Troubling Details: garland, shoe laces, footprints, ponytails, barbie nightgown, etc [Archive] - Page 4

rosebud

09-27-2006, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

1. He didn't have to have the house memorized. A flashlight works quite nicely in the dark.

2. He didn't have to know about the basement window. A key to the door would have worked quite nicely to enter the house. He could easily have seen the basement window once he was in the basement after taking JonBenet there.

3. As I've said, every one of John's pay stubs for most of the year had the amount on them. He could have seen it several months before the murder and remembered it when writing the ransom note.

4. He might have been watching the house earlier and seen them take the dog there.

5. I don't know of any kid that doesn't like pineapple. Maybe he'd have offered her something else if she didn't want pineapple. He might have had a pocketfull of candy.

6. It doesn't seem logical for him to go back up to the 2nd floor and leave the note on her bed. The 3rd step from the bottom of the stairs is quite visible from a distance. And, it's a logical way for Patsy to come downstairs in the morning. It reasonable to think the note would have been found pretty fast even if she hadn't come down those stairs. The minute they realized JonBenet wasn't in bed they'd have looked all over and come across it.

7. Burke might found that knife himself, or JonBenet, and put it in the basement.

IMO, JMO and MOO

So the intruder finds the financial records with a flashlight and detects the Christmas bonus of $118,000.

So the intruder has a key to the house but decides to leave with JB's body through a basement window. Sure that makes sense.

So the killer hunts until he finds John Ramsey's financial records in the dark but takes nothing from the house. Why did the police miss this?

So he has been watching the house but he still did not spend a "considerable" amount of time in it. Of course.

You don't know any kid that doesn't like pineapple? (I have never run across one that DID like pineapple.) Of course, all child molestors lure their victims with pineapple. If not that, then M&Ms.

What kidnapper doesn't leave a note on a staircase?

If the intruder looked around to find the financial records I am sure a swiss army knife in a cabinet was a piece of cake to find.

JMO

Mimi428

09-27-2006, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Why don't you tell me why you think he'd lie in the autopsy report?

I don't believe he lied in the autopsy report. My hunch is that you are not familiar enough in the way that autopsy reports & death certificates are worded & you have reached an erroneous conclusion that because the strangulation was listed first, that it happened first.

It is YOUR claim that the coroner stated that he put strangulation first because he thought it happened first. So, show the link where he stated that.

And if we go by your interpretation - that what was listed first, happened first - then we would be assuming that the abrasion of the right cheek happened third - because it is listed 3rd. That the abrasion/contusion on the right shoulder happened 4th, because it is listed 4th, etc. I am going to guess that you realize that just because those things were listed 3rd & 4th - it does not mean they HAPPENED in that order. And by the same token, the ligature strangulation can be listed first, but not have happened before the head injury.

thewhitewitch1

09-27-2006, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

1. He didn't have to have the house memorized. A flashlight works quite nicely in the dark.

2. He didn't have to know about the basement window. A key to the door would have worked quite nicely to enter the house. He could easily have seen the basement window once he was in the basement after taking JonBenet there.

3. As I've said, every one of John's pay stubs for most of the year had the amount on them. He could have seen it several months before the murder and remembered it when writing the ransom note.

4. He might have been watching the house earlier and seen them take the dog there.

5. I don't know of any kid that doesn't like pineapple. Maybe he'd have offered her something else if she didn't want pineapple. He might have had a pocketfull of candy.

6. It doesn't seem logical for him to go back up to the 2nd floor and leave the note on her bed. The 3rd step from the bottom of the stairs is quite visible from a distance. And, it's a logical way for Patsy to come downstairs in the morning. It reasonable to think the note would have been found pretty fast even if she hadn't come down those stairs. The minute they realized JonBenet wasn't in bed they'd have looked all over and come across it.

7. Burke might found that knife himself, or JonBenet, and put it in the basement.

IMO, JMO and MOO

Most of the things you said are possible except this:

The pineapple. Patsy's and Burkes prints were on that bowl. Patsy denies everything about it. How do you explain that?
How do you explain her lying about what Jonbenet wore to the Whites house? All of her clothes were changed at one point during that night. I know she said over and over again that she only changed her pants but please read the transcript from 1998 and watch how she slipped up...not once, but twice. It is towards the end of the interview while she was looking at the crime scene pictures. www.acandyrose.com
Why is she lying? She also recanted on her story of what happened before the 911 call was made because there were questions about how much she had read of the ransom note beforehand. She changed her story around to make it sound more plausable.
I am still studying the transcripts to find more inconsistancies with their stories. You just cannot dismiss the importance of that pineapple. It means that the Ramseys lied about Jonbenet being asleep when they got home and/or not getting up at some time during the night. If that doesn't seem suspicious to you...then I am dumbfounded!
I do wish there were pictures of JB at the Whites party. Interesting that those haven't been released. If Fleet White knows that the Ramseys are lying about what she wore, no wonder Fleet went off the deep end with John. I think he knows the Ramseys killed her.
The Ramseys did a nice job of trying to point the finger at him almost from the start too. IMO

sunsplashed

09-27-2006, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Most of the things you said are possible except this:

The pineapple. Patsy's and Burkes prints were on that bowl. Patsy denies everything about it. How do you explain that?
How do you explain her lying about what Jonbenet wore to the Whites house? All of her clothes were changed at one point during that night. I know she said over and over again that she only changed her pants but please read the transcript from 1998 and watch how she slipped up...not once, but twice. It is towards the end of the interview while she was looking at the crime scene pictures. www.acandyrose.com
Why is she lying? She also recanted on her story of what happened before the 911 call was made because there were questions about how much she had read of the ransom note beforehand. She changed her story around to make it sound more plausable.
I am still studying the transcripts to find more inconsistancies with their stories. You just cannot dismiss the importance of that pineapple. It means that the Ramseys lied about Jonbenet being asleep when they got home and/or not getting up at some time during the night. If that doesn't seem suspicious to you...then I am dumbfounded!
I do wish there were pictures of JB at the Whites party. Interesting that those haven't been released. If Fleet White knows that the Ramseys are lying about what she wore, no wonder Fleet went off the deep end with John. I think he knows the Ramseys killed her.
The Ramseys did a nice job of trying to point the finger at him almost from the start too. IMO

I agree with you COMPLETELY!

I don't think photos of the Whites Christmas party have ever been released.

Fleet White has acted like more than a gentleman and a friend, only talking to LE.

JMO

Mimi428

09-27-2006, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I am still studying the transcripts to find more inconsistancies with their stories. You just cannot dismiss the importance of that pineapple. It means that the Ramseys lied about Jonbenet being asleep when they got home and/or not getting up at some time during the night.

<snipped>

Tell us if you notice something that stood out to me in Patsy's transcripts - everytime the subject is on specifics that relate to the crime, she starts stumbling over her words & starts using "you know, I mean, you know" much more often.

When she discusses things not related - she sails along just fine with a "you know" or an "I mean" put in every so often. Like when she relates how they were supposed to meet Melinda & John Andrew - she does not stumble at all in relating that info.

But when it comes to answering about how she found the ransom note, who called, who checked on Burke, etc - she starts falling all over herself with "you know, you know, you know".

JMIO

Athena

09-27-2006, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Myrdawn....Cyril Wecht analyzed the original autopsy and gave it to the general public in "layman" terms and then gave his opinions on what had happened based on the autopsy.

Dr Wecht also said there was semen found and there wasn't. I haven't trusted anything Wecht says since he backpeddaled on how he said JFK was shot. He interjects himself into every high-profile case he can. jmo

Athena

09-27-2006, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

Tell us if you notice something that stood out to me in Patsy's transcripts - everytime the subject is on specifics that relate to the crime, she starts stumbling over her words & starts using "you know, I mean, you know" much more often.

When she discusses things not related - she sails along just fine with a "you know" or an "I mean" put in every so often. Like when she relates how they were supposed to meet Melinda & John Andrew - she does not stumble at all in relating that info.

But when it comes to answering about how she found the ransom note, who called, who checked on Burke, etc - she starts falling all over herself with "you know, you know, you know".

JMIO

Not for anything Mimi but I'd like to know how many of the details parents know in the minutes, hours following the death of a child especially one lost through violence. Some would block out every single detail except maybe seeing the loved one is no longer alive.

My mother saw my baby brother killed - to this day all she remembers is running to my brother to cradle him. She has no idea what the perpetrator was wearing, what his race was, if it were more than one person, how many shots she heard -- she totally blocked it out. No different than a person being in a car accident - knowing they are in a car accident but not remember ANY details. I don't remember what I said or what I did when I was told my brother had been shot. I even went to the hospital in frigid temperatures with no overcoat because I just was not thinking. jmo

Athena

09-27-2006, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Most of the things you said are possible except this:

The pineapple. Patsy's and Burkes prints were on that bowl. Patsy denies everything about it. How do you explain that?
How do you explain her lying about what Jonbenet wore to the Whites house? All of her clothes were changed at one point during that night. I know she said over and over again that she only changed her pants but please read the transcript from 1998 and watch how she slipped up...not once, but twice. It is towards the end of the interview while she was looking at the crime scene pictures. www.acandyrose.com
Why is she lying? She also recanted on her story of what happened before the 911 call was made because there were questions about how much she had read of the ransom note beforehand. She changed her story around to make it sound more plausable.
I am still studying the transcripts to find more inconsistancies with their stories. You just cannot dismiss the importance of that pineapple. It means that the Ramseys lied about Jonbenet being asleep when they got home and/or not getting up at some time during the night. If that doesn't seem suspicious to you...then I am dumbfounded!
I do wish there were pictures of JB at the Whites party. Interesting that those haven't been released. If Fleet White knows that the Ramseys are lying about what she wore, no wonder Fleet went off the deep end with John. I think he knows the Ramseys killed her.
The Ramseys did a nice job of trying to point the finger at him almost from the start too. IMO

Patsy said she did not give Jonbenet pineapple. She did say she recognized the bowl. So what if her fingerprints are on the bowl or Burke's -- the bowl was on the counter. Patsy probably puts her dishes away -- your fingerprints are most likely on any of your glassware. Why does she have to be lying??? jmo

There are pictures of Jonbenet at the Whites on the PMPT DVD and I'll have to look at it again because the only thing I am recalling right now is she had on a red sweater. I'll look at it again though.

Athena

09-27-2006, 11:15 PM

Here's some pictures from the party on 12/23/96:

http://tinyurl.com/rjlby

Athena

09-27-2006, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by rashomon
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
http://www.lousmit.com/intrudertheory.htm

Vaginal injuries: Something -- possibly one end of the broken paintbrush -- was forced into JonBenet's vagina because her hymen was partly torn. It was bleeding, so it happened before death. Smit said it was the only tear in her vagina, so he doesn't think somebody was sexually assaulting her over a long period of time. Plant materials similar to the paint brush's wood shards are found in her vagina.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smit is wrong re JB's hymen being 'partly torn': JB's hymen consisted of a rim of tissue going from the two to ten o'clock position, i. e. a large part part of the hymen was already gone, and this was not due to the fresh injury inflicted to her vagina.
There was no 'tear' in her vagina either, but an instrument had been jabbed in the vaginal vestibule which caused some bleeding.

Dr. McCann, who unlike Lou Smit, is one of the leading pediatric experts on sexual abuse, noted that the vaginal orifice measured twice the size normal for a child of JB's age, he mentioned the reddening of the vaginal walls, irregularities of the edge of the hymen, thickening of the hymeneal rim at the 7 o' clock position, and exposure of vaginal structures (the rugae) which are normally covered. All this combined led him to conclude that JB had been the victim of chronic abuse. and virtually all the other experts on the panel agred with Dr. McCann on that.

And when Det. Jane Harmer showed to members of the BPD slides of JB's damaged vaginal tissue compared to slides of vaginal tissue of a healthy six-year-old child, the difference was glaringly obvious even to non-medical experts.

Hymen Tearing
When we are looking at child abuse, most of the injuries occur below the 3-9 o’clock line for sexual assault. So when we see from 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 o’clock, when we see hymenal lacerations, tears and injuries, that is very specific for trauma, for sexual assault.

The area from 9 o’clock to 3 o’clock is less specific but there still can be injuries there from sexual assault, but that area is less specific. And I’ll tell you why. Because what they’ve done is researched and they’ve looked at little girl’s hymens and little girls usually have concentric hymens or circular hymens. And what happens is, they’ve looked at girls at puberty time and they’ve looked at it and in the newborn period little girls usually have concentric hymens but when they look at the percentage of the older girls, they are more crescentic. And what the feeling is, between that time period, that between 9 o’clock and 3 o’clock there is some normal disappearance of the hymenal tissue between times and that’s why that area is less specific. And between the 3 o’clock, 6 o’clock, 9 o’clock, that hymenal area does not undergo changes and that’s more of the area that you can imagine the force or impact of trauma occurring. So that’s the area you want to look. In the knee-chest position you really can see that posterior hymen sometimes drop down.

http://www.medical-library.org/journals5a/hymen_tearing.htm

Athena

09-27-2006, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I knew you folks would say that...but the man imho does have integrity...he himself said he's been called a hired gun or a media hound....he was payed a fee by the Ramseys...but, before he gave his analysis...he warned them..that if he came to the conclusion they were guilty he wouldn't fail to reveal it!!! Have a great evening folks,,,gotta run, again! :seeya:

LadyFisher - thanks for bringing this book to my attention. :) I just finished reading his analysis of the JBR case and as I was reading it I couldn't believe that alot of his analysis matched what we have said previously and I had NEVER read him before. I found it totally amazing and you know I agree with him. I was also surprised to find out that he did disagreed with some of what Smit says and he believes the person entered that home more likely with a key or an open door and believes it is someone that the Ramseys know (not necessarily a friend) or who had been in their home previously. He also says he believes it is a younger person possibly in their 20's or 30's. He also states in his book that the BPD DID report an unlocked door on the morning of the 26th prior to JBR's body being found and how it was never publicized as only the inculpatory CE was leaked.

Re: payment: as you quote above he said he received a small fee early on and during his interviews with the Ramseys made it quite clear that if he believed it to be both or either one of them he would not hesitate to say so in a heartbeat. He also said and emphasized that he has NEVER, EVER offered an opinion that was not deeply felt and fully supported by his OWN belief and the facts as he saw them.

I found no reason in any of the cases he talks about in this book, to question his credibility and sincerity. jmo

Athena

09-28-2006, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

The metal ones sure do, but the plastic ones don't always. It depends on how hard someone falls.

JMO

Hi Sun -- been missing you.

It doesn't make sense to me. If she 'fell" on them those plastic things would puncture her skin?? And how do you explain both sets of marks?? jmo

Athena

09-28-2006, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by Ames
Does anyone have any idea how JonBenet's hair was styled at the White's Christmas party? Maybe it doesn't seem like a big deal to some, but...if her hair was NOT pulled back, in what I have read could have been "ties" from the potholder loom (the stretchy things used to make potholders with), at the party....and IF she fell asleep in the car, and was put directly to bed...then HOW did the "hair ties" (two of them) get into her hair? Who put them there? And why? I for some reason, could not imagine Patsy letting JB wear her hair like that to a Christmas party, it has been down in every picture that I have ever seen of her, and I could not especially imagine P letting JB wear the things used to make potholders, in her hair....for a fancy Christmas party. If anyone has any info on this....please answer. THANKS!

Looking at most of JBRs pictures, it looks like she wore one ponytail on top with the rest of the hair out quite often. My guess would be that the bottom ponytail was made to tie the hanging hair back to tie the noose around her neck and that would account for the bottom one. (ooh I just hated typing that!). jmo

sunsplashed

09-28-2006, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Hi Sun -- been missing you.

It doesn't make sense to me. If she 'fell" on them those plastic things would puncture her skin?? And how do you explain both sets of marks?? jmo

Hi Athena

Hope you're having a great week. :)

My daughters have both the metal one (was my mother's) and plastic ones. I put the metal one away because I think it's too dangerous. The plastic ones aren't so bad, but I still make them sit at the table to use them.

I think they would puncture the skin if someone fell hard enough.

The marks look like marks the loom would make, but what is puzzling to me is why there are only two and not five or six or even more. There are a lot of "points" (don't know what you call those things) on that loom.

JMO

Athena

09-28-2006, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Hi Athena

Hope you're having a great week. :)

My daughters have both the metal one (was my mother's) and plastic ones. I put the metal one away because I think it's too dangerous. The plastic ones aren't so bad, but I still make them sit at the table to use them.

I think they would puncture the skin if someone fell hard enough.

The marks look like marks the loom would make, but what is puzzling to me is why there are only two and not five or six or even more. There are a lot of "points" (don't know what you call those things) on that loom.

JMO

My week is going OK! Hope yours is as well!!! :)

I think the picture depicted showed the corner - one at each end - but I find it hard to believe that she fell on just the corner because of the locations of the marks. The picture of that guy says he just took the corner "points/prongs/thingies" and pressed them against his arm.

I've admitted all along that the stun gun marks are inconclusive but no alternative explanation has been offered and do not find this loom convincing at all. :shrug:

Going to bed Sun!! Talk to you soon.

thewhitewitch1

09-28-2006, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Patsy said she did not give Jonbenet pineapple. She did say she recognized the bowl. So what if her fingerprints are on the bowl or Burke's -- the bowl was on the counter. Patsy probably puts her dishes away -- your fingerprints are most likely on any of your glassware. Why does she have to be lying??? jmo

There are pictures of Jonbenet at the Whites on the PMPT DVD and I'll have to look at it again because the only thing I am recalling right now is she had on a red sweater. I'll look at it again though.

If she probably puts her dishes away, why was it out? It isn't just the fact that her prints (and Burkes) were on it...it's the fact that it was out and JB was fed pineapple and she says she didn't put it out or feed either of them. Please tell me that you don't really believe a kidnapper/killer is going to chop up fresh pineapple or crack open a can in the middle of the night to lure a kid out of bed. That is just stupid! She lied about it. There is no other logical explaination.
Just like she lied about what JB wore to the Whites party and that only her pants were changed that night. Here...her own words...her own slip up:

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, this looks

4 like a little -- the little pot holder square

5 she was making. This multi-colored thing here.

6 This black thing I can't (INAUDIBLE). Oh,

7 that's sort of looks like it might be the little

8 velvet dress (INAUDIBLE). Little silver snaps.

9 TRIP DeMUTH: When did she last

10 wear that?

11 PATSY RAMSEY: She wore that to the

12 Whites on the 25th.

She actually slipped up twice on that one but I was going blind from reading so I quit searching for it. I will find it and post it later.

I have also been comparing the 1997 and 1998 interviews with both Ramseys and they seem to change their stories quite often. Small details to be sure but enough to cover their asses.

Also, as far as the blanket goes, it was under JB and folded around her like a "papoose" (Johns words). That seems to be a very loving gesture. Only her feet weren't covered (and her arms because they were over her head).

AND...JR says that he had to move boxes and a chair from in front of the door to enter the train room when he first went down the basement early that morning when he found and closed the broken window. What a nice intruder to move those boxes and chair back in front of the door before he climbed out the window to make his escape. :eek:

Both Ramseys only seem to have total recall when it covers their butts. The rest of the time they conveniently "forget". Yep, I did notice that Patsy stumbles over her words at certain times and John has a most peculiar way of distancing himself from the whole scenerio. He says things like "You know, you would be like frantic and you would be thinking this" instead of saying "I was frantic and I was thinking this". Weird.

sunsplashed

09-28-2006, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Athena

My week is going OK! Hope yours is as well!!! :)

I think the picture depicted showed the corner - one at each end - but I find it hard to believe that she fell on just the corner because of the locations of the marks. The picture of that guy says he just took the corner "points/prongs/thingies" and pressed them against his arm.

I've admitted all along that the stun gun marks are inconclusive but no alternative explanation has been offered and do not find this loom convincing at all. :shrug:

Going to bed Sun!! Talk to you soon.

I could see the marks being made by a potholder loom, Athena, if there were more than two of them, but I can't see JB falling on just two.

I don't really buy into the stun gun, but I can't accept the loom, either.

It's all so puzzling.

JMO

I'm going to bed, too. It's raining here and I love to sleep on rainy nights. :)

harz

09-28-2006, 03:02 AM

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/17ajury.html
I was thinking about why this case hadn’t been processed to trail after a bad dentist day yesterday. Now it came to me realizing about Burke. If Burke wasn’t home with the Ramseys that night of JB’s murder, then I believe DA would have better chance to prosecute the Ramseys, would had brought them to trail, and more evidences would be uncover to the public base on what happened that night, then this case probably will be solved. Or its possible that JonBenet would be still alive today if Burke had stayed with his friend, gone with whoever that night.

If the Ramseys get to be prosecuted for JB murder, then Ramseys would throw Burke in by using him as their shield. Think about in eye of Colorado laws, Grand Jury, & DA, whether Burke was awake & aware of what happened that night, or accident killed JB himself or injured her severely, or slept thru the whole night, but it doesn’t matter what happened to JB as long Burke was there. Ramseys had powerful lawyers, who probably were being very clever using Burke to safeguard the Ramseys from being prosecuted whether Ramseys did killed JB themselves. Ramsey’s lawyers probably did put up that kind of impression by using Burke to DA if this case goes to the trail, then DA would lose the case, wasting the state’s time & cost.

The juries from Grand Jury for this case cannot discuss anyone on what they had discovered on this case as the judge issued lifetime gag order for them. I believe the gagging thing usually happened if a living minor is involved in this case being either a key player or apparently key player at what happened to JB. No wonder many detectives, police, or anyone who were involved working on this case resigned or fired left us the information filled with the gaps.

Think about how all of the each evidence was pointing to John, Patsy, Burke, intruder, housekeeper, Andrew, Melinda, Fleet, people who worked at Access Graphic, Santa Claus, or basically almost everybody connected to Ramseys. Only Ramseys can stage the evidences that way in having evidences pointing toward to everybody they knew. What evidences of Burke were discovered in this case that we know of? Fingerprints on bowl with pineapples and baseball bat? Is that all? Why put baseball bat outside if it was a playing part of JB’s death? It seems to me that Ramseys attempted to lessen evidences that were pointing at Burke by either tampering or displacing them. Now I don’t think this case will ever be solved. Ramseys & Pro-Ramseys are probably very grateful that Burke was home with the Ramseys that night in spite of what really happened to JB.

