Troubling Details: garland, shoe laces, footprints, ponytails, barbie nightgown, etc [Archive] - Page 5

harz

10-02-2006, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

No, harz, I don't have a link. I read in "Perfect Murder/Perfect Town" by Lawrence Schiller than no fibers could be connected to any of the Ramseys clothes. And then I read "Cracking More Cases" by Dr. Henry Lee that fibers were determined to be "consistent with" which in his words is not the "same as." I'll add MOO.

Have you read either of those books? What about John Douglas' "The Cases That Haunt Us." I found all of them to be good reads.

Also, I don't understand "am I worried about the next victim or still pretending to be." What do you mean?

I meant if you still believe in IDI, not RDI. I haven’t read any books on this case yet as I probably plan to read some soon. I just learned the most details available on websites about this case for the first time recently in 2 months after Karr’s incident. If it was an intruder, I don’t think we would be here; as either this case would be solved or an outside job done by a culprit would be discovered already. I don’t know if you did watched John & Patsy on any media shows that you could notice their odd behaviors; read both of BPD reports of their observations since the morning of 26th and analyzing the questioning conversations between the Ramseys & BPD. I just have a strong interest on observing the human behaviors which leads me to believe RDI. It’s baffling to me on why some IDI people still think the Ramseys or their lifestyles have been typical, regardless if they were against the pageant thing or being indifferent to what exactly JB was to her parents but refuse to accept or notice their odd behaviors since. Is it about Ramsey’s agenda, their religious beliefs, their color of skins, their wealth, their strong marriage, their being heterosexuals, their type of job, how many kids they had, their republicans’ parties, their family histories, their places they lived at, or what? JMO

sweetcharlotte

10-02-2006, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by harz

<snip>

If it was an intruder, I don’t think we would be here; as either this case would be solved or an outside job done by a culprit would be discovered already.
<snip>

I respect your opinion, but - IMO - if the BPD had not focused on the Ramseys almost exclusively in the beginning the case might have been solved. JMO

Another book that gives insight into how the Ramseys think/react - "The Death of Innocence."

Athena

10-02-2006, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

Fot those who have missed it - this has been discussed here before: John R. was not questioned about those fibers by the police, but by a lawyer. And lawyers, unlike police officers, are not allowed to lie in interrogations.
Lawyer Levin confronted John Ramsey with the fact that fibers from his black shirt were found in the crotch area of JB's panties.
This is very incriminating evidence which links JR to the crime scene.

And they did not review all of the evidence. They held meetings with the BPD to prepare for the Grand Jury hearing. No way did they read 30-40,000 pages of reports. They were also given questions by the BPD because the Ramseys' lawyers refused to let the BPD question them. Their interrogation was based upon info given to them by the BPD the same BPD that are taught to lie to coerce confessions.

harz

10-02-2006, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I respect your opinion, but - IMO - if the BPD had not focused on the Ramseys almost exclusively in the beginning the case might have been solved. JMO

Another book that gives insight into how the Ramseys think/react - "The Death of Innocence."

IMO, it wouldn't make any different, the ransom note and some of the staging left this case stalemated. Ramseys were just lucky and lucky to have the best lawyers in Colorado in order to flee the justice.

I will try stop by a bookstore or library during the week or next to read that book Death of Innocence first, in meantime while I wait for Detective Arndt’s.

sweetcharlotte

10-03-2006, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by harz

IMO, it wouldn't make any different, the ransom note and some of the staging left this case stalemated. Ramseys were just lucky and lucky to have the best lawyers in Colorado in order to flee the justice.

I will try stop by a bookstore or library during the week or next to read that book Death of Innocence first, in meantime while I wait for Detective Arndt’s.

Those Ramseys were pretty clever for first time murderers. Huh?

JMO

Ames

10-03-2006, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Those Ramseys were pretty clever for first time murderers. Huh?

JMO

IMO..they had plenty of time to think it through...IMO

MyrDawn

10-03-2006, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Ames

IMO..they had plenty of time to think it through...IMO

Criminals that plan their crime days and even weeks in advance, VERY often make a mistake that trips them up. The more convoluted the plot and staging are, the more chance there is for a slip-up.

How long do you think the Ramseys thought it through? Hours, days, weeks, months?

MOO

sweetcharlotte

10-03-2006, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Criminals that plan their crime days and even weeks in advance, VERY often make a mistake that trips them up. The more convoluted the plot and staging are, the more chance there is for a slip-up.

