believe either of them could possibly be conspiring to hinder investigation and perserve their own selves above their child.

People refuse to believe it, to the point of ignoring obvious evidence and acting like it's nothing (JonBenet's toileting issues and medical history and evidence of prior abuse), to making up excuses (Patsy's stories contradict because she was confused - for nine years, John's stories contradict because he was in mourning - again, nine years, they can't interview with police because they're devastated - wow, another nine years and they don't seem to grasp or don't care that this killer is still loose and could strike again), and outright denying the evidence can possibly be correct (the fiber evidence IDIs discount because Levin didn't drop to his knees and dish up reams of paperwork detailing CBI's findings.)

Meanwhile, JonBenet lays in her grave still denied the justice she deserves, and despite the evidence indicating Ramsey involvement, they're too perfect and moral and wholesome and Christian to have been responsible for their daughter's death.