MOO

MyrDawn

09-28-2006, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

I don't believe he lied in the autopsy report. My hunch is that you are not familiar enough in the way that autopsy reports & death certificates are worded & you have reached an erroneous conclusion that because the strangulation was listed first, that it happened first.

It is YOUR claim that the coroner stated that he put strangulation first because he thought it happened first. So, show the link where he stated that.

And if we go by your interpretation - that what was listed first, happened first - then we would be assuming that the abrasion of the right cheek happened third - because it is listed 3rd. That the abrasion/contusion on the right shoulder happened 4th, because it is listed 4th, etc. I am going to guess that you realize that just because those things were listed 3rd & 4th - it does not mean they HAPPENED in that order. And by the same token, the ligature strangulation can be listed first, but not have happened before the head injury.

I was speaking of the cause of death. No where are those abrasians listed as the cause of death. Interpret them however you want, but don't tell me how I interpret them, please.

Cororners and ME's list as the cause of death what he/she thinks is the most likely cause of death. In thise case, it's listed as "Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma."

It's possible the head injury came first, and I've never said it isn't, but it certainly hasn't been proven that it did.

MOO

rosebud

09-28-2006, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by harz
http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/17ajury.html
I was thinking about why this case hadn’t been processed to trail after a bad dentist day yesterday. Now it came to me realizing about Burke. If Burke wasn’t home with the Ramseys that night of JB’s murder, then I believe DA would have better chance to prosecute the Ramseys, would had brought them to trail, and more evidences would be uncover to the public base on what happened that night, then this case probably will be solved. Or its possible that JonBenet would be still alive today if Burke had stayed with his friend, gone with whoever that night.

If the Ramseys get to be prosecuted for JB murder, then Ramseys would throw Burke in by using him as their shield.
Think about how all of the each evidence was pointing to John, Patsy, Burke, intruder, housekeeper, Andrew, Melinda, Fleet, people who worked at Access Graphic, Santa Claus, or basically almost everybody connected to Ramseys. Only Ramseys can stage the evidences that way in having evidences pointing toward to everybody they knew. What evidences of Burke were discovered in this case that we know of? Fingerprints on bowl with pineapples and baseball bat? Is that all? Why put baseball bat outside if it was a playing part of JB’s death? It seems to me that Ramseys attempted to lessen evidences that were pointing at Burke by either tampering or displacing them. Now I don’t think this case will ever be solved. Ramseys & Pro-Ramseys are probably very grateful that Burke was home with the Ramseys that night in spite of what really happened to JB.

MOO

You may be right about Burke. Along with picking out JB's underwear that its maker apparently coughed or sneezed on, having Burke in the house was probably another lucky stroke for Patsy. Now the prosecution has the problem of John, in a pinch, saying Patsy did it all and he was a dupe.

A couple of footnotes to this case--and I agree that there will never be any prosecution in this case, as one reason is that the likely killer is already dead, and it will be impossible to turn one against another now--are two questions: 1) did Patsy ever confide in anyone who was not present as to what actually happened that night, and 2) will John Ramsey leave some written documentation of what happened that night, or will he allow his son Burke to live his life with suspicion hanging over him?

A few things have been revealed in the arrest of John Mark Karr. One is that apparently we know all the physical evidence that is out there--at least if we can believe Mary Lacy; two is that there never was any secret "protocol" (if you will) between the Ramseys and the DA's office in which the DA was told unofficially what happened and chose not to prosecute (that has been speculated to by some), and three, and this is only my opinion, is that Patsy's sister, Pam in Atlanta, still believes that Patsy was 100% innocent. I am going here by her adament, no hesitation and convincing interview that she gave on CNN that I saw. I am convinced that SHE THINKS Patsy did not do it.

But that does not mean that Patsy may not have told at least one other person, besides John, what actually happened. Then the question might be, will this person ever reveal the secret? It could be a deathbed confession, or something left in an estate.

If John Ramsey allows his son, presuming he outlives his father, to live his life under a cloud of suspicion, he is lower than low.

JMO

MyrDawn

09-28-2006, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

snip...

6 This black thing I can't (INAUDIBLE). Oh,

7 that's sort of looks like it might be the little

8 velvet dress (INAUDIBLE). Little silver snaps.

9 TRIP DeMUTH: When did she last

10 wear that?

11 PATSY RAMSEY: She wore that to the

12 Whites on the 25th.

She actually slipped up twice on that one but I was going blind from reading so I quit searching for it. I will find it and post it later.

I almost went blind reading it too, and never did find the second place you said she "slipped up". That interview was conducted a year and a half after the murder, so I can't blame anyone for not remembering all the clothing a family member wore to different places.

Now, look at the pictures from the party on the 23rd. JonBenet looks like she's wearing a black velvet dress. Patsy could easily have forgotten which day JonBenet wore that particular outfit.

http://tinyurl.com/rjlby

Over Christmas, we all wear several different outfits. Some at home, some for parties, some for Church, some at friends, some at relatives. I can't even remember which exactl outfits we wore where this past Christmas, let alone the one before that.

I don't consider it "lying" if someone gets confused about something like that.

MOO

MyrDawn

09-28-2006, 06:43 AM

rosebud

09-28-2006, 06:47 AM

One thing I have not run across is any scuttlebutt on the Ramseys Christmas Party on the 23 Dec. That was when the aborted 911 call was made from the Ramsey home. Of course the police were told it was an accident and nothing was wrong.

Have any rumors about anything out of the ordinary surfaced about this party? Did Patsy go ballistic at any point? Did she disappear with JB at some point, perhaps to clean her up when she wet herself?

With all that has been presented here about the possibility that JB was sexually abused and about her chronic bed-wetting, and the fact that she was murdered three days later, I have to suspect that JB herself called 911.

JMO

MyrDawn

09-28-2006, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

[B]So the intruder finds the financial records with a flashlight and detects the Christmas bonus of $118,000.

Once again...every one of John's pay stubs for most of the year had the amount on them. He could have seen it several months before the murder and remembered it when writing the ransom note.

So the intruder has a key to the house but decides to leave with JB's body through a basement window. Sure that makes sense. [/QUOTE]

Where did I say he decided to leave through a basement window? But, if he noticed the broken window there, it wouldn't be inconceivable to me he'd think it might be a good exit point to try. He wouldn't have had to go back upstairs.

So the killer hunts until he finds John Ramsey's financial records in the dark but takes nothing from the house. Why did the police miss this? [/QUOTE]

Where did I say he hunted in the until he found John's financial records? Where did I say he was there to steal anything from the house?

So he has been watching the house but he still did not spend a "considerable" amount of time in it. Of course. [/QUOTE]

Where did I say he was inside the house while he was watching it?

You don't know any kid that doesn't like pineapple? (I have never run across one that DID like pineapple.) Of course, all child molestors lure their victims with pineapple. If not that, then M&Ms. [/QUOTE]

Once again...maybe he'd have offered her something else if she didn't want pineapple. He might have had a pocketfull of candy.

I have not asked every kid I know if they like pineapple or not. But, I don't specifically know of any that don't like it, and I do know several that do. The only person I personally know of that doesn't like pineapple is my husband. He's not a kid.

What kidnapper doesn't leave a note on a staircase? [/QUOTE]

??? What kind of question is that? Ransom notes are left in MANY different locations. In the Ramsey's case, it wasn't a real kidnapping, so I don't find it surprising the notreallyransom note wasn't left in a location more prominent than the staircase.

If the intruder looked around to find the financial records I am sure a swiss army knife in a cabinet was a piece of cake to find.

JMO [/QUOTE]

Once again, Burke might found that knife himself, or JonBenet, and put it in the basement. AND, every one of John's pay stubs for most of the year had the amount on them. He could have seen it several months before the murder and remembered it when writing the ransom note.

Next time, please try to read my post before you respond to it.

MOO

rosebud

09-28-2006, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

I've never had a child murdered, but I certainly don't think it's inconceivable that it would cause anyone so much stress that they'd stumble when remembering events surrounding the crime.

MOO

I would suspect that murdering one's daughter and trying to lie about it to everyone one knows might give one a stuttering problem also.

JMO

rosebud

09-28-2006, 07:02 AM

MyrDawn

09-28-2006, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

Oh I read your posts. I was just filling in the "reality" part among the random fantasy.

JMO

Reality? :rolleyes:

Mimi428

09-28-2006, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

I was speaking of the cause of death. No where are those abrasians listed as the cause of death. Interpret them however you want, but don't tell me how I interpret them, please.

Cororners and ME's list as the cause of death what he/she thinks is the most likely cause of death. In thise case, it's listed as "Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma."

It's possible the head injury came first, and I've never said it isn't, but it certainly hasn't been proven that it did.

MOO

This is YOUR quote from YOUR post...

He did say he wasn't sure which came first, but he put the strangulation first in the autopsy report, because that seemed most likely to him, based on the minimal bleeding and swelling.

Nobody is postive, but I think Meyer would be the best to judge which would be most likely.

The area in red is what has caused the confusion - you wrote that the coroner SAID why he put strangulation first. I am simply asking you for a link to verify that he actually said what you state he said.

TIA

sunsplashed

09-28-2006, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Once again...every one of John's pay stubs for most of the year had the amount on them. He could have seen it several months before the murder and remembered it when writing the ransom note.

So the intruder has a key to the house but decides to leave with JB's body through a basement window. Sure that makes sense.

Where did I say he decided to leave through a basement window? But, if he noticed the broken window there, it wouldn't be inconceivable to me he'd think it might be a good exit point to try. He wouldn't have had to go back upstairs.

So the killer hunts until he finds John Ramsey's financial records in the dark but takes nothing from the house. Why did the police miss this? [/QUOTE]

Where did I say he hunted in the until he found John's financial records? Where did I say he was there to steal anything from the house?

So he has been watching the house but he still did not spend a "considerable" amount of time in it. Of course. [/QUOTE]

Where did I say he was inside the house while he was watching it?

You don't know any kid that doesn't like pineapple? (I have never run across one that DID like pineapple.) Of course, all child molestors lure their victims with pineapple. If not that, then M&Ms. [/QUOTE]

Once again...maybe he'd have offered her something else if she didn't want pineapple. He might have had a pocketfull of candy.

I have not asked every kid I know if they like pineapple or not. But, I don't specifically know of any that don't like it, and I do know several that do. The only person I personally know of that doesn't like pineapple is my husband. He's not a kid.

What kidnapper doesn't leave a note on a staircase? [/QUOTE]

??? What kind of question is that? Ransom notes are left in MANY different locations. In the Ramsey's case, it wasn't a real kidnapping, so I don't find it surprising the notreallyransom note wasn't left in a location more prominent than the staircase.

If the intruder looked around to find the financial records I am sure a swiss army knife in a cabinet was a piece of cake to find.

JMO [/QUOTE]

Once again, Burke might found that knife himself, or JonBenet, and put it in the basement. AND, every one of John's pay stubs for most of the year had the amount on them. He could have seen it several months before the murder and remembered it when writing the ransom note.

Next time, please try to read my post before you respond to it.

MOO [/QUOTE]

Why would someone with a key to the house even be bothering to look through drawers for financial records or pay stubs? If the person came there "jealous of John," why would that person be looking for financial information? Why not just ask for a million? The amount wouldn't matter anyway if he was going to kill JB. And why use $118,000, if he or she had already seen that amount somewhere, like at work? In order to implicate himself? Doesn't make sense. It only makes sense of the Ramseys used that amount in order to case suspicion on someone else.

And why enter (or leave) through the basement window and then put a chair and boxes back in front of the door? And how did he accomplish that anyway? (John Ramsey, himself, said a chair and boxes were blocking the door to the train room.) And let's not forget that he also replaced the grate, complete with spider web intact.

A person could "watch" the house 24 hours and day, 7 days a week for eternity and still not know the floorplan well enough to get around in the dark. A flashlight wouldn't help that much. Even the BP detectives who tried to get around in the dark in there, and WERE familiar with the floorplan, couldn't do it well. One person who saw the inside of the house said he didn't care if every window and every door had been open - no one who wasn't intimately familiar with the house could possibly get around in it.

Hypothetically, let's just say every kid in the world loves pineapple (I know some that don't), but let's say all do. So, even though she loves pineapple, JB is going to quietly and willingly go with a stranger and sit and eat pineapple at her parents dining room table? No way! A two-year-old might be able to be lured with candy but not a six-year-old.

And an intruder, even one who had been watching the house, would know where to find pineapple and a bowl and feel comfortable enough inside the house to sit with JB while she ate it?

Ransom notes are left in many locations. Usually they're left in obvious locations. But an intruder who had been watching the house from the outside wouldn't know that the Ramseys always used the back stairs and not the front. Leaving the note on the kitchen counter would have been far more logical for a killer or an intruder to do.

If Burke or JB had found the Swiss Army knife, they couldn't even have reached it to get it, and had they been able to reach it, they probably wouldn't have taken it to the basement. JB had no interest in it, according to Patsy, and Burke would have hidden it or began whittling with it again. Why wouldn't an intruder take a knife from the kitchen?

Once again, everything points to the Ramseys as the killers, trying to stage a kidnapping-gone-wrong.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-28-2006, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

This is YOUR quote from YOUR post...

He did say he wasn't sure which came first, but he put the strangulation first in the autopsy report, because that seemed most likely to him, based on the minimal bleeding and swelling.

Nobody is postive, but I think Meyer would be the best to judge which would be most likely.

The area in red is what has caused the confusion - you wrote that the coroner SAID why he put strangulation first. I am simply asking you for a link to verify that he actually said what you state he said.

TIA

John Meyer put asphyxiation first because that is what actually caused the death of JBR.

I've posted a quote from John Meyer, himself, on this board several times (I guess no one read it or is not remembering it because it doesn't "fit" their theory), that HE DOESN'T KNOW which injury came first and that HE DOESN'T KNOW if JB had been the victim of prior sexual abuse.

Not JMO, but have to mark it as such because I'm not going to look up the quote for the fourth or fifth time.

JMO

A person can have many, many injuries in the minutes prior to his/her death, but the one that's going to be listed first on the autopsy report under "Cause of Death" is going to be the one that ACTUALLY CAUSED THE DEATH, not the order in which they were inflicted.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-28-2006, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

This is YOUR quote from YOUR post...

He did say he wasn't sure which came first, but he put the strangulation first in the autopsy report, because that seemed most likely to him, based on the minimal bleeding and swelling.

Nobody is postive, but I think Meyer would be the best to judge which would be most likely.

The area in red is what has caused the confusion - you wrote that the coroner SAID why he put strangulation first. I am simply asking you for a link to verify that he actually said what you state he said.

TIA

Except there wasn't "minimal bleeding." There was a LOT of bleeding inside her brain, indicating that her heart had beaten for some time after the head injury. The head injury was "fully developed." And even with the fully developed head injury, only the garroting cause it not to look worse since that interrupted the flow of blood to the brain.

(Page 558, PM/PT)

John Meyer stated that he wasn't sure what injury came first, and that he would never be sure.

(Page 560 PM/PT)

sunsplashed

09-28-2006, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by harz
http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/17ajury.html
I was thinking about why this case hadn’t been processed to trail after a bad dentist day yesterday. Now it came to me realizing about Burke. If Burke wasn’t home with the Ramseys that night of JB’s murder, then I believe DA would have better chance to prosecute the Ramseys, would had brought them to trail, and more evidences would be uncover to the public base on what happened that night, then this case probably will be solved. Or its possible that JonBenet would be still alive today if Burke had stayed with his friend, gone with whoever that night.

If the Ramseys get to be prosecuted for JB murder, then Ramseys would throw Burke in by using him as their shield. Think about in eye of Colorado laws, Grand Jury, & DA, whether Burke was awake & aware of what happened that night, or accident killed JB himself or injured her severely, or slept thru the whole night, but it doesn’t matter what happened to JB as long Burke was there. Ramseys had powerful lawyers, who probably were being very clever using Burke to safeguard the Ramseys from being prosecuted whether Ramseys did killed JB themselves. Ramsey’s lawyers probably did put up that kind of impression by using Burke to DA if this case goes to the trail, then DA would lose the case, wasting the state’s time & cost.

The juries from Grand Jury for this case cannot discuss anyone on what they had discovered on this case as the judge issued lifetime gag order for them. I believe the gagging thing usually happened if a living minor is involved in this case being either a key player or apparently key player at what happened to JB. No wonder many detectives, police, or anyone who were involved working on this case resigned or fired left us the information filled with the gaps.

Think about how all of the each evidence was pointing to John, Patsy, Burke, intruder, housekeeper, Andrew, Melinda, Fleet, people who worked at Access Graphic, Santa Claus, or basically almost everybody connected to Ramseys. Only Ramseys can stage the evidences that way in having evidences pointing toward to everybody they knew. What evidences of Burke were discovered in this case that we know of? Fingerprints on bowl with pineapples and baseball bat? Is that all? Why put baseball bat outside if it was a playing part of JB’s death? It seems to me that Ramseys attempted to lessen evidences that were pointing at Burke by either tampering or displacing them. Now I don’t think this case will ever be solved. Ramseys & Pro-Ramseys are probably very grateful that Burke was home with the Ramseys that night in spite of what really happened to JB.

MOO

Sorry about the dentist, harz. At least, it's over now. :)

I think the reason the Grand Jury didn't indict the Ramseys and they were never prosecuted is the fact that there are two of them and that makes it impossible to say, beyond a reasonable doubt, which one did the actual killing.

Hypothetically, let's just say it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Patsy wrote the so-called ransom note, which we know wasn't a ransom note at all.

If Patsy wrote the note, that doesn't necessarily mean that she killed JB. It could have been John and Patsy could have been an accessory-after-the-fact.

Or, the reverse could have been true. John could have written the note and been the accessory-after-the-fact.

A DA can't take a case to trial and say, "Well, Jury, here we have two married people, parents, and one of them killed their daughter and one helped stage a phony 'kidnapping-gone-wrong,' but we'll leave it up to you to decide which parent did what."

While DAs are never under any obligation to provide a motive (it helps if they do), they do have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who did the actual killing. In the Ramsey case, that's just impossible. It could have been John or Patsy or both. One could have been involved in the staging or both of them.

IMO, I don't think anyone will ever confess to knowing anything at all about this case. Not John Ramsey, not Burke Ramsey (and I don't think Burke knows anything anyway).

The only person who might know something is Fleet White since he was with John when he found the body and might know if the body (or other things in the wine cellar) had been moved. But Fleet isn't going to talk unless it's to authorities. And that's as it should be.

Sadly, IMO, the case will never be solved except in peoples' theories and opinions. The truth will never be known.

JMO

Mimi428

09-28-2006, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

John Meyer put asphyxiation first because that is what actually caused the death of JBR.

I've posted a quote from John Meyer, himself, on this board several times (I guess no one read it or is not remembering it because it doesn't "fit" their theory), that HE DOESN'T KNOW which injury came first and that HE DOESN'T KNOW if JB had been the victim of prior sexual abuse.

Not JMO, but have to mark it as such because I'm not going to look up the quote for the fourth or fifth time.

JMO

A person can have many, many injuries in the minutes prior to his/her death, but the one that's going to be listed first on the autopsy report under "Cause of Death" is going to be the one that ACTUALLY CAUSED THE DEATH, not the order in which they were inflicted.

JMO

Exactly right, SS. The strangulation killed her before the head injury killed her, but that does not mean she was strangled first.

We are getting so many posts which are written to appear as if they are facts, when they are simply opinions. I don't have problems with other peoples' opinions, but I do have problems when they are misrepresented to be something they are not.

Then we have the problem that the autopsy report which is viewable online is not the complete report in the first place. IIRC, Wecht did read the entire report, so some of his comments refer to areas that we, the public, cannot access.

So much confusion....!

thewhitewitch1

09-28-2006, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

I almost went blind reading it too, and never did find the second place you said she "slipped up". That interview was conducted a year and a half after the murder, so I can't blame anyone for not remembering all the clothing a family member wore to different places.

Now, look at the pictures from the party on the 23rd. JonBenet looks like she's wearing a black velvet dress. Patsy could easily have forgotten which day JonBenet wore that particular outfit.

http://tinyurl.com/rjlby

Over Christmas, we all wear several different outfits. Some at home, some for parties, some for Church, some at friends, some at relatives. I can't even remember which exactl outfits we wore where this past Christmas, let alone the one before that.

I don't consider it "lying" if someone gets confused about something like that.

MOO

I figured Pro-Ramseys would find an excuse for their slip ups/behavior.
I am quite certain that earlier in the interview, she was asked more than once what JB wore to the Whites party and she stuck to the white shirt story. She has stated that over and over again. Funny how when off guard trying to identify items in a picture, she not only identifies the dress but unhesitatingly gives the place and date it was worn. I know she was wearing a dress on the 23rd (or so it looks like). I will look into that further re: color and all but I do believe she slipped up. I will try to find the reference to it the second time too.
You kind of ignored the other things I said about the boxes and chair in front of the train room door etc. The Ramseys had a nice neat little story to give with very little detail. Now, when they are asked for details, is when they start to change the story in bits and pieces. IMO

MyrDawn

09-28-2006, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428
snip...

I am simply asking you for a link to verify that he actually said what you state he said.

TIA

Gladly, once we can start linking to TV shows.

MyrDawn

09-28-2006, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Why would someone with a key to the house even be bothering to look through drawers for financial records or pay stubs? If the person came there "jealous of John," why would that person be looking for financial information? Why not just ask for a million? The amount wouldn't matter anyway if he was going to kill JB. And why use $118,000, if he or she had already seen that amount somewhere, like at work? In order to implicate himself? Doesn't make sense. It only makes sense of the Ramseys used that amount in order to case suspicion on someone else.

And why enter (or leave) through the basement window and then put a chair and boxes back in front of the door? And how did he accomplish that anyway? (John Ramsey, himself, said a chair and boxes were blocking the door to the train room.) And let's not forget that he also replaced the grate, complete with spider web intact.