How long do you think the Ramseys thought it through? Hours, days, weeks, months?

MOO

If it wasn't planned prior to that night they had from appx. 9:00 p.m. till 6:00 a.m. Good planning for first time criminals, would you agree?

Ames

10-03-2006, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Criminals that plan their crime days and even weeks in advance, VERY often make a mistake that trips them up. The more convoluted the plot and staging are, the more chance there is for a slip-up.

How long do you think the Ramseys thought it through? Hours, days, weeks, months?

MOO

My guess is several hours....(IMO) And, I also think that they had luck on their side, by having a bunch of Barney Fife BP, on the case. IMO

lucky13

10-03-2006, 03:56 PM

Yes, John was pretty clever for a first time murderer. He ran a billion dollar business- I think he was a VERY intelligent man. Look at what he's gotten away with. He probably amazes even himself!
I have to agree with Rosebud about Smit & Douglas being 'paid off' by the Ramseys too. I have always believed that John & Team Ramsey have paid off a lot more people than we will ever know, or can even imagine. (Dr. Beuf, being one of the many) Don't get me started on that... And if John did own & read the MindHunter book, I'm sure he would have had the sense to remove it (well, Pam did, perhaps unknowingly) before it was discovered- along with the other incriminating items that were never found. (duct tape, cord, washcloth, etc) MOO
Ames, I love your post about John denying owning the book or knowing who Douglas was. Right on!!

Ames

10-03-2006, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

If it wasn't planned prior to that night they had from appx. 9:00 p.m. till 6:00 a.m. Good planning for first time criminals, would you agree?

I know this post wasn't meant for me...but, excellent planning, IMO...and luck (the Keystone Cops). IMO

sweetcharlotte

10-03-2006, 04:06 PM

Ames

10-03-2006, 04:13 PM

sweetcharlotte

10-03-2006, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I know this post wasn't meant for me...but, excellent planning, IMO...and luck (the Keystone Cops). IMO

Excellent planning? OK.

When did the planning begin? As Myra asked - months, weeks, days? What was the motive? TIA

bullmoose

10-03-2006, 04:19 PM

:beer: I couldn't agree with you more, sweetcharlotte

MyrDawn

10-03-2006, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

If it wasn't planned prior to that night they had from appx. 9:00 p.m. till 6:00 a.m. Good planning for first time criminals, would you agree?

Especially for parents to do when their little girl has just been killed. Calm, cool, and collected enough to think everything through well enough that there was nothing that could pin her death on them. :rolleyes:

sweetcharlotte

10-03-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Especially for parents to do when their little girl has just been killed. Calm, cool, and collected enough to think everything through well enough that there was nothing that could pin her death on them. :rolleyes:

Remarkable, I'd say.

Ames

10-03-2006, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Excellent planning? OK.

When did the planning begin? As Myra asked - months, weeks, days? What was the motive? TIA

There was absolutely NO motive...IMO....it was an accident. They did not plan on killing their child...IMO. The planning of the coverup started right after the accidental death. IMO Like I said, luck and the Keystone Barney Fife cops were on their side. IMO

sweetcharlotte

10-03-2006, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Ames

There was absolutely NO motive...IMO....it was an accident. They did not plan on killing their child...IMO. The planning of the coverup started right after the accidental death. IMO Like I said, luck and the Keystone Barney Fife cops were on their side. IMO

So these educated, intelligent individuals - rather than calling 911 - decided there was no way they can explain an accident to authorities, but could disguise the accident as a murder? Cool.

Ames

10-03-2006, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

So these educated, intelligent individuals - rather than calling 911 - decided there was no way they can explain an accident to authorities, but could disguise the accident as a murder? Cool.

Hey, sorry that it took so long for me to get back to you. I have wireless (which I hate) and a cloud floated by, and it disconnected me!! GEEZ...what a pain!!