A person could "watch" the house 24 hours and day, 7 days a week for eternity and still not know the floorplan well enough to get around in the dark. A flashlight wouldn't help that much. Even the BP detectives who tried to get around in the dark in there, and WERE familiar with the floorplan, couldn't do it well. One person who saw the inside of the house said he didn't care if every window and every door had been open - no one who wasn't intimately familiar with the house could possibly get around in it.

Hypothetically, let's just say every kid in the world loves pineapple (I know some that don't), but let's say all do. So, even though she loves pineapple, JB is going to quietly and willingly go with a stranger and sit and eat pineapple at her parents dining room table? No way! A two-year-old might be able to be lured with candy but not a six-year-old.

And an intruder, even one who had been watching the house, would know where to find pineapple and a bowl and feel comfortable enough inside the house to sit with JB while she ate it?

Ransom notes are left in many locations. Usually they're left in obvious locations. But an intruder who had been watching the house from the outside wouldn't know that the Ramseys always used the back stairs and not the front. Leaving the note on the kitchen counter would have been far more logical for a killer or an intruder to do.

If Burke or JB had found the Swiss Army knife, they couldn't even have reached it to get it, and had they been able to reach it, they probably wouldn't have taken it to the basement. JB had no interest in it, according to Patsy, and Burke would have hidden it or began whittling with it again. Why wouldn't an intruder take a knife from the kitchen?

Once again, everything points to the Ramseys as the killers, trying to stage a kidnapping-gone-wrong.

JMO

I've already answered all the questions but one in the post you quoted. If you read my original post that I wrote, and quoted it, instead of someone else's quote of it, which does not show BOLD for the questions I was answering, and regular print for my answers, you'd see all my replies to those questions.

One I question I didn't answer in THAT particulare post but did in a previous post has to do with the intruder not knowing the floorplan even if they watched the house 24/7. Here's my answer: I repeatedly said I think the intruder had a key. I presume if he had a key he may well have been inside the house under more than one occasion, either as a guest or working.

As far as the knife, it was in the basement. It wasn't exactly out in the open. Maybe he did whittle with it in the basement, and clean up his mess, hoping he wouldn't have it taken away again.

MOO

MyrDawn

09-28-2006, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I figured Pro-Ramseys would find an excuse for their slip ups/behavior.
I am quite certain that earlier in the interview, she was asked more than once what JB wore to the Whites party and she stuck to the white shirt story. She has stated that over and over again. Funny how when off guard trying to identify items in a picture, she not only identifies the dress but unhesitatingly gives the place and date it was worn. I know she was wearing a dress on the 23rd (or so it looks like). I will look into that further re: color and all but I do believe she slipped up. I will try to find the reference to it the second time too.
You kind of ignored the other things I said about the boxes and chair in front of the train room door etc. The Ramseys had a nice neat little story to give with very little detail. Now, when they are asked for details, is when they start to change the story in bits and pieces. IMO

Excuse? I'd guess you don't have as many clothes as some people do that are appropriate to wear to holiday gatherings. Some of us like to wear different outfits to different functions and don't wear the same things around the house as we do when we have company over or go to someone else's house.

I did NOT "ignore" those other things you said about the boxes, chair, etc. You posted those AFTER I'd replied to your other post. I then left my house to run errands and eat lunch. I didn't get back here until a little while ago, and I've been reading posts and replying in the order I see them listed in the threads. Check the order of my few replies. I do have a life away from here.

I don't pretend to know exactly why anyone but myself does anything. I can only base my opinions on my experiences. So, I have no idea why anhone would put those boxes and chair in front of the train room door.

Now, tell me this, since so many posters think John broke that window to make it look like an intruder entered that way, why would HE put those things in front of the door to that room?

MOO

Ames

09-28-2006, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

But, the blanket points to them not only because it came from their home, but because it suggests a protector of JonBenet covered her. I wouldn't think they would want to suggest that, if they were staging the scene.

Hi there! Go back and look at the crime scene photos with the blanket on the basement floor. There is duct tape...or SOME sort of tape stuck to it. Maybe, just MAYBE...the killer's plan A, didn't work out, and that was to wrap her in a blanket and dump the body...the tape was to keep the blanket around her, and keep it from sliding off. Maybe, the police...in the beginning, wasn't supposed to see the blanket, much less the body. AND HENCE...the reason that her blanket was used. IMO

WallyCleaver

09-28-2006, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

...

Now, tell me this, since so many posters think John broke that window to make it look like an intruder entered that way, why would HE put those things in front of the door to that room?

MOO

Did anyone else see boxes and chairs in front of the door? One of the police maybe? Or FW?

As far as I can tell, we only have JR's word that things were piled in front of the door.

Aren't we talking about two different rooms here? Weren't the things supposedly piled in front of the door to windowless room? The broken window obviously was in a different room.

If these are two different rooms we're talking about, there is nothing inconsistant with JR breaking the window, and piliing things in front of the door.

Ames

09-28-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

LadyFisher, where do you see any hate for John in the ransom note? I'm not being disrespectful to you, and you are as entitled to you opinion as any one of us, but I just don't see that.

All I see is: Don't call the police.

JMO

HEY....I just thought of this....there were NO curse words in that Ramson note!!! Okay, what kind of a person is so evil that they would kill someone elses child for revenge, because they hated John so much. IF that was the case, wouldn't you think that the ramson note would start something like this...."You f-ing son of a B----! I HATE you, you make me SICK! You think that you are so f-ing great, but you're not." ....etc. I mean COME ON....are we really supposed to believe that some evil person came in, and did all of that to JB, and wrote that three page note without any curse words. I seriously didn't see any HATE in that ramson note, whatsoever. If the "intruder" hated John, the ramson note would have been alot more vicious....with the killer using curse words, baring down hard on the paper with the pen (sort of on the same lines of when we post a message to these pro-Ramsey's, and we hit the keys on the computer keyboard really hard, ...LOL). You guys know what I am talking about, have you ever been upset and written a note to someone about something? You don't just casually pen a note like you would a love letter...you have anger, so there is rage...that comes across in your handwriting. Does this make sense? And the lack of curse words...is very, VERY odd. This had to be a extremely polite murderer, who never says bad words...even when he is so enraged, that he kills an enemy's child. Think about it guys!!! Okay, then you have the Ramsey's....church going "Christians".....who probably didn't say curse words unless one slipped for some reason. Speaking from a Christians point of view....that happens sometimes. BUT..a "Christian would not lace a note, ramson note or whatever with curse words...because its not their nature. I think that the Ramsey's killed JB by accident...and it was a staged coverup. I think that the lack of curse words in the Ramson note is just another piece of the puzzle. AND....on the other hand...maybe there was some and I missed them....and if thats the case, just ignore this post. :D

WallyCleaver

09-28-2006, 03:23 PM

I don't see the anger in the note either.

thewhitewitch1

09-28-2006, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Excuse? I'd guess you don't have as many clothes as some people do that are appropriate to wear to holiday gatherings. Some of us like to wear different outfits to different functions and don't wear the same things around the house as we do when we have company over or go to someone else's house.

I did NOT "ignore" those other things you said about the boxes, chair, etc. You posted those AFTER I'd replied to your other post. I then left my house to run errands and eat lunch. I didn't get back here until a little while ago, and I've been reading posts and replying in the order I see them listed in the threads. Check the order of my few replies. I do have a life away from here.

I don't pretend to know exactly why anyone but myself does anything. I can only base my opinions on my experiences. So, I have no idea why anhone would put those boxes and chair in front of the train room door.

Now, tell me this, since so many posters think John broke that window to make it look like an intruder entered that way, why would HE put those things in front of the door to that room?

MOO

Why would he put those things in front of the door to that room? Because those things were already in front of the door prior to the murder. He was the one who was stupid enough to tell the police that the doorway was blocked. Who knows if he even went in the basement and closed that window. Since there were no obvious entryways for the "intruder", he had to find one and if he remembered that he had broken the window out previously, well...that's as good of a place as any. Don't forget he did disapear out of sight for 45 minutes or more. He could have re-opened that window and messed with the sill to make it look like someone had climbed in there. He could have pushed that suitcase under the window to reach better and that could have been his own foot that made the "scuff mark" on the wall. He could have done any of that on his little trip to the basement that morning too.
I don't know if he pushed the junk back in front of the door afterwards or not. I don't think he did. So I guess he would have been better off if he had not told the police that the door was blocked.
There really is no perfect crime, is there.

thewhitewitch1

09-28-2006, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Did anyone else see boxes and chairs in front of the door? One of the police maybe? Or FW?

As far as I can tell, we only have JR's word that things were piled in front of the door.

Aren't we talking about two different rooms here? Weren't the things supposedly piled in front of the door to windowless room? The broken window obviously was in a different room.

If these are two different rooms we're talking about, there is nothing inconsistant with JR breaking the window, and piliing things in front of the door.

No, Wally...it was the door to the train room that was blocked by boxes and a chair.

thewhitewitch1

09-28-2006, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Hi there! Go back and look at the crime scene photos with the blanket on the basement floor. There is duct tape...or SOME sort of tape stuck to it. Maybe, just MAYBE...the killer's plan A, didn't work out, and that was to wrap her in a blanket and dump the body...the tape was to keep the blanket around her, and keep it from sliding off. Maybe, the police...in the beginning, wasn't supposed to see the blanket, much less the body. AND HENCE...the reason that her blanket was used. IMO

Ames, John said he took the tape off of her mouth and dropped it. I also read somewhere that Fleet picked up the tape and put it on the blanket. It wasn't a big piece of tape. I doubt it could hold a blanket around her. IMO

rosebud

09-28-2006, 03:37 PM

WallyCleaver

09-28-2006, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

No, Wally...it was the door to the train room that was blocked by boxes and a chair.

Thank you.

Ames

09-28-2006, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Ames, John said he took the tape off of her mouth and dropped it. I also read somewhere that Fleet picked up the tape and put it on the blanket. It wasn't a big piece of tape. I doubt it could hold a blanket around her. IMO

Ok...thanks. I thought that it looked like two pieces...I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. LOL

bullmoose

09-28-2006, 04:08 PM

Rosebud, I am having trouble following your line of reasoning. You speak of the Ramseys as being the killers; okay, you hold that view, thats fine, but when you say the DA should have called a GJ immediately, you lose me. The investigation was ongoing at the time by the police, they could not have presented their evidence until their investigation was done. And when the grand jury did get called into session, they then had the option of calling and asking any and all questions they might have of the Ramseys at that time. The GJ was in session for over a year . Did they call in and question the Ramseys? As for charging the Ramseys with staging a crime scene, again your line of thought escapes me; are you saying that because you believe the Ramseys to be murderers, of course they staged the crime scene to cover their crime? And of course, by that reasoning, they were by definition guilty of the staging? But what if the DA didn't believe the Ramseys guilty? Why would he charge them with anything until he had probable cause, or an indictment by the GJ, which as we all know, indicted nobody for anything after hearing the evidence. JMO bullmoose

rosebud

09-28-2006, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
Rosebud, I am having trouble following your line of reasoning. You speak of the Ramseys as being the killers; okay, you hold that view, thats fine, but when you say the DA should have called a GJ immediately, you lose me. The investigation was ongoing at the time by the police, they could not have presented their evidence until their investigation was done. And when the grand jury did get called into session, they then had the option of calling and asking any and all questions they might have of the Ramseys at that time. The GJ was in session for over a year . Did they call in and question the Ramseys? As for charging the Ramseys with staging a crime scene, again your line of thought escapes me; are you saying that because you believe the Ramseys to be murderers, of course they staged the crime scene to cover their crime? And of course, by that reasoning, they were by definition guilty of the staging? But what if the DA didn't believe the Ramseys guilty? Why would he charge them with anything until he had probable cause, or an indictment by the GJ, which as we all know, indicted nobody for anything after hearing the evidence. JMO bullmoose

There is no doubt in my mind that the Ramseys are wholely responsible for JB's death and the coverup of it. The police knew this also very soon after the crime. In hindsight a GJ should have been convened when it was obvious that the Ramseys were not going to cooperate. They should have compelled their testimony before a lot of time had passed.

A GJ can be convened in this case to help the investigation. I believe that should have been done.

Ames

09-28-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

There is no doubt in my mind that the Ramseys are wholely responsible for JB's death and the coverup of it. The police knew this also very soon after the crime. In hindsight a GJ should have been convened when it was obvious that the Ramseys were not going to cooperate. They should have compelled their testimony before a lot of time had passed.

A GJ can be convened in this case to help the investigation. I believe that should have been done.

As a Government Agent, my husband has had to testify at a Grand Jury before....it is all one sided, because it is not an actual trial, and therefore, imo...they are very unfair. I am sure that the evidence that points AWAY from the Ramsey's was all that was heard, and not the evidence that pointed toward them. Thats the way that Grand Jury's work. Like I said...they are not fair. IMO

MyrDawn

09-28-2006, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Ames

As a Government Agent, my husband has had to testify at a Grand Jury before....it is all one sided, because it is not an actual trial, and therefore, imo...they are very unfair. I am sure that the evidence that points AWAY from the Ramsey's was all that was heard, and not the evidence that pointed toward them. Thats the way that Grand Jury's work. Like I said...they are not fair. IMO

At a civil grand jury, the prosecution is the only side that presents. The defense doesn't present at all. Why would the Boulder LE convene a grand jury in an attempt to indict the Ramseys, then only present things that would point away from them?

sunsplashed

09-28-2006, 05:39 PM

No, there were no curse words in the ransom note. In fact, the note sounds a little "protective" of John, saying it respects him and his business and advising him to be well rested, etc.

JMO

Ames

09-28-2006, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed
No, there were no curse words in the ransom note. In fact, the note sounds a little "protective" of John, saying it respects him and his business and advising him to be well rested, etc.

JMO

I didn't think so, I went back and re-read it, just to make sure. Some people see no problem with this...but, imo....I do see a problem...it points away from the "intruder" theory...and directly at the Ramsey's IMO. Some posters are saying, what difference does it make...but, I think that the lack of profanity, and the protectiveness of John, shows lack of malice toward John. IMO The ransom letter was way too nice....IMO

sunsplashed

09-28-2006, 06:03 PM

It was too nice, too detailed, and a lot of other things, all pointing to one of the Ramseys as the writer.

I just don't see ANY hatred of John in the note.

JMO

MyrDawn

09-28-2006, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed
It was too nice, too detailed, and a lot of other things, all pointing to one of the Ramseys as the writer.

I just don't see ANY hatred of John in the note.

JMO

What a perfect way for an intruder to point the finger at the Ramseys. Seems like it worked.

MOO

bullmoose

09-28-2006, 06:23 PM

I think the ransom note was written deliberately to point the finger of suspician at the Ramseys; I do not see anything about the note that makes me see them as being involved except as victims of somebody else's twisted plot. I know, as does anyone that follows the case knows that the BPD came very early to the conclusion that the Ramseys were guilty. That is why the BPD turned down the offers of help from the FBI and otherswho had experience in murder investigations; they wanted the glory of solving the case to themselves, because they were sure that they were right. They botched the case, and to cover their sorry rears from the inevitable criticism that arose, they started leaking lies about the Ramseys' supposed lack of cooperation. Since it was very obvious very early on to the Ramseys that the BPD was only looking at them as the only suspects, they exercised their right to counsel, as I would done myself.This doesn't make them look guilty to me, it just makes them smarter than the Keystone Kop BPD arrayed against them. bullmoose

rosebud

09-28-2006, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

What a perfect way for an intruder to point the finger at the Ramseys. Seems like it worked.

MOO

Again it is very clever misdirection by the IDI people to imply that the reason the Ramseys were suspects is because of the ransom note. In reality the reason the Ramseys were suspects was because no evidence of an intruder was ever found and because their six year old daughter was found murdered in their basement.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-28-2006, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

Again it is very clever misdirection by the IDI people to imply that the reason the Ramseys were suspects is because of the ransom note. In reality the reason the Ramseys were suspects was because no evidence of an intruder was ever found and because their six year old daughter was found murdered in their basement.

JMO

And because they refused to cooperate with the police investigation. And because John was making arrangements to fly to Atlanta as soon as JB's body was located. And because they deny she was awake after returning home when she clearly was. And because John's story of the broken window was totally ridiculous. And because a roll of duct tape from the same manufacturer cost exactly what appeared on Patsy Ramsey's AmEx bill for November. And...you get the point. LOL

JMO

MyrDawn

09-28-2006, 06:28 PM

sunsplashed

09-28-2006, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

It was orignially a seemingly clever misdirection by an RDI poster to imply that the reason the Ramseys are guilty is because of the ransom note. We IDI's have every right to respond to it.

MOO

The reason the Ramseys are guilty is because they killed their daughter then staged a "kidnapping-gone-wrong."

The note just points more strongly to them than had they not bothered with it.

Anyone has the right to reply.

JMO

rosebud

09-28-2006, 06:32 PM

bullmoose

09-28-2006, 06:53 PM

Anyone has the right to reply, yup, thats right, so here is my reply:When you say the Ramseys are guilty because they killed their daughter, then staged a kidnapping gone wrong, you IMO cross the line from your opinion. Your opinion is fine by me, because I totally disagree with you, thats what we're here to do. But you state as flat-out fact your 'opinion' about the case; you were not there anymore than I was, so your 'opinion' about what happened is no more believable to me than any other theory. Thats what you espouse, your theory, not any proven facts. IMO bullmoose

harz

09-28-2006, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Sorry about the dentist, harz. At least, it's over now. :)

I think the reason the Grand Jury didn't indict the Ramseys and they were never prosecuted is the fact that there are two of them and that makes it impossible to say, beyond a reasonable doubt, which one did the actual killing.

Hypothetically, let's just say it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Patsy wrote the so-called ransom note, which we know wasn't a ransom note at all.

If Patsy wrote the note, that doesn't necessarily mean that she killed JB. It could have been John and Patsy could have been an accessory-after-the-fact.

Or, the reverse could have been true. John could have written the note and been the accessory-after-the-fact.

A DA can't take a case to trial and say, "Well, Jury, here we have two married people, parents, and one of them killed their daughter and one helped stage a phony 'kidnapping-gone-wrong,' but we'll leave it up to you to decide which parent did what."

While DAs are never under any obligation to provide a motive (it helps if they do), they do have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who did the actual killing. In the Ramsey case, that's just impossible. It could have been John or Patsy or both. One could have been involved in the staging or both of them.

IMO, I don't think anyone will ever confess to knowing anything at all about this case. Not John Ramsey, not Burke Ramsey (and I don't think Burke knows anything anyway).

The only person who might know something is Fleet White since he was with John when he found the body and might know if the body (or other things in the wine cellar) had been moved. But Fleet isn't going to talk unless it's to authorities. And that's as it should be.

Sadly, IMO, the case will never be solved except in peoples' theories and opinions. The truth will never be known.

JMO

That makes sense to me. I agree this case will always stay cold or a dead end. John is the only likely person left alive who knew what happened that night, what odd of him to confess? I would rather to bet the odd on some extremists that would capture John to interrogate him thoroughly to get some answers. The details and evidences from this case still interest me, but the staging of Ramsey’s is tarnishing that in almost every angles. What up with Andrew & Burke? Are they really that naïve (maybe “Obtuse” is a better word for them) after 10 years or they never care to pay any attentions to this case? What was on the mind of the investigators, who were tracking Karr in Thailand, after Boulder DA dropped the charges? Did they had enough experiences on investigating this case or someone simply called them to check out Karr because of what Karr had said in his emails? Well, I think DA should or can charge the Ramseys base on tampering the evidences over the staging and for being neglectful to JB when she needed serious help while she was dying.

I wished the blow on JB’s head had caused exterior bleeding, so we can know where it happened. I had been thinking about how JB got the blow on her head, did her head showed some swelling? If you see picture of her skull, how long line of the crack went across, can a baseball bat or flashlight cause that? I noticed a very few pictures of wine cellar showing steel frames and doors lying against the walls. Maybe JB was sent to wine cellar as punishment after wetting the bed, one of steel frame or door as they looked really heavy, might had fell on her head. Did detectives inspected these doors & frames? Was there some dirt from basement floor that match to what was on JB’s feet or socks? If there was, it would means she walked to the basement. If none, then someone must have carried her down. How did the piece of garland get tangled in her hair? Did it happen when one of Ramsey carried her upstairs after they got home from Fleet? Or did it happen after JB woke up that she either walked or was carried downstairs? Did pineapple come from can? Who was the one that did can opening the pineapple can? Did they check for fingerprints on pineapple can to see if any was Burke’s? What about can opener too? Did JB usually sleep with her parents or slept in Burke’s room? Or did Burke usually sleep in JB’s room? Because 6 years old usually rather a company in the same room than being alone since their house was huge. Why was JB’s pillow on the opposite side of bed not where her head usually lay on? I still think Burke’s fingerprints on bowl, pretending to be asleep when Patsy dialed 911, and his baseball bat being outside where patio light was turned off for the first time should still be in questioning. I did thought it was possible that Burke did had chance to say good bye to JB during either Patsy, John, or both were in present while JB was dying as he promised not to tell anyone what had happened. Then it came to me thinking about Burke’s Hi-Tec shoes if he wore it that night after they got home. It strange to me that the time of JB death was 12 hours long determined by whom at 2pm?, but the coroner arrived at 8pm, therefore the time of JB’s death is still unclear to me on which her tragedy may started at either right after they got home, or 1am, or 8am? I still have a lot more headache questions but too bad this case had, has, and always will be still incomplete, just as John Ramsey’s preferred its enduring to be.
IMO

harz

09-28-2006, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

And because they refused to cooperate with the police investigation. And because John was making arrangements to fly to Atlanta as soon as JB's body was located. And because they deny she was awake after returning home when she clearly was. And because John's story of the broken window was totally ridiculous. And because a roll of duct tape from the same manufacturer cost exactly what appeared on Patsy Ramsey's AmEx bill for November. And...you get the point. LOL

JMO

Yep, I agree. I recently found this interesting read IMO;
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=15257
I havent finished reading it all, Im still on pain medicine which making me sleepy. But I would be interest in ur feedback about this site.

LadyFisher

09-28-2006, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Athena

LadyFisher - thanks for bringing this book to my attention. :) I just finished reading his analysis of the JBR case and as I was reading it I couldn't believe that alot of his analysis matched what we have said previously and I had NEVER read him before. I found it totally amazing and you know I agree with him. I was also surprised to find out that he did disagreed with some of what Smit says and he believes the person entered that home more likely with a key or an open door and believes it is someone that the Ramseys know (not necessarily a friend) or who had been in their home previously. He also says he believes it is a younger person possibly in their 20's or 30's. He also states in his book that the BPD DID report an unlocked door on the morning of the 26th prior to JBR's body being found and how it was never publicized as only the inculpatory CE was leaked.

Re: payment: as you quote above he said he received a small fee early on and during his interviews with the Ramseys made it quite clear that if he believed it to be both or either one of them he would not hesitate to say so in a heartbeat. He also said and emphasized that he has NEVER, EVER offered an opinion that was not deeply felt and fully supported by his OWN belief and the facts as he saw them.

I found no reason in any of the cases he talks about in this book, to question his credibility and sincerity. jmo I'm glad you read it....I assumed most everyone on this board had already read the book. Everyone here seems so knowledgable of the case. I remember hearing reports of the case when JB was first murdered, but really didn't know the specifics of it..until JMK was arrested and I came to the CTV board....I just picked the book up last weekend, but was surprised that so much of what he thinks could have happened that night has the same elements of so many of our theories here on this board! I suggest everyone read it! :seeya:

harz

09-28-2006, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I'm glad you read it....I assumed most everyone on this board had already read the book. Everyone here seems so knowledgable of the case. I remember hearing reports of the case when JB was first murdered, but really didn't know the specifics of it..until JMK was arrested and I came to the CTV board....I just picked the book up last weekend, but was surprised that so much of what he thinks could have happened that night has the same elements of so many of our theories here on this board! I suggest everyone read it! :seeya:

I would be willing to read any books relate to this case, including any authors. But I rather go libarary to borrow instead of helping or enabling authors on profiting over this unsolved case unless some authors use the funds to help solving this case or for some founations. A book that Ramseys wrote, I dont mind reading it, as I will discover plentful of their obviously fictions in it, but may as well to entertain me. IMO :)

harz

09-28-2006, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

You may be right about Burke. Along with picking out JB's underwear that its maker apparently coughed or sneezed on, having Burke in the house was probably another lucky stroke for Patsy. Now the prosecution has the problem of John, in a pinch, saying Patsy did it all and he was a dupe.

A couple of footnotes to this case--and I agree that there will never be any prosecution in this case, as one reason is that the likely killer is already dead, and it will be impossible to turn one against another now--are two questions: 1) did Patsy ever confide in anyone who was not present as to what actually happened that night, and 2) will John Ramsey leave some written documentation of what happened that night, or will he allow his son Burke to live his life with suspicion hanging over him?

A few things have been revealed in the arrest of John Mark Karr. One is that apparently we know all the physical evidence that is out there--at least if we can believe Mary Lacy; two is that there never was any secret "protocol" (if you will) between the Ramseys and the DA's office in which the DA was told unofficially what happened and chose not to prosecute (that has been speculated to by some), and three, and this is only my opinion, is that Patsy's sister, Pam in Atlanta, still believes that Patsy was 100% innocent. I am going here by her adament, no hesitation and convincing interview that she gave on CNN that I saw. I am convinced that SHE THINKS Patsy did not do it.

But that does not mean that Patsy may not have told at least one other person, besides John, what actually happened. Then the question might be, will this person ever reveal the secret? It could be a deathbed confession, or something left in an estate.

If John Ramsey allows his son, presuming he outlives his father, to live his life under a cloud of suspicion, he is lower than low.

JMO

Indeed, I agree about John being so low and so shallow, I would be very ashame of him if I was Burke or Andrew, but I already am since he's a human being like us. What happen if one of juries from Grand Jury exposed the secrets from this case, in breaking the gag order? But if a juror move out of country making it no problem to reveal all critical informations to the public? That would make everybody's day lol.
JMO

sunsplashed

09-28-2006, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by harz

Yep, I agree. I recently found this interesting read IMO;
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=15257
I havent finished reading it all, Im still on pain medicine which making me sleepy. But I would be interest in ur feedback about this site.

Hi harz

Hope you feel better soon.

Thanks for providing the link to us.

I found this part very interesting and, for me, it REALLY reinforces the fact that the Ramseys are guilty, guilty, guilty. Both of them.

"A) Prosecutors in Boulder, Colo., presented to the grand jury shocking evidence that they feel shows the rope used to strangle JonBenet was purchased by her mom Patsy. A sales slip indicates that Patsy bought a thin nylon rope at Boulder's McGuckin hardware store. Patsy paid for this rope with an American Express card. The sales slip doesn't name the items, but it shows a $2.29 purchase rung up in the section of the store that sold nylon ropes. The price of a nylon rope at the time -- $2.29. Realizing they were on to something explosive, authorities bought up all the 100-foot packs of quarter inch Stansport nylon utility rope sold at McGuckin's. They compared the McGuckin ropes with the one used on JonBen? and it matched. Tests run by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation convinced the police they had the right rope. This was vital evidence since investigators never found the remainder of the murder rope in the Ramsey home.

(B) JonBenet had been gagged by duct tape so they asked Patsy's art teacher if Patsy ever used that kind of tape. During a formal police interview months earlier, Patsy had denied ever buying duct tape, and authorities were frustrated because they never found a roll of duct tape at her house. However, during the investigation of Patsy's McGuckin hardware store purchases, they hit pay dirt. They found she had in fact made a purchase for $1.99 in the section where duct tape was on sale, for that very price. The duct tape used on JonBenet was a very rare black type -- the same kind on sale at McGuckin's. The manufacturer revealed that type made up a mere 2 percent of all its duct tape."

rosebud

09-28-2006, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Hi harz

Hope you feel better soon.

Thanks for providing the link to us.

I found this part very interesting and, for me, it REALLY reinforces the fact that the Ramseys are guilty, guilty, guilty. Both of them.

"A) Prosecutors in Boulder, Colo., presented to the grand jury shocking evidence that they feel shows the rope used to strangle JonBenet was purchased by her mom Patsy. A sales slip indicates that Patsy bought a thin nylon rope at Boulder's McGuckin hardware store. Patsy paid for this rope with an American Express card. The sales slip doesn't name the items, but it shows a $2.29 purchase rung up in the section of the store that sold nylon ropes. The price of a nylon rope at the time -- $2.29. Realizing they were on to something explosive, authorities bought up all the 100-foot packs of quarter inch Stansport nylon utility rope sold at McGuckin's. They compared the McGuckin ropes with the one used on JonBen? and it matched. Tests run by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation convinced the police they had the right rope. This was vital evidence since investigators never found the remainder of the murder rope in the Ramsey home.

(B) JonBenet had been gagged by duct tape so they asked Patsy's art teacher if Patsy ever used that kind of tape. During a formal police interview months earlier, Patsy had denied ever buying duct tape, and authorities were frustrated because they never found a roll of duct tape at her house. However, during the investigation of Patsy's McGuckin hardware store purchases, they hit pay dirt. They found she had in fact made a purchase for $1.99 in the section where duct tape was on sale, for that very price. The duct tape used on JonBenet was a very rare black type -- the same kind on sale at McGuckin's. The manufacturer revealed that type made up a mere 2 percent of all its duct tape."

Can we suspect that the duct tape and the nylon cord was bought for the Christmas Party? Perhaps to hang decorations? A hundred foot of cord is a lot to use up in a short time.
Anyway it is a good bet that Patsy knew exactly where they were since she had recently purchased them.

JMO

Athena

09-28-2006, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

Can we suspect that the duct tape and the nylon cord was bought for the Christmas Party? Perhaps to hang decorations? A hundred foot of cord is a lot to use up in a short time.
Anyway it is a good bet that Patsy knew exactly where they were since she had recently purchased them.

JMO

OK -- so now the murder was pre-meditated. Most anti-Ramseys believe it was a coverup after an accident. Can't have it both ways. LOL

thewhitewitch1

09-28-2006, 11:17 PM

For anyone who cares...here is the second slip up regarding what JB wore to the Whites party:

21 PATSY RAMSEY: I just -- I can't imagine

22 that. No, because I put those -- she was zonked out

23 asleep, so I put her to bed. And she had those, she

24 had worn the black velvet ones to Priscilla's.

25 What she had on earlier that day, I just

0459

1 can't remember. It might have been those. I just

2 can't remember. Could have taken those off, you know,

3 gotten the dress to go to Priscilla's and then left

4 them there.

She does say "gotten the dress to go to Priscillas" does she not?
These two slip ups were in the course of one interview.

You all should read what she says when she is shown photographs of the scene. There are a lot of things she doesn't remember or that seem "odd" to her. For instance, there were cleaning supplies (Windex) out which she claims shouldn't have been where they were. So this intruder knows where to find the cleaning supplies too? Or did the Ramseys try to clean up after their deed?
Suddenly Patsy (who was so adamant about what she wore to the Whites) is not so sure what she wore once she is shown a picture of herself and is clearly NOT wearing what she said she did.
There was also the mention (or implication by the investigators) that there was some pineapple in a tupperware container in JBs bedroom.
The more I read, the more certain I am that there was no intruder.

Athena

09-28-2006, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Hi harz

Hope you feel better soon.

Thanks for providing the link to us.

I found this part very interesting and, for me, it REALLY reinforces the fact that the Ramseys are guilty, guilty, guilty. Both of them.

"A) Prosecutors in Boulder, Colo., presented to the grand jury shocking evidence that they feel shows the rope used to strangle JonBenet was purchased by her mom Patsy. A sales slip indicates that Patsy bought a thin nylon rope at Boulder's McGuckin hardware store. Patsy paid for this rope with an American Express card. The sales slip doesn't name the items, but it shows a $2.29 purchase rung up in the section of the store that sold nylon ropes. The price of a nylon rope at the time -- $2.29. Realizing they were on to something explosive, authorities bought up all the 100-foot packs of quarter inch Stansport nylon utility rope sold at McGuckin's. They compared the McGuckin ropes with the one used on JonBen? and it matched. Tests run by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation convinced the police they had the right rope. This was vital evidence since investigators never found the remainder of the murder rope in the Ramsey home.

(B) JonBenet had been gagged by duct tape so they asked Patsy's art teacher if Patsy ever used that kind of tape. During a formal police interview months earlier, Patsy had denied ever buying duct tape, and authorities were frustrated because they never found a roll of duct tape at her house. However, during the investigation of Patsy's McGuckin hardware store purchases, they hit pay dirt. They found she had in fact made a purchase for $1.99 in the section where duct tape was on sale, for that very price. The duct tape used on JonBenet was a very rare black type -- the same kind on sale at McGuckin's. The manufacturer revealed that type made up a mere 2 percent of all its duct tape."

Gosh this has been out for so long. It's like a chain letter and noone knows who the real author was. It's totally fabricated based on info from the tabs.

Take a look and then be sure to check out the main website below the first link:

http://www.stewwebb.com/jonbenet_ramsey_murder_investigator_speaks_out.htm

http://www.stewwebb.com/

LadyFisher

09-28-2006, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Hi harz

Hope you feel better soon.

Thanks for providing the link to us.

I found this part very interesting and, for me, it REALLY reinforces the fact that the Ramseys are guilty, guilty, guilty. Both of them.

"A) Prosecutors in Boulder, Colo., presented to the grand jury shocking evidence that they feel shows the rope used to strangle JonBenet was purchased by her mom Patsy. A sales slip indicates that Patsy bought a thin nylon rope at Boulder's McGuckin hardware store. Patsy paid for this rope with an American Express card. The sales slip doesn't name the items, but it shows a $2.29 purchase rung up in the section of the store that sold nylon ropes. The price of a nylon rope at the time -- $2.29. Realizing they were on to something explosive, authorities bought up all the 100-foot packs of quarter inch Stansport nylon utility rope sold at McGuckin's. They compared the McGuckin ropes with the one used on JonBen? and it matched. Tests run by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation convinced the police they had the right rope. This was vital evidence since investigators never found the remainder of the murder rope in the Ramsey home.

(B) JonBenet had been gagged by duct tape so they asked Patsy's art teacher if Patsy ever used that kind of tape. During a formal police interview months earlier, Patsy had denied ever buying duct tape, and authorities were frustrated because they never found a roll of duct tape at her house. However, during the investigation of Patsy's McGuckin hardware store purchases, they hit pay dirt. They found she had in fact made a purchase for $1.99 in the section where duct tape was on sale, for that very price. The duct tape used on JonBenet was a very rare black type -- the same kind on sale at McGuckin's. The manufacturer revealed that type made up a mere 2 percent of all its duct tape." Sun, I just don't buy this story...it appears to me an overzealous tabloid reporter got carried away......why would the Ramseys have disposed of the duct tape and cord? Come on...yet..leave the broken paintbrush of Patsys.....it doesn't make sense! imho

thewhitewitch1

09-28-2006, 11:50 PM

harz

09-28-2006, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Hi harz

Hope you feel better soon.

Thanks for providing the link to us.

I found this part very interesting and, for me, it REALLY reinforces the fact that the Ramseys are guilty, guilty, guilty. Both of them.

"A) Prosecutors in Boulder, Colo., presented to the grand jury shocking evidence that they feel shows the rope used to strangle JonBenet was purchased by her mom Patsy. A sales slip indicates that Patsy bought a thin nylon rope at Boulder's McGuckin hardware store. Patsy paid for this rope with an American Express card. The sales slip doesn't name the items, but it shows a $2.29 purchase rung up in the section of the store that sold nylon ropes. The price of a nylon rope at the time -- $2.29. Realizing they were on to something explosive, authorities bought up all the 100-foot packs of quarter inch Stansport nylon utility rope sold at McGuckin's. They compared the McGuckin ropes with the one used on JonBen? and it matched. Tests run by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation convinced the police they had the right rope. This was vital evidence since investigators never found the remainder of the murder rope in the Ramsey home.

(B) JonBenet had been gagged by duct tape so they asked Patsy's art teacher if Patsy ever used that kind of tape. During a formal police interview months earlier, Patsy had denied ever buying duct tape, and authorities were frustrated because they never found a roll of duct tape at her house. However, during the investigation of Patsy's McGuckin hardware store purchases, they hit pay dirt. They found she had in fact made a purchase for $1.99 in the section where duct tape was on sale, for that very price. The duct tape used on JonBenet was a very rare black type -- the same kind on sale at McGuckin's. The manufacturer revealed that type made up a mere 2 percent of all its duct tape."

It gets interesting;
http://www.friendsforjonbenet.org/barbiedolls.html

It say these bondage dolls were found on Ramsey's property in 1997 just after Christmas. I dont see Patsy doing that, I would bet on Burke, IMO. Coincide huh?

LadyFisher

09-28-2006, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Gosh this has been out for so long. It's like a chain letter and noone knows who the real author was. It's totally fabricated based on info from the tabs.

Take a look and then be sure to check out the main website below the first link:

http://www.stewwebb.com/jonbenet_ramsey_murder_investigator_speaks_out.htm

http://www.stewwebb.com/ Thanks for posting this, Althena.....I am appalled at the lengths some of these imho "scum bag" reporters went to in order to get pics and stories to make a buck....how they harassed anyone closely connected to the Ramseys...friends, family....in the Death of Innocence...Patsy told a story of how she was befriended by a woman during their stay in Michigan the summer after JB's death by a wife of one of the tabloids editors...of course the lady didn't reveal who she really was...she was there imho to make $$$$$$$ from a story...sadly Patsy trusted her for a time...is it any wonder these folks had trouble trusting anyone? They even harassed Patsy's mother.....it's sickening........but, I'm a firm believer in what goes around comes around...I would hate to see these folks when they pay their dues! imho

harz

09-29-2006, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I read most of it and the writer seems to have a very vivid imagination. I can't believe some of the things he/she said without facts to back them up and that was not supplied.
Some of it is quite weird and beyond the realm of belief.
Beyond believing the Ramseys did it and facts we already know to be true, I don't believe any of it...including a third outside person being involved. IMO

That might be, I would still like to see Patsy's credit card report of using it to purchased these items at hardware store, then compare the prices on these item at hardware store from 1996, then I will see how this story fits in. The writer was rejected by controlled media mainstream to have this article published, but it seems the writer does know more about what was happening than just the images. Maybe the writer got really fed up & enchaned most his/her image too far, lol. IMO

Athena

09-29-2006, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by harz

It gets interesting;
http://www.friendsforjonbenet.org/barbiedolls.html

It say these bondage dolls were found on Ramsey's property in 1997 just after Christmas. I dont see Patsy doing that, I would bet on Burke, IMO. Coincide huh?

Burke??? You have a wild imagination. How old are you?

Athena

09-29-2006, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by harz

That might be, I would still like to see Patsy's credit card report of using it to purchased these items at hardware store, then compare the prices on these item at hardware store from 1996, then I will see how this story fits in. The writer was rejected by controlled media mainstream to have this article published, but it seems the writer does know more about what was happening than just the images. Maybe the writer got really fed up & enchaned most his/her image too far, lol. IMO

Harz -- you are reading too many tabloids. This is a fabricated story and the reason I posted the links above is because it appears all over the internet and many different people have claimed they wrote this. Please - I don't know what you are searching for that you find all of this bizarre, fabricated info -- and no offense -- is very immature. jmo

harz

09-29-2006, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Athena

OK -- so now the murder was pre-meditated. Most anti-Ramseys believe it was a coverup after an accident. Can't have it both ways. LOL

I believe Rosebud wasn't talking about pre-meditated murder, just that Patsy knew where these items were. She just happened to have these items available to her including pen, notepad, blanket, or paintbrush stick, for example. IMO

harz

09-29-2006, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Burke??? You have a wild imagination. How old are you?

Why not? I have seen boys at age 10 done very strange things with the dolls, including barbies. It not my image, just experience myself witnessed odd behaviors of young boys similar to Burke's age involving dolls. Where are you from? :)

harz

09-29-2006, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Harz -- you are reading too many tabloids. This is a fabricated story and the reason I posted the links above is because it appears all over the internet and many different people have claimed they wrote this. Please - I don't know what you are searching for that you find all of this bizarre, fabricated info -- and no offense -- is very immature. jmo

Yes I got your other post relate to other tabloid site base on this article. I havent read all of this article yet since it was too long. I will try finish reading them all tomorrow. Thank you for telling us where this article may came from.

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Athena

OK -- so now the murder was pre-meditated. Most anti-Ramseys believe it was a coverup after an accident. Can't have it both ways. LOL

I don't think if, and it's still an if, Athena, Patsy bought cord and duct tape that she planned on using them in a cover up of a murder of JB. I think if she bought those items, it was to use in her art class.

And, if the Ramseys are guilty, then I think they simply used what was at hand in staging.

But I don't think Patsy bought the items thinking of murder and staging. Maybe some people do. I don't know. I only know I don't.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Sun, I just don't buy this story...it appears to me an overzealous tabloid reporter got carried away......why would the Ramseys have disposed of the duct tape and cord? Come on...yet..leave the broken paintbrush of Patsys.....it doesn't make sense! imho

I think Patsy may have purchased cord and duct tape for her art classes, LadyFisher, but I do agree that much of that article is the product of someone's vivid and strange imagination.

Part of it is just bizarre. Like the part where the person says that Patsy and Pam were victims of CIA mind control. What?????? That's like something a person would see on the headlines of the Star (I see the headlines in the supermarket line, but I've never read the inside).

I've also read parts of that article verbatim on other sites.

The only reason I put ANY credence at all in the purchases is because the BPD checked them out as well. They could not verify that Patsy did, in fact, buy cord and tape, but they did verify that she bought things at the local hardware store for the same amounts in the same sections of the store where cord and tape were sold. That's as far as it went.

However, as to the article as a whole - yes, I agree. I would discount it as not reliable.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by harz

Yes I got your other post relate to other tabloid site base on this article. I havent read all of this article yet since it was too long. I will try finish reading them all tomorrow. Thank you for telling us where this article may came from.

I don't think you can really believe what's in that article, harz. And I'm one who believes the Ramseys are guilty!

The article is just too "far out."

JMO

Athena

09-29-2006, 01:00 AM

This is from a Forensic Science site and unrelated to this case but I found this to be extremely interesting:

Deductive Profiling Top
Deductive profiling involves a process that avoids generalisations and averages. This method involves intently studying suspects in extreme detail and adapting findings in which new evidence surfaces. A deductive profile is set up based on the offender's actions before, during and after committing the crime. For example, if the murderer used a makeshift weapon, investigators are then able to deduce that the crime was probably spontaneous. Another example involves serial murderers. Investigators are able to find out whether the murder was organized, which means that the killer carried out a planned, premeditated attack on a victim, or if the attack was disorganized, meaning that the murder was unplanned and the killer behaved in an uncertain way. Organised and planned killers often carry a tool kit containing duct tape and rope to bind their victims and gloves and a mask to hide their identity.

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/text_nts_psychological_profiling.htm

harz

09-29-2006, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Athena
This is from a Forensic Science site and unrelated to this case but I found this to be extremely interesting:

Deductive Profiling Top
Deductive profiling involves a process that avoids generalisations and averages. This method involves intently studying suspects in extreme detail and adapting findings in which new evidence surfaces. A deductive profile is set up based on the offender's actions before, during and after committing the crime. For example, if the murderer used a makeshift weapon, investigators are then able to deduce that the crime was probably spontaneous. Another example involves serial murderers. Investigators are able to find out whether the murder was organized, which means that the killer carried out a planned, premeditated attack on a victim, or if the attack was disorganized, meaning that the murder was unplanned and the killer behaved in an uncertain way. Organised and planned killers often carry a tool kit containing duct tape and rope to bind their victims and gloves and a mask to hide their identity.

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/text_nts_psychological_profiling.htm

a mask to hide their identity? killers wore mask so their deceased vicitms cannot identity them? :shrug:

harz

09-29-2006, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I don't think you can really believe what's in that article, harz. And I'm one who believes the Ramseys are guilty!

The article is just too "far out."

JMO

Lol, I guess I haven't got that far yet. But first few paragraphs were getting interesting to me, I should have read the whole thing before I post, sorry.

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Hi there! Go back and look at the crime scene photos with the blanket on the basement floor. There is duct tape...or SOME sort of tape stuck to it. Maybe, just MAYBE...the killer's plan A, didn't work out, and that was to wrap her in a blanket and dump the body...the tape was to keep the blanket around her, and keep it from sliding off. Maybe, the police...in the beginning, wasn't supposed to see the blanket, much less the body. AND HENCE...the reason that her blanket was used. IMO

Better not use "and hence," Ames. LOL

Clean out your mailbox, okay. Tried to PM you and your mailbox is full. :(

Athena

09-29-2006, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by harz

Why not? I have seen boys at age 10 done very strange things with the dolls, including barbies. It not my image, just experience myself witnessed odd behaviors of young boys similar to Burke's age involving dolls. Where are you from? :)

OK -- that's fair. Boys will be boys!

Athena

09-29-2006, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Better not use "and hence," Ames. LOL
<snip>

(

Uh-oh Ames -- you are now "under an umbrella of suspicion" LOL

I shall now go to bed and sleep on it.

Good night all :seeya:

Ames

09-29-2006, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Better not use "and hence," Ames. LOL

Clean out your mailbox, okay. Tried to PM you and your mailbox is full. :(

It came into my regular email box though...so I still got it. I will clean out my pm mailbox, though...thanks for letting me know. :D

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by Ames

It came into my regular email box though...so I still got it. I will clean out my pm mailbox, though...thanks for letting me know. :D

Okay, good. You got it.

I'm going to bed now, too, everyone.

Have a good night and talk to you all tomorrow. :seeya:

harz

09-29-2006, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by Athena

OK -- that's fair. Boys will be boys!

I was just assuming Burke base on my experience witnessing young boys being foolish, but doesn't mean he did put up these barbie dolls into bondage fashion. I looked at these dolls closely, wondering if Burke sneaked into Ramseys room & learned something from John's serious case pornographic materials? Or John used these barbies into bondage fashions to instruct JB to do the same for John's fantasy? I think it very high likely that John did use these dolls a part of his teaching to JB. Burke didn't really developed hormones yet, I just realized how odd it would be for 9 years old to have such skills in bondage fashion using duct tape & cords, I doubt that he would ever understand what excatly bondage means at his age that time. I think JB hide these 2 dolls somewhere that John couldn't find that he might want to get rid of them or he simply forgot about them. IMO

Do you really think it was just an intruder only who sneak into Ramsey house, took his time to find 2 barbie dolls, toying with them including the use of duct tapes & cords?

Ames

09-29-2006, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by harz

I was just assuming Burke base on my experience witnessing young boys being foolish, but doesn't mean he did put up these barbie dolls into bondage fashion. I looked at these dolls closely, wondering if Burke sneaked into Ramseys room & learned something from John's serious case pornographic materials? Or John used these barbies into bondage fashions to instruct JB to do the same for John's fantasy? I think it very high likely that John did use these dolls a part of his teaching to JB. Burke didn't really developed hormones yet, I just realized how odd it would be for 9 years old to have such skills in bondage fashion using duct tape & cords, I doubt that he would ever understand what excatly bondage means at his age that time. I think JB hide these 2 dolls somewhere that John couldn't find that he might want to get rid of them or he simply forgot about them. IMO

Do you really think it was just an intruder only who sneak into Ramsey house, took his time to find 2 barbie dolls, toying with them including the use of duct tapes & cords?

Hormones and 9 year old boys? I wonder when Burke's birthday is...had he just turned 9...was he about to turn 10? Just wondering...because (and I can't believe that I am about to give this info on a message board)....my cousin...who had JUST TURNED 11....got a 15 year old girl pregnant!!! So, anything is possible....I don't believe that Burke left the Barbies on the lawn though. IMO

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 10:24 AM

I am sure the Barbie Dolls were some sort of sick prank by persons unrelated to the crime.

Do any of you know that there were two blankets found in the cellar with JB? Yes...two. I noticed the police were questioning PR and JR about the type of blanket they had on their bed and if it was similar to JBs blanket.
It was never revealed if it was their blanket but I am assuming that it was. So...how does an intruder get the blanket off of their bed with them in it? Or does this intruder bring his own blanket too?
For proof of this, see Search Warrent section in acandyrose.

Also wondering (since it took me so long to read that my eyes almost bled) did anyone even see my earlier post on the second slip up Patsy made about the "dress" JB was wearing at the Whites party? Or the fact that JB most likely had a tupperware bowl of pineapple in her room that night? Any thoughts on these things?

Ames

09-29-2006, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I am sure the Barbie Dolls were some sort of sick prank by persons unrelated to the crime.

Do any of you know that there were two blankets found in the cellar with JB? Yes...two. I noticed the police were questioning PR and JR about the type of blanket they had on their bed and if it was similar to JBs blanket.
It was never revealed if it was their blanket but I am assuming that it was. So...how does an intruder get the blanket off of their bed with them in it? Or does this intruder bring his own blanket too?
For proof of this, see Search Warrent section in acandyrose.

WHOA!! Thats a big piece of evidence...I never knew that. I just thought it was JB's blanket that was found. My theory is that they/he/she were/was going to wrap her up and toss her....like a piece of garbage. I do not, for one second, think that she was "suppose" to still be in the basement when the cops arrived.
IMO

Athena

09-29-2006, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I am sure the Barbie Dolls were some sort of sick prank by persons unrelated to the crime.

Do any of you know that there were two blankets found in the cellar with JB? Yes...two. I noticed the police were questioning PR and JR about the type of blanket they had on their bed and if it was similar to JBs blanket.
It was never revealed if it was their blanket but I am assuming that it was. So...how does an intruder get the blanket off of their bed with them in it? Or does this intruder bring his own blanket too?
For proof of this, see Search Warrent section in acandyrose.

Also wondering (since it took me so long to read that my eyes almost bled) did anyone even see my earlier post on the second slip up Patsy made about the "dress" JB was wearing at the Whites party? Or the fact that JB most likely had a tupperware bowl of pineapple in her room that night? Any thoughts on these things?

The other blanket was John Andrew's blanket found in the suitcase.

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Athena

The other blanket was John Andrew's blanket found in the suitcase.

No. It was not.

http://www.acandyrose.com/12261996warrant03.gif

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Athena

OK -- that's fair. Boys will be boys! Athena....Boys are boys alright...but I have a 10 y/o grandson...and I've never observed him doing anything these posters are trying to suggest....he's never once wrapped a rope around any dolls neck as if to indicate a strangulation....I don't buy that all boys do strange things! imho

Ames

09-29-2006, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

No. It was not.

http://www.acandyrose.com/12261996warrant03.gif

The Ramsey's get guiltier and guilter as each day passes. Now the pro-Ramsey's will find a way to explain away the TWO blankets. Of course one was JB's....but, the other? If it had came from the Ramsey's bed....I guess the intruder was also a magician....pulling the blanket off of the bed, without them noticing....probably in a quick, jerking motion. :lol: IMO

Athena

09-29-2006, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

No. It was not.

http://www.acandyrose.com/12261996warrant03.gif

Yep that's what it says. The reason I thought it was John Andrew's is because it has been mentioned in pretty much all of the credible articles/books I have read. I've never read that. Thanks. Now I'm going to have to read all of those pages of the search warrant. See what you did TWW. :)

Have you read anything else re: this second blanket on the floor?

Athena

09-29-2006, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Athena....Boys are boys alright...but I have a 10 y/o grandson...and I've never observed him doing anything these posters are trying to suggest....he's never once wrapped a rope around any dolls neck as if to indicate a strangulation....I don't buy that all boys do strange things! imho

You are correct Lady -- I was just trying to be facetious but guess it didn't come across not to mention I left my little :rolleyes: icon off the post.

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

No. It was not.

http://www.acandyrose.com/12261996warrant03.gif

I'm not doubting you and you know I think the Ramseys are guilty, but how can you tell? When I looked at the document, the sentence after two blankets being found was blacked out. :(

I mean, how do you know it was from the Ramseys bed? That would definitely mean no intruder.

JMO

MyrDawn

09-29-2006, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Yep that's what it says. The reason I thought it was John Andrew's is because it has been mentioned in pretty much all of the credible articles/books I have read. I've never read that. Thanks. Now I'm going to have to read all of those pages of the search warrant. See what you did TWW. :)

Have you read anything else re: this second blanket on the floor?

There were three blankets. The 3rd isn't a mystery at all.

The first is the one in the suitcase, and was John Andrew's.

The second blanket was the one that was on JonBenet's body when John found her. That's the "white blanket in wine cellar" mentioned in the evidence inventory list. It wasn't on JonBenet's body when John brought her upstairs. He'd left it in the wine cellar where it was still located when it was taken into evidence.

The third blanket, the one listed "Blanket covering body" in the evidence inventory list is the one John ran upstairs and got off a chair after he'd brought JonBenet's body upstairs from the celler, and laid her on the floor. He covered JonBenet's body with it right in front of Linda Arndt. You can read about it in John's 1998 interview and DOI, and I never heard Linda Arndt or anyone else dispute that he ran upstairs, got the blanket, and covered JonBenet.

Linda Arndt on "Good Morning America":

http://www.acandyrose.com/05191998arndtvsboulder.htm

"Arndt: "I took JonBenét. I moved her from the hallway to the, um, the living room. I carried her just with the, the forearms. And I was cognizant that she was my sole responsibility, and the preservation of her was my responsibility. And was careful how I carried her, out of this pathway of heavy traffic. And I put her in the living room. She looked like she was sleeping. John Ramsey came back and he says, "can we please, could you please cover her body?" And as he's saying it, he's already put the blanket on top of her." THAT is the 3rd blanket.

IMO, JMO and MOO

MyrDawn

09-29-2006, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Ames

The Ramsey's get guiltier and guilter as each day passes. Now the pro-Ramsey's will find a way to explain away the TWO blankets. Of course one was JB's....but, the other? If it had came from the Ramsey's bed....I guess the intruder was also a magician....pulling the blanket off of the bed, without them noticing....probably in a quick, jerking motion. :lol: IMO

Ames, that other blanket is no secret at all. Nobody has to explain it away. Even Linda Arndt knew how it got there.

Athena

09-29-2006, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

There were three blankets. The 3rd isn't a mystery at all.

The first is the one in the suitcase, and was John Andrew's.

The second blanket was the one that was on JonBenet's body when John found her. That's the "white blanket in wine cellar" mentioned in the evidence inventory list. It wasn't on JonBenet's body when John brought her upstairs. He'd left it in the wine cellar where it was still located when it was taken into evidence.

The third blanket, the one listed "Blanket covering body" in the evidence inventory list is the one John ran upstairs and got off a chair after he'd brought JonBenet's body upstairs from the celler, and laid her on the floor. He covered JonBenet's body with it right in front of Linda Arndt. You can read about it in John's 1998 interview and DOI, and I never heard Linda Arndt or anyone else dispute that he ran upstairs, got the blanket, and covered JonBenet.

Linda Arndt on "Good Morning America":

http://www.acandyrose.com/05191998arndtvsboulder.htm

"Arndt: "I took JonBenét. I moved her from the hallway to the, um, the living room. I carried her just with the, the forearms. And I was cognizant that she was my sole responsibility, and the preservation of her was my responsibility. And was careful how I carried her, out of this pathway of heavy traffic. And I put her in the living room. She looked like she was sleeping. John Ramsey came back and he says, "can we please, could you please cover her body?" And as he's saying it, he's already put the blanket on top of her." THAT is the 3rd blanket.

IMO, JMO and MOO

Thanks Myr!!! A little slow today. I just read it again - at first I thought it meant two blankets were found in the wine cellar in the middle of the floor but they were referring to them after JBR's body was brought upstairs. Silly me -- I knew that too!

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

There were three blankets. The 3rd isn't a mystery at all.

The first is the one in the suitcase, and was John Andrew's.

The second blanket was the one that was on JonBenet's body when John found her. That's the "white blanket in wine cellar" mentioned in the evidence inventory list. It wasn't on JonBenet's body when John brought her upstairs. He'd left it in the wine cellar where it was still located when it was taken into evidence.

The third blanket, the one listed "Blanket covering body" in the evidence inventory list is the one John ran upstairs and got off a chair after he'd brought JonBenet's body upstairs from the celler, and laid her on the floor. He covered JonBenet's body with it right in front of Linda Arndt. You can read about it in John's 1998 interview and DOI, and I never heard Linda Arndt or anyone else dispute that he ran upstairs, got the blanket, and covered JonBenet.

Linda Arndt on "Good Morning America":

http://www.acandyrose.com/05191998arndtvsboulder.htm

"Arndt: "I took JonBenét. I moved her from the hallway to the, um, the living room. I carried her just with the, the forearms. And I was cognizant that she was my sole responsibility, and the preservation of her was my responsibility. And was careful how I carried her, out of this pathway of heavy traffic. And I put her in the living room. She looked like she was sleeping. John Ramsey came back and he says, "can we please, could you please cover her body?" And as he's saying it, he's already put the blanket on top of her." THAT is the 3rd blanket.

IMO, JMO and MOO IMHO John's actions there were not those of a man that just killed his daughter hours before.....he loved this child....if he had been the murder according to John Douglas...the body in the basement would have been covered in such a loving manner, it wasn't...only the torso was covered in the basement! imho

harz

09-29-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Hormones and 9 year old boys? I wonder when Burke's birthday is...had he just turned 9...was he about to turn 10? Just wondering...because (and I can't believe that I am about to give this info on a message board)....my cousin...who had JUST TURNED 11....got a 15 year old girl pregnant!!! So, anything is possible....I don't believe that Burke left the Barbies on the lawn though. IMO

Oh these barbies were on front lawn? I didn't know that. I thought they were found hidden somewhere after several search warrants. Then they would appear to be a prank by someone. That site should have mention more details about them. :punch:

rosebud

09-29-2006, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by harz

I believe Rosebud wasn't talking about pre-meditated murder, just that Patsy knew where these items were. She just happened to have these items available to her including pen, notepad, blanket, or paintbrush stick, for example. IMO

Correct. After she inflicted the head wound on JB, Patsy went for things she knew were there and where they were located: the nylon rope, the paintbrush box, the duct tape.

rosebud

09-29-2006, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Athena

OK -- so now the murder was pre-meditated. Most anti-Ramseys believe it was a coverup after an accident. Can't have it both ways. LOL

If you don't mind I will speak for myself. I did not say or imply the killing was premeditated.

Ames

09-29-2006, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

There were three blankets. The 3rd isn't a mystery at all.

The first is the one in the suitcase, and was John Andrew's.

The second blanket was the one that was on JonBenet's body when John found her. That's the "white blanket in wine cellar" mentioned in the evidence inventory list. It wasn't on JonBenet's body when John brought her upstairs. He'd left it in the wine cellar where it was still located when it was taken into evidence.

The third blanket, the one listed "Blanket covering body" in the evidence inventory list is the one John ran upstairs and got off a chair after he'd brought JonBenet's body upstairs from the celler, and laid her on the floor. He covered JonBenet's body with it right in front of Linda Arndt. You can read about it in John's 1998 interview and DOI, and I never heard Linda Arndt or anyone else dispute that he ran upstairs, got the blanket, and covered JonBenet.

Linda Arndt on "Good Morning America":

http://www.acandyrose.com/05191998arndtvsboulder.htm

"Arndt: "I took JonBenét. I moved her from the hallway to the, um, the living room. I carried her just with the, the forearms. And I was cognizant that she was my sole responsibility, and the preservation of her was my responsibility. And was careful how I carried her, out of this pathway of heavy traffic. And I put her in the living room. She looked like she was sleeping. John Ramsey came back and he says, "can we please, could you please cover her body?" And as he's saying it, he's already put the blanket on top of her." THAT is the 3rd blanket.

IMO, JMO and MOO

Looks to me like there were FOUR....read this last line again...

http://www.acandyrose.com/12261996warrant03.gif

It says (and I am going to CAP some words for emphasis).....:
"In the area where Det. Arndt had told Det. Everett that the DECENDENT HAD BEEN FOUND BY HER FATHER, he observed TWO blankets on the floor in the center of the room". That says to me that she was covered with TWO blankets in the basement. IMO

Ames

09-29-2006, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I'm not doubting you and you know I think the Ramseys are guilty, but how can you tell? When I looked at the document, the sentence after two blankets being found was blacked out. :(

I mean, how do you know it was from the Ramseys bed? That would definitely mean no intruder.

JMO

I thought that it looked like someone had underlined the last sentence, using a marker so that it was show up better. IMO I could be wrong though....

Athena

09-29-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I thought that it looked like someone had underlined the last sentence, using a marker so that it was show up better. IMO I could be wrong though....

Hi Ames,

Throughout most of the search warrants there are blacked out items -- I don't know why - possibly to keep certain evidence from the public.

Ames

09-29-2006, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Hi Ames,

Throughout most of the search warrants there are blacked out items -- I don't know why - possibly to keep certain evidence from the public.

Hi There...

Oh okay...that makes sense. Thanks!

MyrDawn

09-29-2006, 05:13 PM

I'm waiting for more blankets to pop up. :eek:

MyrDawn

09-29-2006, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I thought that it looked like someone had underlined the last sentence, using a marker so that it was show up better. IMO I could be wrong though....

This article, which has a copy of that affidavit says "(The remaining two lines of this paragraph have been blacked out.)"

Ames

09-29-2006, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn
I'm waiting for more blankets to pop up. :eek:

LOL...well, how do you explain this sentence....?

"In the area where Det. Arndt had told Det. Everett that the DECENDENT HAD BEEN FOUND BY HER FATHER, he observed TWO blankets on the floor in the center of the room".

It says IN THE AREA where she had been found, TWO blankets were observed....that would not be upstairs, would it? If I am not mistaken, she was found in the basement, unless there is something that you know and aren't telling us. :D IMO

Ames

09-29-2006, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

This article, which has a copy of that affidavit says "(The remaining two lines of this paragraph have been blacked out.)"

Okay, thanks!

MyrDawn

09-29-2006, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Ames

LOL...well, how do you explain this sentence....?

"In the area where Det. Arndt had told Det. Everett that the DECENDENT HAD BEEN FOUND BY HER FATHER, he observed TWO blankets on the floor in the center of the room".

It says IN THE AREA where she had been found two blankets were found....that would not be upstairs, would it? If I am not mistaken, she was found in the basement, unless there is something that you know and aren't telling us. :D IMO

No need to yell. I already read it. That's why said I'm waiting for more blankets to pop up.

Read my previous post about those two lines at the bottom of that paragraph in the affidavit being blacked out.

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 05:21 PM

MyrDawn

09-29-2006, 05:21 PM

Now I'm wondering why the evidence list only states one blanket from the wine cellar.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-inventory.htm

Any ideas?

If two had been found there by the LE, why weren't both of them taken in evidence on the 26th?

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 05:27 PM

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Hi Ames,

Throughout most of the search warrants there are blacked out items -- I don't know why - possibly to keep certain evidence from the public.

I think there is something about the tape that is blocked out because I haven't seen mention of it in any of the warrents or otherwise.

Ames

09-29-2006, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn
Now I'm wondering why the evidence list only states one blanket from the wine cellar.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-inventory.htm

Any ideas?

If two had been found there by the LE, why weren't both of them taken in evidence on the 26th?

According to Linda Arndt, a large percentage of the knowledge about this case, is incorrect. Alot of times, things are kept from public knowledge....this maybe one of those things. That last sentence about the blanketS being found in the area where her father FOUND HER, leads me to believe that there were TWO blankets in the basement, where her body was found....not, that he went and got another one, after bringing up the body, because he didn't want to have to look at her in that condition. I am sure he DID do that, and I don't blame him, I wouldn't have wanted to look at her, either.....but, that doesn't explain the fact that the link that was provided earlier, said that TWO blankets were found in the middle of the floor (so that rules out the one that was in the suitcase), where her father found the body. I just would like your opinion on what else that statement could possibly mean....I am trying to figure this case out, just like you and the rest of the posters. THANKS....

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
IMHO John's actions there were not those of a man that just killed his daughter hours before.....he loved this child....if he had been the murder according to John Douglas...the body in the basement would have been covered in such a loving manner, it wasn't...only the torso was covered in the basement! imho

Actually, the blanket was folded around her and only her feet and arms weren't covered. John described it like a "papoose". Seems pretty loving to me. IMO

Ames

09-29-2006, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I think there is something about the tape that is blocked out because I haven't seen mention of it in any of the warrents or otherwise.

Me too....I have heard that it was duct tape, and then it was NOT duct tape. I have heard that it was black, and I have heard that it was blue. Do they even make those colors of duct tape? I have seen silver, but thats the only color...maybe they make other colors now, BUT...did they TEN years ago??? IMO

Ames

09-29-2006, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Actually, the blanket was folded around her and only her feet and arms weren't covered. John described it like a "papoose". Seems pretty loving to me. IMO

Yep...seems "loving" to me too! IMO

MyrDawn

09-29-2006, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Ames

According to Linda Arndt, a large percentage of the knowledge about this case, is incorrect. Alot of times, things are kept from public knowledge....this maybe one of those things. That last sentence about the blanketS being found in the area where her father FOUND HER, leads me to believe that there were TWO blankets in the basement, where her body was found....not, that he went and got another one, after bringing up the body, because he didn't want to have to look at her in that condition. I am sure he DID do that, and I don't blame him, I wouldn't have wanted to look at her, either.....but, that doesn't explain the fact that the link that was provided earlier, said that TWO blankets were found in the middle of the floor (so that rules out the one that was in the suitcase), where her father found the body. I just would like your opinion on what else that statement could possibly mean....I am trying to figure this case out, just like you and the rest of the posters. THANKS....

I'm not saying Det. Everett didn't observe two blankets on the floor in the center of the wine celler.

What confuses me is that only two blankets are listed in evidence for the 26th. The one covering JonBenet's body which Arndt saw John place there, and ONE from the wine cellar.

I'm just trying to figure out why they'd leave the 2nd blanket in the wine cellar and not take it as evidence when they took the other one.

Ames

09-29-2006, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

No need to yell. I already read it. That's why said I'm waiting for more blankets to pop up.

Read my previous post about those two lines at the bottom of that paragraph in the affidavit being blacked out.

I wasn't yelling...I was emphasizing!! Sorry if it offended you...I was not yelling, though!! LOL

Yes, I saw what you posted, about the line after that sentence being blacked out....sure would love to know what it says.

Ames

09-29-2006, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

I'm not saying Det. Everett didn't observe two blankets on the floor in the center of the wine celler.

What confuses me is that only two blankets are listed in evidence for the 26th. The one covering JonBenet's body which Arndt saw John place there, and ONE from the wine cellar.

I'm just trying to figure out why they'd leave the 2nd blanket in the wine cellar and not take it as evidence when they took the other one.

Oh, thanks for clarifying....hmmmm...you got me there. Unless, the 2nd cellar blanket wasn't taken into evidence, but wasn't listed for some reason, maybe they were hoping that someone would slip up, or something. IMO

MyrDawn

09-29-2006, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Oh, thanks for clarifying....hmmmm...you got me there. Unless, the 2nd cellar blanket wasn't taken into evidence, but wasn't listed for some reason, maybe they were hoping that someone would slip up, or something. IMO

That's entirely possible. I think that some things are kept secret in most murder investigations, to use to rule out people that falsely confess. But, with the affidavit being made public, it wasn't a secret long.

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Oh, thanks for clarifying....hmmmm...you got me there. Unless, the 2nd cellar blanket wasn't taken into evidence, but wasn't listed for some reason, maybe they were hoping that someone would slip up, or something. IMO

Maybe you missed it but I said, maybe the blanket covering body meant the blanket that was covering her body in the cellar and the other blanket mentioned was the second blanket in the cellar.
The one JR put on her was after the fact and maybe wasn't taken as evidence. Just a thought....

MyrDawn

09-29-2006, 06:09 PM

Hmmm...I wonder if that 2nd blanket in the wine cellar is what's blacked out on this evidence list from the 26th. It's the link just above "white blanket in wine celler (11KKY)"

MyrDawn

09-29-2006, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Maybe you missed it but I said, maybe the blanket covering body meant the blanket that was covering her body in the cellar and the other blanket mentioned was the second blanket in the cellar.
The one JR put on her was after the fact and maybe wasn't taken as evidence. Just a thought....

I believe the "blanket covering body" meant just that. The one covering JonBenet's body when it was upstairs and they came to collect her. I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't take it in evidence. It would most likely contain evidence transferred from her body.

And, if there were two blankets in the wine celler, how would they know which one had been the one covering her body in order to list it that way in the evidence inventory?

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Yep...seems "loving" to me too! IMO

I guess it was a "loving" murder.

Frankly, when these profilers begin talking about someone doing something "loving" to a murder victim, I just tune out. If they loved the person, they wouldn't have murdered him/her in the first place!

JMO

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

I believe the "blanket covering body" meant just that. The one covering JonBenet's body when it was upstairs and they came to collect her. I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't take it in evidence. It would most likely contain evidence transferred from her body.

And, if there were two blankets in the wine celler, how would they know which one had been the one covering her body in order to list it that way in the evidence inventory?

John carried her up in the blanket she was covered in.

(From PM/PT)

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

John carried her up in the blanket she was covered in.

(From PM/PT)

Ah ha! Thanks, Sun. So there WERE two blankets in the cellar. Wish we knew where the other one came from but I am leaning towards J and P's bed. Gotta look at the pic of their bedroom and see if there is a blanket like JB's on it. They said they had one like it on the bed, only bigger.

MyrDawn

09-29-2006, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

John carried her up in the blanket she was covered in.

(From PM/PT)

If one of them was upstairs, why did Det. Everett say he observed 2 on the floor in the center of the wine cellar?

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

If one of them was upstairs, why did Det. Everett say he observed 2 on the floor in the center of the wine cellar?

You'd have to ask Det. Everett about that. LOL

I wasn't there. I'm only going on what I read in statements and in PM/PT.

Ames

09-29-2006, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Oh, thanks for clarifying....hmmmm...you got me there. Unless, the 2nd cellar blanket wasn't taken into evidence, but wasn't listed for some reason, maybe they were hoping that someone would slip up, or something. IMO

I meant to say "Unless the 2nd cellar blanket WAS taken into evidence, but wasn't listed for some reason as evidence." Sorry about that. My post didn't make alot of sense....trying to post and tend to a crying five year old....sorry guys.

MyrDawn

09-29-2006, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

You'd have to ask Det. Everett about that. LOL

I wasn't there. I'm only going on what I read in statements and in PM/PT.

LOL...it's been so long since I read PM/PT, and I don't have it any more. One of those things I leant out and never got back.

So, either Det. Everett lied about seeing 2 blankets in the wine cellar, or someone took the blanket off JonBenet's body and took it back down to the wine cellar for some strange reason and the PD didn't take it in evidence on the 26th, or they blacked that line out on the evidence list.

Which would mean that John lied in his PD interview in June of 1998:

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

JR:"21 (Thank God, I found her.Þ I didn't want Patsy to
22 see her that way, and I ran upstairs and got a
23 blanket off one of the chairs, I think, it's got
24 a little shape like.
25 LOU SMIT: Upstairs?
0169
1 JOHN RAMSEY: Probably up in the TV room.
2 I just ran up these stairs and went back down and
3 put the blanket over her."

I feel like I'm hopelessly tangled in blankets now. :D

MyrDawn

09-29-2006, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I meant to say "Unless the 2nd cellar blanket WAS taken into evidence, but wasn't listed for some reason as evidence." Sorry about that. My post didn't make alot of sense....trying to post and tend to a crying five year old....sorry guys.

No prob...I could tell what you meant. I have an almost 4 year old myself, and know how it can be.

harz

09-29-2006, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

LOL...it's been so long since I read PM/PT, and I don't have it any more. One of those things I leant out and never got back.

So, either Det. Everett lied about seeing 2 blankets in the wine cellar, or someone took the blanket off JonBenet's body and took it back down to the wine cellar for some strange reason and the PD didn't take it in evidence on the 26th, or they blacked that line out on the evidence list.

Which would mean that John lied in his PD interview in June of 1998:

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

JR:"21 (Thank God, I found her.Þ I didn't want Patsy to
22 see her that way, and I ran upstairs and got a
23 blanket off one of the chairs, I think, it's got
24 a little shape like.
25 LOU SMIT: Upstairs?
0169
1 JOHN RAMSEY: Probably up in the TV room.
2 I just ran up these stairs and went back down and
3 put the blanket over her."

I feel like I'm hopelessly tangled in blankets now. :D

Interesting, why bring JB body upstairs where Patsy can see her then? Strange, John seemed more concern about Patsy seeing JB's body than to check JB to see if she was ok, maybe something like breaking down crying or to get really furious as he realized JB was really dead. Its just strange to me that John ran to get blanket, its not like JB was going to need it. JMO

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

LOL...it's been so long since I read PM/PT, and I don't have it any more. One of those things I leant out and never got back.

So, either Det. Everett lied about seeing 2 blankets in the wine cellar, or someone took the blanket off JonBenet's body and took it back down to the wine cellar for some strange reason and the PD didn't take it in evidence on the 26th, or they blacked that line out on the evidence list.

Which would mean that John lied in his PD interview in June of 1998:

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

JR:"21 (Thank God, I found her.Þ I didn't want Patsy to
22 see her that way, and I ran upstairs and got a
23 blanket off one of the chairs, I think, it's got
24 a little shape like.
25 LOU SMIT: Upstairs?
0169
1 JOHN RAMSEY: Probably up in the TV room.
2 I just ran up these stairs and went back down and
3 put the blanket over her."

I feel like I'm hopelessly tangled in blankets now. :D

I have no idea, myself. LOL I've found that PM/PT does have some mistakes in it.

Where was the TV room? The room labeled "Study" on most diagrams?

Does John mean he ran up an got a blanket from the study and put over her before he carried her upstairs?

I know Linda Arndt said John asked to cover her and before she could stop him, he grabbed a blanket and put over her.

Now, we've got her blanket from her bed, JA's blanket in the suitcase, a blanket from the TV room, and the one Linda Arndt saw John grab after JB was lying under the Christmas tree!

I'm hopelessly tangled up in blankets now, too. :shrug:

JMO

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by harz

Interesting, why bring JB body upstairs where Patsy can see her then? Strange, John seemed more concern about Patsy seeing JB's body than to check JB to see if she was ok, maybe something like breaking down crying or to get really furious as he realized JB was really dead. Its just strange to me that John ran to get blanket, its not like JB was going to need it. JMO

But I thought Patsy threw herself on JB's body? Before it was covered?

I don't really know.

JMO

harz

09-29-2006, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

But I thought Patsy threw herself on JB's body? Before it was covered?

I don't really know.

JMO

I didn't know about that Patsy did threw herself on JB's body. I thought she was sitting in other room, with her hands covering her face. One of police noticed she was peeking through her fingers, which thought was an odd behavior. I remember Detective Arndt in report got sweater covered on JB's body or face, I thought of what about the blanket?

Ames

09-29-2006, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

But I thought Patsy threw herself on JB's body? Before it was covered?

I don't really know.

JMO

I personally think that all of these blankets, and Patsy hurling herself on top of JB was done in order to explain all of the fibers on her body. Harz has a good point, if J didn't want P to see the body...and was so glad that she wasn't the one that found her...why the heck did he grab her and bring her upstairs where Patsy was??? Okay...now THAT make alot of sense.

Ames

09-29-2006, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by harz

I didn't know about that Patsy did threw herself on JB's body. I thought she was sitting in other room, with her hands covering her face. One of police noticed she was peeking through her fingers, which thought was an odd behavior. I remember Detective Arndt in report got sweater covered on JB's body or face, I thought of what about the blanket?

Yes, she DID throw herself on JB's body...and was begging God to raise her from the dead. Don't know if she was covered in a blanket though, I saw a movie about it, and in the movie, she was not covered..she was just lying there under the Christmas tree.. Thats another thing that really, really bothers me....why the heck did J put her under the Christmas tree? Was she some sort of weird present or something. That was just so odd....why not put her in the doorway, or the foyer...or any place besides under the Christmas tree? Oh, heres a thought...why not just leave her where he found her...in the basement..and not disturb the evidence...now theres a novel idea. IMO

MyrDawn

09-29-2006, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Yes, she DID throw herself on JB's body...and was begging God to raise her from the dead. Don't know if she was covered in a blanket though, I saw a movie about it, and in the movie, she was not covered..she was just lying there under the Christmas tree.. Thats another thing that really, really bothers me....why the heck did J put her under the Christmas tree? Was she some sort of weird present or something. That was just so odd....why not put her in the doorway, or the foyer...or any place besides under the Christmas tree? Oh, heres a thought...why not just leave her where he found her...in the basement..and not disturb the evidence...now theres a novel idea. IMO

John didn't put her under the CHristmas tree. He put her in the foyer. Linda Arndt moved her to the living room. She was critized for moving her body.

Ames

09-29-2006, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I guess it was a "loving" murder.

Frankly, when these profilers begin talking about someone doing something "loving" to a murder victim, I just tune out. If they loved the person, they wouldn't have murdered him/her in the first place!

JMO

I am just glad that my parents did not 'love" me that much!

Ames

09-29-2006, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

John didn't put her under the CHristmas tree. He put her in the foyer. Linda Arndt moved her to the living room. She was critized for moving her body.

Oh okay, I thought that I read where he put her under the Christmas tree. And, in the movie that I saw (yes, I know that they are not always accurate), thats where John's character placed her.

Athena

09-29-2006, 09:45 PM

I just read the written search warrants -- I did not see any mention of the Barbie nightgown. I do see the Barbie nightgown listed in the crime scene inventory however.

Is it possible in the search warrant the second "blanket" was actually the Barbie nightgown. If you are just looking around and not picking up anything at this point it is possible Everett did not at that point know it was a nightgown and thpse affidavits are to get search warrants to remove evidence.

I have reviewed articles re: the blanket and the books and I see nothing else that refers to two blankets. Each one says white blanket and pink Barbie nightgown.

Just a thought.

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Athena
I just read the written search warrants -- I did not see any mention of the Barbie nightgown. I do see the Barbie nightgown listed in the crime scene inventory however.

Is it possible in the search warrant the second "blanket" was actually the Barbie nightgown. If you are just looking around and not picking up anything at this point it is possible Everett did not at that point know it was a nightgown and thpse affidavits are to get search warrants to remove evidence.

I have reviewed articles re: the blanket and the books and I see nothing else that refers to two blankets. Each one says white blanket and pink Barbie nightgown.

Just a thought.

I don't know, Athena. I just zoomed in on the picture of the blanket found in the cellar...and it was a blanket (so either John didn't carry her upstairs in the blanket or there had to be two.) I couldn't find anything saying that he had carried her up in the blanket. (Sun? Where did you see this info?)
I can't see getting a nighgown confused with a blanket, although I suppose it could have happened.
I checked the picture of the Ramseys bed and there is no blanket on it. I will look for the conversation with them about them usually having one on their bed.
I did see that the tape on the blanket looked definately silver and not black. No mistaking that. Why would John claim that it was black when it obviously wasn't? There must be some pretty damning evidence connected to that tape since I have seen no mention of it in any of the search warrents or confiscated evidence. I really think that that's what those blacked out items are. Maybe the blanket too. I will keep searching and see what I can come up with.

Athena

09-29-2006, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I don't know, Athena. I just zoomed in on the picture of the blanket found in the cellar...and it was a blanket (so either John didn't carry her upstairs in the blanket or there had to be two.) I couldn't find anything saying that he had carried her up in the blanket. (Sun? Where did you see this info?)
I can't see getting a nighgown confused with a blanket, although I suppose it could have happened.
I checked the picture of the Ramseys bed and there is no blanket on it. I will look for the conversation with them about them usually having one on their bed.
I did see that the tape on the blanket looked definately silver and not black. No mistaking that. Why would John claim that it was black when it obviously wasn't? There must be some pretty damning evidence connected to that tape since I have seen no mention of it in any of the search warrents or confiscated evidence. I really think that that's what those blacked out items are. Maybe the blanket too. I will keep searching and see what I can come up with.

I also saved the picture of the wine cellar on my desktop with the white blanket shown in the crime photo, zoomed in and no second blanket.

I checked their interrogations also and they were only questioned about that white blanket and the one John covered her up with upstairs and the Barbie nightgown. Det. Arndt also placed an Avalanche sweatshirt over JBR. She was not covered when JR brought her upstairs.

MissOtisRegrets

09-29-2006, 10:22 PM

Athena

09-29-2006, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

So she was not covered with the sweatshirt in the basement? Det. Arndt covered her with it upstairs?

Yes - Detective Arndt covered her up when JR brought her upstairs with the first thing she saw which was the sweatshirt.

MissOtisRegrets

09-29-2006, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Yes - Detective Arndt covered her up when JR brought her upstairs with the first thing she saw which was the sweatshirt.

Thanks, Athena. I'll stop Googling "Avalanche" in my search for secret messages, then. :D

harz

09-29-2006, 11:31 PM

Well, remember Ramseys had suitcases ready for a fly to Michigan, did detectives check inside their suitcases? Because Ramseys were told to stay in town after John had plane ready for Georgia. So Ramseys stayed at friends for while. As BPD declared crime scene on Ramsey's house after JB was found. Did Ramseys brought their suitcases with them since they would need some clothes. Did they packed some evidences in suitcases? Were these suitcases prepared for Michigan trip, or were they actually for Georgia? Or stay at friends? Remember there weren't much of warm clothes in these suitcases, so I assumed detectives did checked them before Ramseys went off staying at friend's. Also Ramseys had summer clothes at Michigan. Then it seems Ramseys really prepare the trip to Georgia, as Michigan may be a decoy. I am curious the details about their suitcases, how were they prepared. JMO

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I don't know, Athena. I just zoomed in on the picture of the blanket found in the cellar...and it was a blanket (so either John didn't carry her upstairs in the blanket or there had to be two.) I couldn't find anything saying that he had carried her up in the blanket. (Sun? Where did you see this info?)
I can't see getting a nighgown confused with a blanket, although I suppose it could have happened.
I checked the picture of the Ramseys bed and there is no blanket on it. I will look for the conversation with them about them usually having one on their bed.
I did see that the tape on the blanket looked definately silver and not black. No mistaking that. Why would John claim that it was black when it obviously wasn't? There must be some pretty damning evidence connected to that tape since I have seen no mention of it in any of the search warrents or confiscated evidence. I really think that that's what those blacked out items are. Maybe the blanket too. I will keep searching and see what I can come up with.

Thank you for correcting me, TWW and Athena. I thought I had read it in PM/PT, but obviously I am not remembering correctly. I am not surprised. :o

I did just read the GMA interview with Linda Arndt and it seems strange to me the way John carried her. Linda Arndt said JR carried JB around the upper legs, rather than under the arms, and that he held her away from him, so her body would not touch his any more than necessary when carrying someone. And, he asked Arndt if she was dead. (I know I read that correctly.)

That just seems strange to me. I think I'd hold the child very close (Linda Arndt says she picked her up under the arms), but I've not been in that position, so I don't really know. And, every case is different.

JMO

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I also saved the picture of the wine cellar on my desktop with the white blanket shown in the crime photo, zoomed in and no second blanket.

I checked their interrogations also and they were only questioned about that white blanket and the one John covered her up with upstairs and the Barbie nightgown. Det. Arndt also placed an Avalanche sweatshirt over JBR. She was not covered when JR brought her upstairs.

I couldn't tell if there was one blanket or two. It looked very bulky and not like it was flat on the floor, which it should have been if it was wrapped around JB and folded around her. I didn't see the barbie nightgown in there at all.
Did Arndt put the sweatshirt over her before or after John put the blanket over her? Why in the hell would she do that?? DUMB!
Now I am all confused over this damn two blanket thing! Grrr...

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by harz
Well, remember Ramseys had suitcases ready for a fly to Michigan, did detectives check inside their suitcases? Because Ramseys were told to stay in town after John had plane ready for Georgia. So Ramseys stayed at friends for while. As BPD declared crime scene on Ramsey's house after JB was found. Did Ramseys brought their suitcases with them since they would need some clothes. Did they packed some evidences in suitcases? Were these suitcases prepared for Michigan trip, or were they actually for Georgia? Or stay at friends? Remember there weren't much of warm clothes in these suitcases, so I assumed detectives did checked them before Ramseys went off staying at friend's. Also Ramseys had summer clothes at Michigan. Then it seems Ramseys really prepare the trip to Georgia, as Michigan may be a decoy. I am curious the details about their suitcases, how were they prepared. JMO

Hi harz. Patsy has said they were only staying in Michigan a few days and she seemed to indicate that there were some clothes in with the presents in shopping bags.

John says he made a trip out to the plane on Christmas Day and that he took some luggage out then.

I don't know if anyone went through them, but sure they did.

Did you think the Ramseys were flying to Georgia AFTER then went to Michigan? I'm sure the pilot filed a flight plan for Michigan.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I couldn't tell if there was one blanket or two. It looked very bulky and not like it was flat on the floor, which it should have been if it was wrapped around JB and folded around her. I didn't see the barbie nightgown in there at all.
Did Arndt put the sweatshirt over her before or after John put the blanket over her? Why in the hell would she do that?? DUMB!
Now I am all confused over this damn two blanket thing! Grrr...

I'm confused, too, but after reading Linda Arndt's interview on GMA, I think John grabbed a blanket from a chair and put it over JB, and then LA put the Avalance sweatshirt over her as well.

Like I said, I'm not positive.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Yes - Detective Arndt covered her up when JR brought her upstairs with the first thing she saw which was the sweatshirt.

Or did LA just cover her face and John cover the rest of her with the blanket?

harz

09-30-2006, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Hi harz. Patsy has said they were only staying in Michigan a few days and she seemed to indicate that there were some clothes in with the presents in shopping bags.

John says he made a trip out to the plane on Christmas Day and that he took some luggage out then.

I don't know if anyone went through them, but sure they did.

Did you think the Ramseys were flying to Georgia AFTER then went to Michigan? I'm sure the pilot filed a flight plan for Michigan.

JMO

I mean these suitcases were ready for Georgia, not Michigan because John already knew they wouldn't be going to Michigan when he packed the clothes. After body was found, John wanted take his family to Georgia as his plane was prepared for, but what about Michigan? It seems to me John still kept the flying schedule to Michigan before Patsy dialed 911, to make it appears that Ramsey’s plans were to spend a relaxing time at their vacation home but JB’s kidnapping & murder came all sudden & shocked to them. To make Ramseys look innocent, John kept the Michigan fly schedule after he killed JB & staged the scene in hope it would help to eliminate John as suspect. So John wanted his suitcases to be prepared for Georgia in first place as he expected what kind of clothes he would need for the trip. Then John or Patsy called pilots to cancel the Michigan trip after they found ransom note & JB was missing. Therefore, the suitcases seemed were well prepare by John for the Georgia trip in case everybody needs to get out of house right after BPD arrived in the morning, so Ramseys would have clothes they need ready with them which John was expecting the police will put up barricade around Ramsey’s house. Thats why I am interests about their suitcases & the details inside. IMO

Ames

09-30-2006, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Thank you for correcting me, TWW and Athena. I thought I had read it in PM/PT, but obviously I am not remembering correctly. I am not surprised. :o

I did just read the GMA interview with Linda Arndt and it seems strange to me the way John carried her. Linda Arndt said JR carried JB around the upper legs, rather than under the arms, and that he held her away from him, so her body would not touch his any more than necessary when carrying someone. And, he asked Arndt if she was dead. (I know I read that correctly.)

That just seems strange to me. I think I'd hold the child very close (Linda Arndt says she picked her up under the arms), but I've not been in that position, so I don't really know. And, every case is different.

JMO

Sun, I had a post awhile back with this same question. I read that too....where Linda A. thought that it was weird the way that he was carrying her, around the upper legs, in sort of a "bear hug" (her words not mine) ...with her head above his. Another poster, said that it could be because rigor had set in, and thats the only way that he could hold her....who knows? I found it quite odd my own self!! IMO

Ames

09-30-2006, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I'm confused, too, but after reading Linda Arndt's interview on GMA, I think John grabbed a blanket from a chair and put it over JB, and then LA put the Avalance sweatshirt over her as well.

Like I said, I'm not positive.

JMO

Thats all weird too...why in the world would she need to be all covered up like that? One blanket would have been sufficient...IMO.

sunsplashed

09-30-2006, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by harz

I mean these suitcases were ready for Georgia, not Michigan because John already knew they wouldn't be going to Michigan when he packed the clothes. After body was found, John wanted take his family to Georgia as his plane was prepared for, but what about Michigan? It seems to me John still kept the flying schedule to Michigan before Patsy dialed 911, to make it appears that Ramsey’s plans were to spend a relaxing time at their vacation home but JB’s kidnapping & murder came all sudden & shocked to them. To make Ramseys look innocent, John kept the Michigan fly schedule after he killed JB & staged the scene in hope it would help to eliminate John as suspect. So John wanted his suitcases to be prepared for Georgia in first place as he expected what kind of clothes he would need for the trip. Then John or Patsy called pilots to cancel the Michigan trip after they found ransom note & JB was missing. Therefore, the suitcases seemed were well prepare by John for the Georgia trip in case everybody needs to get out of house right after BPD arrived in the morning, so Ramseys would have clothes they need ready with them which John was expecting the police will put up barricade around Ramsey’s house. Thats why I am interests about their suitcases & the details inside. IMO

In one of John's interviews with the BPD, harz, John said he wasn't taking any clothes at all to Michigan. He said he was only taking a shaving kit because he "had a change of clothes in Michigan." He explained that as they were only going to be in Michigan a few days, then were returning to Boulder to pack for Florida and the Disney Big Red Boat cruise.

So, though I don't know for sure, it seems John didn't even pack to go to Michigan.

After JB's body was found, John called his pilot and told him something like: "She's gone. They've killed her." He told the pilot he wanted to fly to Atlanta that night. When police detectives overheard him they told him he wasn't going anywhere. John just said, "Okay." I think Fleet White then called the pilot and cancelled the flight to Georgia and the Ramseys went to the Fernies.

I find it very sad that little JB lay under the Christmas alone until after 8.30 that evening.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-30-2006, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Sun, I had a post awhile back with this same question. I read that too....where Linda A. thought that it was weird the way that he was carrying her, around the upper legs, in sort of a "bear hug" (her words not mine) ...with her head above his. Another poster, said that it could be because rigor had set in, and thats the only way that he could hold her....who knows? I found it quite odd my own self!! IMO

I suppose part of it had to do with rigor mortis, but why not under the arms instead of by the legs?

Ames

09-30-2006, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

<snipped>
I find it very sad that little JB lay under the Christmas alone until after 8.30 that evening.

JMO

Awwwww..you just made me cry!!! Gosh, this case is SO darn sad!

Ames

09-30-2006, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I suppose part of it had to do with rigor mortis, but why not under the arms instead of by the legs?

My thoughts exactly....pretty weird. Her head would have probably touched his chest, if he had carried her under the arms. Since he was probably the one guilty of her death...he may have felt like he just didn't want her touching him, or wanting her face near his. (He may have been feeling some remorse or something.) Either that...or he was just grossed out by it.

harz

09-30-2006, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

In one of John's interviews with the BPD, harz, John said he wasn't taking any clothes at all to Michigan. He said he was only taking a shaving kit because he "had a change of clothes in Michigan." He explained that as they were only going to be in Michigan a few days, then were returning to Boulder to pack for Florida and the Disney Big Red Boat cruise.

So, though I don't know for sure, it seems John didn't even pack to go to Michigan.

After JB's body was found, John called his pilot and told him something like: "She's gone. They've killed her." He told the pilot he wanted to fly to Atlanta that night. When police detectives overheard him they told him he wasn't going anywhere. John just said, "Okay." I think Fleet White then called the pilot and cancelled the flight to Georgia and the Ramseys went to the Fernies.

I find it very sad that little JB lay under the Christmas alone until after 8.30 that evening.

JMO

Thank you for clearing up on the plot of John's trips. What about suitcases? I thought there were some suitcases packed sitting aside during that morning? I think I must have got their suitcases information mix up. John had only summer clothes in Michigan right? Its colder in Michigan than in Boulder during winter? Who are the Fernies? Are Fernies John's friends that also lived in Boulder? Did the Ramseys left the house at 2 to 3pm, after the police delcared crime scene on Ramsey's property? I want to be sure if I got information correctly. I agree the sad thing was leaving JB all alone between that time. Makes me image how abandoned she must had felt prior to her death and after to others who have empathy for her. I have seen plenty on how John had been treating JB like she was an obsolete to him. IMO

MyrDawn

09-30-2006, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Ames

My thoughts exactly....pretty weird. Her head would have probably touched his chest, if he had carried her under the arms. Since he was probably the one guilty of her death...he may have felt like he just didn't want her touching him, or wanting her face near his. (He may have been feeling some remorse or something.) Either that...or he was just grossed out by it.

Her arms were "extended up over her head" according to the autopsy report, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet2.html

And, the police stated she was "affected by advanced rigor mortis" when they first sighted her body.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/it_5c.html

I imagine it would have been just about impossible for him to carry her under her arms while she was in rigor mortis with her arms extended over her head.

MOO

Ames

09-30-2006, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

<snipped>
I imagine it would have been just about impossible for him to carry her under her arms while she was in rigor mortis with her arms extended over her head.

MOO

You know....excellent point there! That would be very hard to do...IMO She was little though, I wonder how hard it would have been to hold her like you would a baby?? Like, with her head and behind her knees, resting on each one of his arms?? I was just wondering....so far it looks like he held her the only way that he could have.

Athena

09-30-2006, 10:26 AM

I believe this may be one of the items blacked out on the search warrant - Cuban cigars:

18 JOHN RAMSEY: It's possible. (INAUDIBLE) I mean,

19 you can figure out what's in them. The cigar box

20 was sitting on a paint can, or something like

21 that. And I believe it shouldn't have.

22 LOU SMIT: So it wasn't in the place

23 where it had been. It's not on the floor?

24 JOHN RAMSEY: And if I interpret the picture,

25 it's looks like it's kind of almost upside down on

0274

1 the floor.

2 LOU SMIT: And that's not where you remember

3 it being?

4 JOHN RAMSEY: I didn't notice any of the

5 stuff that was in the room. I was surprised I

6 didn't. all I saw was JonBenet.

7 When I put the cigar box in that room, the reason

8 that I set it down here, over here on a paint can

9 or something, and I just stuck it down there

10 because it was humid.

11 LOU SMIT: So it was on a paint can?

12 JOHN RAMSEY: It was, yeah.

13 LOU SMIT: If you want to look at these,

14 just the photographs on this side.

15 MIKE KANE: How often did you smoke a cigar?

16 JOHN RAMSEY: I couldn't smoke in the house.

17 And JonBenet would actually get after me if I

18 smoked or drank a beer. So the only time I would

19 smoke a cigar is if I drove to the airport or

20 something like that. So, once or twice a week,

21 maybe.

22 MIKE KANE: Those cigars I see are to be

23 Cuban, you must have gotten them out of the

24 country?

25 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.

0275

1 MIKE: Where did you get them from?

2 JOHN RAMSEY: I used to go to Europe two

3 or three times a year.

4 MIKE KANE: So you sneaked them back through

5 Customs?

6 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.

7 MIKE KANE: I'm a former Fed.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

MyrDawn

09-30-2006, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Ames

You know....excellent point there! That would be very hard to do...IMO She was little though, I wonder how hard it would have been to hold her like you would a baby?? Like, with her head and behind her knees, resting on each one of his arms?? I was just wondering....so far it looks like he held her the only way that he could have.

Well, she was 47 inches tall, not counting the extra length from her extended arms. I would imagine it would have been possible to carry her like you describe, except when going up the basement stairs, as that staircase is mostly enclosed and it doesn't look unusually wide.

He put her down in the foyer, (which was just off the staircase to the basement), so maybe he didn't want to pick her up one way and carry her to the stairs, then switch the position to carry her up the stairs, then switch the position back again to walk a few steps into the foyer to lay her down.

I just can't see anything suspicious in the way John carried her body, considering the position of her arms, the rigor mortis and the enclosed staircase.

MOO

sunsplashed

09-30-2006, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Her arms were "extended up over her head" according to the autopsy report, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet2.html

And, the police stated she was "affected by advanced rigor mortis" when they first sighted her body.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/it_5c.html

I imagine it would have been just about impossible for him to carry her under her arms while she was in rigor mortis with her arms extended over her head.

MOO

Linda Arndt carried her under her arms with no problems at all, according to her GMA interview.

sunsplashed

09-30-2006, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by harz

Thank you for clearing up on the plot of John's trips. What about suitcases? I thought there were some suitcases packed sitting aside during that morning? I think I must have got their suitcases information mix up. John had only summer clothes in Michigan right? Its colder in Michigan than in Boulder during winter? Who are the Fernies? Are Fernies John's friends that also lived in Boulder? Did the Ramseys left the house at 2 to 3pm, after the police delcared crime scene on Ramsey's property? I want to be sure if I got information correctly. I agree the sad thing was leaving JB all alone between that time. Makes me image how abandoned she must had felt prior to her death and after to others who have empathy for her. I have seen plenty on how John had been treating JB like she was an obsolete to him. IMO

The Whites, the Fernies, and the Stines were all good friends of the Ramseys, harz. The Fernies and the Stines lived close by in Boulder, only a few minutes away, but the Whites lived a more expensive house outside of Boulder.

I think there were shopping bags, or something similar, by the door that contained presents for JA and Melinda as well as some clothes for Patsy, Burke, and JB.

JMO

harz

09-30-2006, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

The Whites, the Fernies, and the Stines were all good friends of the Ramseys, harz. The Fernies and the Stines lived close by in Boulder, only a few minutes away, but the Whites lived a more expensive house outside of Boulder.

I think there were shopping bags, or something similar, by the door that contained presents for JA and Melinda as well as some clothes for Patsy, Burke, and JB.

JMO

They all were good friends? But no longer today correct? So did John & Patsy took just only shopping bags containing clothes & presents with them on their way to Fernies? They didn't take suitcase with them? It makes me wonder if the police overlooked the items inside the bags that there might be some evidences. It not like there was restrictions as airport using X-ray screening for weapons or feds inspecting inside the suitcases or bags for anything at Ramsey's. For example, a present inside shopping bag, John could wrapped some evidences & put in bag, police wouldn't suspect anything when John took it with him. So John didn't packed anything except for shaving stuff correct? What about Patsy? I am still looking for inventory on what did Ramseys took with them before they left their house. JMO

MyrDawn

09-30-2006, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Linda Arndt carried her under her arms with no problems at all, according to her GMA interview.

In the transcript of Linda Arndt's GMA interview, it says Linda Arndt said "...I carried her just with the, the forearms..."

How do you carry someone with just their forearms? It sounds like she pulled JonBenet's body by her arms from the foyer to the living room.

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID35/69.html#1

MOO

MyrDawn

09-30-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by harz

They all were good friends? But no longer today correct? So did John & Patsy took just only shopping bags containing clothes & presents with them on their way to Fernies? They didn't take suitcase with them? It makes me wonder if the police overlooked the items inside the bags that there might be some evidences. It not like there was restrictions as airport using X-ray screening for weapons or feds inspecting inside the suitcases or bags for anything at Ramsey's. For example, a present inside shopping bag, John could wrapped some evidences & put in bag, police wouldn't suspect anything when John took it with him. So John didn't packed anything except for shaving stuff correct? What about Patsy? I am still looking for inventory on what did Ramseys took with them before they left their house. JMO

The Whites are definitely no longer friends of Johns. I dunno about the Stines or Fernies. The Ramseys moved away from Boulder in 1997, and I have no idea if they kept up contact with them or not.

The shopping bags and gifts were for their Michigan trip, which was cancelled. I would imagine they took other things to the Fernies, probably in suitcases. And, I certainly would think the police looked over the things they were taking there before they allowed them to remove them from the house.

MOO

Ames

09-30-2006, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Linda Arndt carried her under her arms with no problems at all, according to her GMA interview.

Oh she did? Well, that just proves my point and hers too! If she could carry her that way, why didn't John? It was almost like he was distancing himself from her, the way that he carried her...with her head above his, up and out away from him. Why did he carry her out away from him? Was he afraid that she might actually "touch" him, or something? IMO

MyrDawn

09-30-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Oh she did? Well, that just proves my point and hers too! If she could carry her that way, why didn't John? It was almost like he was distancing himself from her, the way that he carried her...with her head above his, up and out away from him. Why did he carry her out away from him? Was he afraid that she might actually "touch" him, or something? IMO

Carry her by her forearms, all the way up the stairs? How would that be more loving than carrying her the way he did?

sunsplashed

09-30-2006, 06:24 PM

Although I think one or both of the Ramseys are guilty, I don't think it was odd for John to carry her the way he did. The basement stairway was probably narrow and it was probably difficult to carry a child in full rigor mortis (an ambiguous term, really) up the stairs. I don't read much into how he carried her, but then I didn't see him carrying her, as Linda Arndt did.

JMO

Ames

09-30-2006, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed
Although I think one or both of the Ramseys are guilty, I don't think it was odd for John to carry her the way he did. The basement stairway was probably narrow and it was probably difficult to carry a child in full rigor mortis (an ambiguous term, really) up the stairs. I don't read much into how he carried her, but then I didn't see him carrying her, as Linda Arndt did.

JMO

Yeah, I guess that it really doesn't matter...but, if Linda Arndt thought that the manner in which he carried her was strange...it must have been. You are right, we weren't there, and didn't see if firsthand, the way that she did. Nevertheless...I have to agree with you, one or both Ramsey's are guilty. IMO

thewhitewitch1

09-30-2006, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed
Although I think one or both of the Ramseys are guilty, I don't think it was odd for John to carry her the way he did. The basement stairway was probably narrow and it was probably difficult to carry a child in full rigor mortis (an ambiguous term, really) up the stairs. I don't read much into how he carried her, but then I didn't see him carrying her, as Linda Arndt did.

JMO

Truth be known, he shouldn't have carried her any way, anywhere. I know it's going to be argued that he was her daddy and all but he had to have known she was dead. He couldn't have been that stupid. Way to disturb the crime scene. IMO
He did quite a bit of disturbing the crime scene that day, didn't he.

sunsplashed

09-30-2006, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Truth be known, he shouldn't have carried her any way, anywhere. I know it's going to be argued that he was her daddy and all but he had to have known she was dead. He couldn't have been that stupid. Way to disturb the crime scene. IMO
He did quite a bit of disturbing the crime scene that day, didn't he.

He shouldn't have picked her up at all, TWW. I think he knew he was disturbing a crime scene and I think that's what he wanted to do.

JMO

harz

10-01-2006, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Snipped to points of inventory listing;
The shopping bags and gifts were for their Michigan trip, which was cancelled. I would imagine they took other things to the Fernies, probably in suitcases. And, I certainly would think the police looked over the things they were taking there before they allowed them to remove them from the house.

MOO

I remember reading a inventory list of what Patsy's sister Pam took with her sometime later in a month or so from Ramsey's house. But why I don't see any inventory list anywhere of what Ramseys took with them when they left their house on 26th? Makes me wonder if the police or detectives were being too sympathy. IMO

harz

10-01-2006, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

He shouldn't have picked her up at all, TWW. I think he knew he was disturbing a crime scene and I think that's what he wanted to do.

JMO

I agree completely. IMO

MyrDawn

10-01-2006, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

He shouldn't have picked her up at all, TWW. I think he knew he was disturbing a crime scene and I think that's what he wanted to do.

JMO

Det. Linda Arndt shouldn't have moved her body even further. She disturbed the body even more by pulling her by her forearms from the foyer to the living room.

And, Arndt should have been more alert to disturbing evidence than John. IMO, any parent who'd just found their daughter's murdered body is much less likely to be thinking of proper procedure than the LE. LE are trained in crime scene preservation, parents aren't.

MOO

sweetcharlotte

10-01-2006, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

<snip>

LE are trained in crime scene preservation, parents aren't.

MOO

Exactly.

Athena

10-01-2006, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

He shouldn't have picked her up at all, TWW. I think he knew he was disturbing a crime scene and I think that's what he wanted to do.

JMO

Another puzzling point that leads away from the Ramseys.
Why would he want to deliberately disturb the crime scene that he and Patsy allegedly staged to cover up the alleged accident?

sweetcharlotte

10-01-2006, 08:50 AM

I read John Douglas' "The Cases That Haunt Us" this week. According to this book, he does not suspect either of the Ramseys.

MyrDawn

10-01-2006, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Linda Arndt carried her under her arms with no problems at all, according to her GMA interview.

Sun, will you please post the link to the part of the GMA interview where Arndt said she carried JonBenet's body "under her arms with no problems at all"?

The only reference I can find in it about how Det. Arndt moved JonBenet's body is on the Tuesday transcript. Here's a link to the transcript:

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09141999ArndtGMATranscripts.txt

"Arndt: I took JonBenét. I moved her from the hallway to the, um, the living room. I carried her just with the, the forearms."

Athena

10-01-2006, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I read John Douglas' "The Cases That Haunt Us" this week. According to this book, he does not suspect either of the Ramseys.

So did I sweet.... :) We've had a couple of posts about it somewhere on these threads. I am very impressed with JD's logic and his analysis made so much sense and he goes into detail of why he does not believe they committed this horrific crime.

rosebud

10-01-2006, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I read John Douglas' "The Cases That Haunt Us" this week. According to this book, he does not suspect either of the Ramseys.

John Douglas and Lou Smit were both paid employees of the Ramseys so nothing they say about the case has any merit whatsoever.

thewhitewitch1

10-01-2006, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Another puzzling point that leads away from the Ramseys.
Why would he want to deliberately disturb the crime scene that he and Patsy allegedly staged to cover up the alleged accident?

They staged a crime scene....yes. The note, the binding, gagging and "garroting" of JB etc but there is no way they could have staged what would be found on her (fibers). What harm then to move the body and have a perfect reason for your fibers to be on her? The only thing they did that undid their staging was removing the tape, untying one hand (if it was ever even tied) and moving her upstairs. The rest of the ruse remained the same.
Once again, I stayed up too late and reread through the Ramseys interviews of 1997 and '98. The contradictions in the stories they gave are amazing. For instance...1997 John says he looked around the "broken window" for glass and found none.
Then, in 1998, he says he did find glass and even says he placed some on the window ledge. So, did he or didn't he? In one place he states he didn't turn on the light in the cellar and in another he says he did. He says the door wasn't latched; then he says it was. First he says Patsy did not hand him the note; then he says she did. The only details he adheres to are the ones that are part of the original short version of the story....you know...the easy ones to remember. Then, when it got down to it, he conveniently changed his story to cover suspicion, one he knew why the LE were asking him certain questions. IMO

thewhitewitch1

10-01-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Sun, will you please post the link to the part of the GMA interview where Arndt said she carried JonBenet's body "under her arms with no problems at all"?

The only reference I can find in it about how Det. Arndt moved JonBenet's body is on the Tuesday transcript. Here's a link to the transcript:

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09141999ArndtGMATranscripts.txt

"Arndt: I took JonBenét. I moved her from the hallway to the, um, the living room. I carried her just with the, the forearms."

John stated that he carried her under her arms too.

thewhitewitch1

10-01-2006, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Det. Linda Arndt shouldn't have moved her body even further. She disturbed the body even more by pulling her by her forearms from the foyer to the living room.

And, Arndt should have been more alert to disturbing evidence than John. IMO, any parent who'd just found their daughter's murdered body is much less likely to be thinking of proper procedure than the LE. LE are trained in crime scene preservation, parents aren't.

MOO

She said she was careful how she did it, if that matters but the harm was already done when John removed her from the original place she was found. You'd think anyone with half a brain would know not to move a body from a crime scene. And you all say John was such a smart man. :shrug: Sure he was smart...smart enough to screw up the crime scene.
For you IDI people...since John has changed his story a few times about whether or not he turned on the light in the cellar...if he didn't, how could he see that her lips were blue? How could he see the knot to untie it? How could he see the bruising on her neck? How could he have seen all of the details that he did in the dark?
If he DID turn on the light, why couldn't he tell she was dead and left the crime scene alone? Instead, either way, he stupidly tries to untie her hands which were stiff from rigor mortis and he doesn't see the garrote around her neck? Gee...wasn't that glaringly obvious? He picks up this stiff child and goes running up the stairs...by now it should be more than obvious that she was dead...when he could have just screamed "I found her" and the cops would have been down there in an instant.
Unbelievable. IMO

sweetcharlotte

10-01-2006, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

<snip>

when he could have just screamed "I found her" and the cops would have been down there in an instant.
Unbelievable. IMO

As a parent I would have probably picked her up too. I can't imagine that he was thinking about the proper thing to do at that point in time. JMO

LadyFisher

10-01-2006, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

She said she was careful how she did it, if that matters but the harm was already done when John removed her from the original place she was found. You'd think anyone with half a brain would know not to move a body from a crime scene. And you all say John was such a smart man. :shrug: Sure he was smart...smart enough to screw up the crime scene.
For you IDI people...since John has changed his story a few times about whether or not he turned on the light in the cellar...if he didn't, how could he see that her lips were blue? How could he see the knot to untie it? How could he see the bruising on her neck? How could he have seen all of the details that he did in the dark?
If he DID turn on the light, why couldn't he tell she was dead and left the crime scene alone? Instead, either way, he stupidly tries to untie her hands which were stiff from rigor mortis and he doesn't see the garrote around her neck? Gee...wasn't that glaringly obvious? He picks up this stiff child and goes running up the stairs...by now it should be more than obvious that she was dead...when he could have just screamed "I found her" and the cops would have been down there in an instant.
Unbelievable. IMO My, God, White, you can't begin to understand John's actions unless you've walked in his shoes...he wasn't trained in LE..as far as he knew his daughter was kidnapped until he found her in the basement...he did what any parent would do....he pulled the tape off of her and tried to untie her, he was hoping that she was still alive....he did scream..and White headed upstairs before him.......he reacted as any normal parent would do imho

LadyFisher

10-01-2006, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

John Douglas and Lou Smit were both paid employees of the Ramseys so nothing they say about the case has any merit whatsoever. But..you are wrong, Rose...these guys are some of the best in their fields....guilty people would not want to hire them......the Ramseys did......there are other experts out there tha don't believe they did this crime..I agree with them...you cannot deny their credentials are much better than yours....John and Patsy didn't kill their daughter..get over it!!!

Ames

10-01-2006, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

He shouldn't have picked her up at all, TWW. I think he knew he was disturbing a crime scene and I think that's what he wanted to do.

JMO

I believe that you are exactly right...IMO

Athena

10-01-2006, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

John Douglas and Lou Smit were both paid employees of the Ramseys so nothing they say about the case has any merit whatsoever.

Please note: When I write, words in CAPS are for emphasis only -- not yelling. ~A

Smit was hired by the DA's staff NOT the Ramseys and worked with the BPD. Funny the two you mention had already made their marks in the careers. They were not out to prove anything to anyone and worked for JonBenet. However, there were others out there looking for their 15 minutes of fame. jmo

Douglas specifically stated "The important point I want to make here is that a criminal investigation is not a popularity contest. It is not, nor should it be directed or determined by public opinion or media influence".

Some have called me a "hired gun" in this case and it is true. I received a small fee early on, as I have in other cases in which I have consulted since leaving the Bureau. But I have never, ever offered an opinion that wasn't deeply felt and fully supported by my own belief and the facts as I saw them.

A criminal investigator has only one responsibility, and it is an extremely solemn one. It has to do neither with whom he or she works for, nor who is signing the paycheck. It should have nothing to do with personal glory or career advancement. It has only to do with the silent pledge made by the investigator to the VICTIM, who can no longer speak for herself, that he or she will do everything in his/her power to uncover the truth of what happened and bring the offender to the gates of earthly justice.

There is NOT enough money or fame in the entire world to lure me away from the enormity and seriousness of that pledge.

~John Douglas TCTHU ppgs 365-366

sweetcharlotte

10-01-2006, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

John Douglas and Lou Smit were both paid employees of the Ramseys so nothing they say about the case has any merit whatsoever.

I'm assuming that is your opinion. Not eveyone agrees with you to be sure - and that is JMO.

Ames

10-01-2006, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Another puzzling point that leads away from the Ramseys.
Why would he want to deliberately disturb the crime scene that he and Patsy allegedly staged to cover up the alleged accident?

To be able to explain the fibers found on her. In case any evidence would be found that pointed at the Ramseys...he picked her up to be able to explain it away. IMO

Athena

10-01-2006, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Ames

To be able to explain the fibers found on her. In case any evidence would be found that pointed at the Ramseys...he picked her up to be able to explain it away. IMO

OK Ames. So tell me exactly what fibers were found on JBR that JR had to explain away?

sweetcharlotte

10-01-2006, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Athena

OK Ames. So tell me exactly what fibers were found on JBR that JR had to explain away?

Are you talking about those non-existent fibers from the Ramseys' clothes that stumped the BPD?

Athena

10-01-2006, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

She said she was careful how she did it, if that matters but the harm was already done when John removed her from the original place she was found. You'd think anyone with half a brain would know not to move a body from a crime scene. And you all say John was such a smart man. :shrug: Sure he was smart...smart enough to screw up the crime scene.
For you IDI people...since John has changed his story a few times about whether or not he turned on the light in the cellar...if he didn't, how could he see that her lips were blue? How could he see the knot to untie it? How could he see the bruising on her neck? How could he have seen all of the details that he did in the dark?
If he DID turn on the light, why couldn't he tell she was dead and left the crime scene alone? Instead, either way, he stupidly tries to untie her hands which were stiff from rigor mortis and he doesn't see the garrote around her neck? Gee...wasn't that glaringly obvious? He picks up this stiff child and goes running up the stairs...by now it should be more than obvious that she was dead...when he could have just screamed "I found her" and the cops would have been down there in an instant.
Unbelievable. IMO

He never said he did not turn on the light. He said he did not remember if he turned it on before or after seeing the white blanket. A white blanket in the middle of the floor would not be hard to see.

He found his daughter; he's in denial hoping she is still alive. Not an uncommon reaction at all. Many people find their loved ones dead (not necessarily murdered of course) but hope the person is still alive before they fully comprehend what has happened. He unties her to make her comfortable and carries her upstairs hoping she is still alive. His reaction was an automatic one imo.

Don't want to put any more blame than what has already been placed on Ardnt as she was in an awkward position -- but JR should have never been sent to search for anything. That is the police's job. As far as I am concerned French should have found the body when he was down there earlier but never opened the door. He even admits that.

MyrDawn

10-01-2006, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

John Douglas and Lou Smit were both paid employees of the Ramseys so nothing they say about the case has any merit whatsoever.

That is absolutely false.

Lou Smit was a paid employee of Boulder LE. He ended up resigning because he became concerned that Boulder detectives and prosecutors were focusing too heavily on JonBenets and largely ignoring the possibility that an intruder was responsible for her killing.

He was NEVER paid by the Ramseys.

MOO

MyrDawn

10-01-2006, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Are you talking about those non-existent fibers from the Ramseys' clothes that stumped the BPD?

The dark fibers that turned into blue fibers that turned into black fibers that were from a washcloth/towel/John's shirt. Them's magic fibers, ya know! :D

Ames

10-01-2006, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Athena

OK Ames. So tell me exactly what fibers were found on JBR that JR had to explain away?

Fibers from Patsy's sweater was found entwined in the cord around JB's neck, and was also found on the duct tape, that had been on her mouth...some of J's fibers from his shirt was found on her also.

Ames

10-01-2006, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Athena

<snipped>
He unties her to make her comfortable and carries her upstairs hoping she is still alive. His reaction was an automatic one imo.

If he was trying to make her "comfortable"...what about untying the cord around her neck, I would think that if she had still been alive, that the cord around her neck would have been less comfortable than the ones around her wrist...how was removing that one going to help make her "comfortable" (if she had still been alive...like he was "hoping")? IMO

sweetcharlotte

10-01-2006, 06:45 PM

WallyCleaver

10-01-2006, 06:55 PM

sweetcharlotte

10-01-2006, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

The dark fibers that turned into blue fibers that turned into black fibers that were from a washcloth/towel/John's shirt. Them's magic fibers, ya know! :D

Along with all of those that were "consistent with" but not the "same as." Yes, those are the ones. ;)

Athena

10-01-2006, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Ames

If he was trying to make her "comfortable"...what about untying the cord around her neck, I would think that if she had still been alive, that the cord around her neck would have been less comfortable than the ones around her wrist...how was removing that one going to help make her "comfortable" (if she had still been alive...like he was "hoping")? IMO

Maybe "comfortable" was the wrong word but I didn't know a better one. According to PMPT it was Detective Arndt who noticed a red mark at the base of her neck and then saw the litergature. I don't even think he realized she had been strangled at that point. Even Fleet White ran up the stairs yelling to get an ambulance. Again I believe at the moment JR found JBR's body he was on auto-pilot. jmo

rosebud

10-01-2006, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

That is absolutely false.

Lou Smit was a paid employee of Boulder LE. He ended up resigning because he became concerned that Boulder detectives and prosecutors were focusing too heavily on JonBenets and largely ignoring the possibility that an intruder was responsible for her killing.

He was NEVER paid by the Ramseys.

MOO

You are sadly mistaken. Lou Smit was a paid employee of the Ramseys after "retiring" from the BPD and the JB case. He has no credibility on the case whatsoever.

rosebud

10-01-2006, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I'm assuming that is your opinion. Not eveyone agrees with you to be sure - and that is JMO.

John Douglas and Lou Smit became paid employees of Team Ramsey. Neither has any credibility whatsoever.

sunsplashed

10-01-2006, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Athena

There is NOT enough money or fame in the entire world to lure me away from the enormity and seriousness of that pledge.

~John Douglas TCTHU ppgs 365-366

To be totally objective, they ALL say that. :shrug:

I haven't been around a long, long time, but long enough to know just about everyone has his price or his agenda.

JMO

sunsplashed

10-01-2006, 10:56 PM

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID35/69.html#1

I misread when I said Linda Arndt carried her under the arms, she says she carried her by the forearms.

I'm sorry! :(

thewhitewitch1

10-01-2006, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Athena

He never said he did not turn on the light. He said he did not remember if he turned it on before or after seeing the white blanket. A white blanket in the middle of the floor would not be hard to see.

He found his daughter; he's in denial hoping she is still alive. Not an uncommon reaction at all. Many people find their loved ones dead (not necessarily murdered of course) but hope the person is still alive before they fully comprehend what has happened. He unties her to make her comfortable and carries her upstairs hoping she is still alive. His reaction was an automatic one imo.

Don't want to put any more blame than what has already been placed on Ardnt as she was in an awkward position -- but JR should have never been sent to search for anything. That is the police's job. As far as I am concerned French should have found the body when he was down there earlier but never opened the door. He even admits that.

Yes, he did say he didn't turn on the light in one interview. In another, he said he probably did. I spent a lot of time reading the 1997 and '98 interviews and I took notes.

"He unties her to make her more comfortable"....c'mon! She is stiff! Her lips are blue. I would bet her eyes were open too. He had enough time to determine that she was dead. He said he cradled her head, touched her cheek and picked her up....she was rigid!

Granted, you are right that Arndt shouldn't have instructed him to search the house but she probably never expected a body to turn up since it was supposed to be a kidnapping. But you are totally right about that. It doesn't change the fact that John had to have known she was dead and should not have moved her and that should make you wonder. I know it doesn't, but I still think it should.
And what about all of the other inconsistancies in his story? You can't rationalize one thing and ignore the others. IMO

sunsplashed

10-01-2006, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Yes, he did say he didn't turn on the light in one interview. In another, he said he probably did. I spent a lot of time reading the 1997 and '98 interviews and I took notes.

"He unties her to make her more comfortable"....c'mon! She is stiff! Her lips are blue. I would bet her eyes were open too. He had enough time to determine that she was dead. He said he cradled her head, touched her cheek and picked her up....she was rigid!

Granted, you are right that Arndt shouldn't have instructed him to search the house but she probably never expected a body to turn up since it was supposed to be a kidnapping. But you are totally right about that. It doesn't change the fact that John had to have known she was dead and should not have moved her and that should make you wonder. I know it doesn't, but I still think it should.
And what about all of the other inconsistancies in his story? You can't rationalize one thing and ignore the others. IMO

Of course! I read all the transcripts, too, stayed up until 3.00 and 4.00 in the morning doing it, but unwisely, I did not take notes! :(

Even the IDI people have to admit that unless John is a total moron, he KNEW JB was dead! He wasn't a "parent in shock hoping she was alive." Guilty or innocent, he had to know she was dead.

JMO

sunsplashed

10-01-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

You are sadly mistaken. Lou Smit was a paid employee of the Ramseys after "retiring" from the BPD and the JB case. He has no credibility on the case whatsoever.

Yes, he was retained by the Ramseys after "leaving" the employ of the BPD. He was Christian enough not to bite the hand that was feeding him.

If Lou Smit is believable, then so is Steve Thomas.

JMO

sunsplashed

10-01-2006, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
My, God, White, you can't begin to understand John's actions unless you've walked in his shoes...he wasn't trained in LE..as far as he knew his daughter was kidnapped until he found her in the basement...he did what any parent would do....he pulled the tape off of her and tried to untie her, he was hoping that she was still alive....he did scream..and White headed upstairs before him.......he reacted as any normal parent would do imho

With all due respect, LadyFisher, criminal profilers attempt to understand someone's actions without walking in his/her shoes. So do victims' advocates, psychiatrists, psychologists, police officers, and many other people.

JMO

harz

10-02-2006, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Fibers from Patsy's sweater was found entwined in the cord around JB's neck, and was also found on the duct tape, that had been on her mouth...some of J's fibers from his shirt was found on her also.

Of course, Ramseys are gulity. These evidences suggested they both had been busy bees that night. I found a link here;
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-evidence.htm

Bruce Levin : (Atlanta meeting taped August 29, 2000 9:34am) "We believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck, was found on the blanket she was wrapped in, was found on the duct tape that was found on the mouth. I have no evidence from any scientist that suggest that those fibers are from any source other than your red jacket."

I did found another site last month or so relating to these fibers, but I can't find it yet. Maybe JR had been paying someone to get the critical informations censored that were against him on some sites, or paid someone to do the hacking for him. It wouldn't surprise me tho, after all he did ran for a political office. :)

harz

10-02-2006, 02:29 AM

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43378

MyrDawn

10-02-2006, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by harz
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43378

Ah yes, those "dark", "black" or "blue" fibers that came from a towel/Johns robe/Johns shirt. That was quite a ingenously flexible garment! :lol:

MOO

sweetcharlotte

10-02-2006, 07:34 AM

sweetcharlotte

10-02-2006, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

<snip>

If Lou Smit is believable, then so is Steve Thomas.

JMO

Lou Smit worked for the BPD?

Actually, I don't think Lou Smit was caught in lies. That's the difference in him and Thomas. JMO

MyrDawn

10-02-2006, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

You are sadly mistaken. Lou Smit was a paid employee of the Ramseys after "retiring" from the BPD and the JB case. He has no credibility on the case whatsoever.

He REFUSED to take any money from the Ramseys. You need to quit posting false information here!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523884.shtml

MyrDawn

10-02-2006, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I wasn't aware that Lou Smit worked for the BPD. I thought Alex Hunter hired him.

Hunter was the one that hired him. The Boulder PD recommended Hunter hire him as special investigator in the Ramsey case in early 1997.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0702jon1.html

Ames

10-02-2006, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Maybe "comfortable" was the wrong word but I didn't know a better one. According to PMPT it was Detective Arndt who noticed a red mark at the base of her neck and then saw the litergature. I don't even think he realized she had been strangled at that point. Even Fleet White ran up the stairs yelling to get an ambulance. Again I believe at the moment JR found JBR's body he was on auto-pilot. jmo

Nope, you are right..."comfortable" is the right word, because its the word that John used to describe why he loosened the cords around her wrist. Come on, you can't possibly think that he didn't see that paintbrush handle dangling from the cord wrapped around her neck. I would think that would have been a little bit obvious. (IMO)

Ames

10-02-2006, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by harz

Of course, Ramseys are gulity. These evidences suggested they both had been busy bees that night. I found a link here;
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-evidence.htm

Bruce Levin : (Atlanta meeting taped August 29, 2000 9:34am) "We believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck, was found on the blanket she was wrapped in, was found on the duct tape that was found on the mouth. I have no evidence from any scientist that suggest that those fibers are from any source other than your red jacket."

I did found another site last month or so relating to these fibers, but I can't find it yet. Maybe JR had been paying someone to get the critical informations censored that were against him on some sites, or paid someone to do the hacking for him. It wouldn't surprise me tho, after all he did ran for a political office. :)

Thanks so much for posting this harz...another poster, sweetcharlotte, had asked for a link to verify what I was saying was true, and I was just about to look it up, but you saved me from having to do that. Thanks a bunch!

sweetcharlotte

10-02-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Thanks so much for posting this harz...another poster, sweetcharlotte, had asked for a link to verify what I was saying was true, and I was just about to look it up, but you saved me from having to do that. Thanks a bunch!

No, actually, sweetcharlotte didn't ask you, but someone else did.

Anyway, the link provided does not provide proof the fibers were from the Ramseys. JMO

Ames

10-02-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by harz

Of course, Ramseys are gulity. These evidences suggested they both had been busy bees that night. I found a link here;
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-evidence.htm

Bruce Levin : (Atlanta meeting taped August 29, 2000 9:34am) "We believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck, was found on the blanket she was wrapped in, was found on the duct tape that was found on the mouth. I have no evidence from any scientist that suggest that those fibers are from any source other than your red jacket."

I did found another site last month or so relating to these fibers, but I can't find it yet. Maybe JR had been paying someone to get the critical informations censored that were against him on some sites, or paid someone to do the hacking for him. It wouldn't surprise me tho, after all he did ran for a political office. :)

A copy of the book, "Mind Hunter" was found in the Ramsey house after the murder. The book has a "section about the way killers stage a crime scene to cast suspicion elsewhere." (Notice the quotation marks) For all of you IDI's out there, this info is in the same link that harz provided above in his post. (IMO)

Ames

10-02-2006, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Got a link?

This is the response from you, under my quote about the fibers from Patsy's sweater being entwined in the cord around JB's neck.

sweetcharlotte

10-02-2006, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Ames

A copy of the book, "Mind Hunter" was found in the Ramsey house after the murder. The book has a "section about the way killers stage a crime scene to cast suspicion elsewhere." (Notice the quotation marks) For all of you IDI's out there, this info is in the same link that harz provided above in his post. (IMO)

Pages 646 & 647 "The Cases That Haunt Us" by John Douglas

"Upon meeting John Ramsey, I informed him who I was, shook his hand, and expressed my sorrow for his loss. As it turned out, there was some significance to the fact that neither he nor Patsy knew who I was. Subsequent to this, several sources, including Detective Steve thomas, reported that "Mindhunter", the first book I wrote with Mark, was on John Ramsey's nightstand.......
"Mindhunter" was not there on John's nightstand or elsewhere in the house....... While I understand that John read "Mindhunter" after meeting me, he was completely unfamiliar with my work at the time of the crime."

sweetcharlotte

10-02-2006, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Ames

This is the response from you, under my quote about the fibers from Patsy's sweater being entwined in the cord around JB's neck.

Ok, my mistake, but I'll ask again - Do you have a link to an official source that states fibers from any one the Ramseys' clothes were found on JonBenet?

Ames

10-02-2006, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Pages 646 & 647 "The Cases That Haunt Us" by John Douglas

"Upon meeting John Ramsey, I informed him who I was, shook his hand, and expressed my sorrow for his loss. As it turned out, there was some significance to the fact that neither he nor Patsy knew who I was. Subsequent to this, several sources, including Detective Steve thomas, reported that "Mindhunter", the first book I wrote with Mark, was on John Ramsey's nightstand.......
"Mindhunter" was not there on John's nightstand or elsewhere in the house....... While I understand that John read "Mindhunter" after meeting me, he was completely unfamiliar with my work at the time of the crime."

Then John Douglas is an idiot....why on earth would J Ramsey let on like he knew him, when he may have used the info. in the guys book to commit the purfect murder (accident)? Why would it be reported that the book WAS on the nightstand, if in fact, it wasn't. Did Steve Thomas, change his mind, and say, "OOPS...I was mistaken, the book "Mindhunter" was not on John's nightstand, afterall....silly me"? Its stupid to think that John R. would tell the guy that he WAS familiar with his work. If YOU had accidently killed your child, and staged a murder to make it look like someone else did it, would you ADMIT that you had a book in your possession that had a section in it that told how to stage a crime scene? If I were John, I would have played dumb too. "John Douglas? Who is THAT?" "Book? What Book?" "Mindhunter? Never heard of it before.". (IMO)

Ames

10-02-2006, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Ok, my mistake, but I'll ask again - Do you have a link to an official source that states fibers from any one the Ramseys' clothes were found on JonBenet?

I will try and find it. It also stated that Fleet White provided a photo of Patsy Ramsey, and JB...taken at the Chirstmas party, because there were red fibers entwined in the cord. Fleet had a picture of Patsy wearing a red sweater at the party, and it was provided as proof of what she was wearing.

sweetcharlotte

10-02-2006, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Ames

I will try and find it. It also stated that Fleet White provided a photo of Patsy Ramsey, and JB...taken at the Chirstmas party, because there were red fibers entwined in the cord. Fleet had a picture of Patsy wearing a red sweater at the party, and it was provided as proof of what she was wearing.

Don't bother. There are statements that fibers found were "consistent with" fibers from Patsy's jacket. However, the statements also said "consistent with" does not necessarily mean "same as." With regard to fibers from John's shirt - that was totally not true. That was a BPD investigative "tool" that blew up in their faces.

Athena

10-02-2006, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Then John Douglas is an idiot....why on earth would J Ramsey let on like he knew him, when he may have used the info. in the guys book to commit the purfect murder (accident)? Why would it be reported that the book WAS on the nightstand, if in fact, it wasn't. Did Steve Thomas, change his mind, and say, "OOPS...I was mistaken, the book "Mindhunter" was not on John's nightstand, afterall....silly me"? Its stupid to think that John R. would tell the guy that he WAS familiar with his work. If YOU had accidently killed your child, and staged a murder to make it look like someone else did it, would you ADMIT that you had a book in your possession that had a section in it that told how to stage a crime scene? If I were John, I would have played dumb too. "John Douglas? Who is THAT?" "Book? What Book?" "Mindhunter? Never heard of it before.". (IMO)

Ames -- you are incorrect. One thing I attempt to do before arguing a so-called fact is research it first. That is how misinformation is repeated over and over again.jmo

Also to call John Douglas a jerk is very immature - don't you think? The man even if he makes mistakes is a genious and is well respected by the industry. Even Thomas recognizes this and respects him. :rolleyes:

Check the crime scene inventory Ames. The book was not there - just another one of Thomas tidbits of misinformation. Thomas also misled everyone re: the so-called stun gun book when in fact it was a booklet re: corporate security with a couple of pages that referred to a stun gun and certainly did not tell you how to use one. The one strong suggestion I have is NOT to quote Thomas' book as it is extremely inaccurate. Read his depo if you want to verify something from his book. jmo