ANYWAY....no, I don't mean THAT sort of an accident, like she fell down the stairs or anything. I think that one of her parents got aggravated with her for some reason, and just snapped. They knew that if they took her into the ER that they would be arrested. I think that it was probably due to the stress of the holiday season, and the vacation that they had planned. They were just under loads of stress, and I believe that one of them snapped. I don't for one second, think that one of them would harm her intentionally. It could have been a shove, or something like that, that started the whole thing. IMO

LadyFisher

10-03-2006, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by lucky13
Yes, John was pretty clever for a first time murderer. He ran a billion dollar business- I think he was a VERY intelligent man. Look at what he's gotten away with. He probably amazes even himself!
I have to agree with Rosebud about Smit & Douglas being 'paid off' by the Ramseys too. I have always believed that John & Team Ramsey have paid off a lot more people than we will ever know, or can even imagine. (Dr. Beuf, being one of the many) Don't get me started on that... And if John did own & read the MindHunter book, I'm sure he would have had the sense to remove it (well, Pam did, perhaps unknowingly) before it was discovered- along with the other incriminating items that were never found. (duct tape, cord, washcloth, etc) MOO
Ames, I love your post about John denying owning the book or knowing who Douglas was. Right on!! John Ramsey never had the book Mindhunter in his home....there is no proof of fibers consistent with Johns in JBs panties...some things fed to the media were by imho inexperienced unscrupulous police officers in hopes of forcing the Ramseys into confessing something they did not do..........BPD did not have the experience to handle a case like this...The FBI has primary jurisdiction in a kidnapping case...but once a body is found it becomes a local matter...if the local agency wishes the FBI can provide an evidence response team, profiling and criminal investigative analysis, lab facilities, etc. But in this case they were not even requested to....ufortunately none of these services was used early on that could have made a difference in the investigation...it's kind of like one doctor calling in a specialist...but imho Boulder PD was too arrogant in assuming they could handle this case...they had already zeroed in on Patsy and wasn't going to let it go! This case is just a travesty of justice imho

LadyFisher

10-03-2006, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Hey, sorry that it took so long for me to get back to you. I have wireless (which I hate) and a cloud floated by, and it disconnected me!! GEEZ...what a pain!!

ANYWAY....no, I don't mean THAT sort of an accident, like she fell down the stairs or anything. I think that one of her parents got aggravated with her for some reason, and just snapped. They knew that if they took her into the ER that they would be arrested. I think that it was probably due to the stress of the holiday season, and the vacation that they had planned. They were just under loads of stress, and I believe that one of them snapped. I don't for one second, think that one of them would harm her intentionally. It could have been a shove, or something like that, that started the whole thing. IMO Ames there is absolutely NO PROOF this family was under any stress during this Christmas season....that is only conjecture from you RDIs...this murder was NOT an accident..it was a brutal murder by a sociopath! imho

sweetcharlotte

10-03-2006, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher

<snip>

but imho Boulder PD was too arrogant in assuming they could handle this case...they had already zeroed in on Patsy and wasn't going to let it go! This case is just a travesty of justice imho

Not only did they turn down help from the FBI, they refused offers of help from Boulder County Sheriff's Department and the Denver PD.

sweetcharlotte

10-03-2006, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Ames there is absolutely NO PROOF this family was under any stress during this Christmas season....that is only conjecture from you RDIs...this murder was NOT an accident..it was a brutal murder by a sociopath! imho

It is my understanding that Christmas was the Ramseys' favorite holiday and from what I've read Patsy didn't sweat the the small stuff so I'm not buying into "stress and snapping." JMO

Ames

10-03-2006, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

It is my understanding that Christmas was the Ramseys' favorite holiday and from what I've read Patsy didn't sweat the the small stuff so I'm not buying into "stress and snapping." JMO

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I am sure that alot of people thought that Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, along with many others....could not be capable of being under stress, and snapping, either. IMO

sweetcharlotte

10-03-2006, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I am sure that alot of people thought that Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, along with many others....could not be capable of being under stress, and snapping, either. IMO

Oh, PLEAs...... Comparing Susan Smith, Andrea Yates to Patsy Ramsey is like comparing apples to oranges. Susan Smith wanted to be rid of her children because her "boyfriend" had written her a letter telling her he didn't want her kids. Andrea Yates was taken down by an idiot husband. And this too is JMO.

Ames

10-03-2006, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Oh, PLEAs...... Comparing Susan Smith, Andrea Yates to Patsy Ramsey is like comparing apples to oranges. Susan Smith wanted to be rid of her children because her "boyfriend" had written her a letter telling her he didn't want her kids. Andrea Yates was taken down by an idiot husband. And this too is JMO.

Well, as I said...theres more where those two came from. Yeah, I know that really Susan shouldn't be compared to Patsy, but Andrea was under stress...she was trying to homeschool all of her kids. What did her "idiot husband" have to do with anything? I haven't heard anything about him driving her to do it. I just know that he stood behind her, during her trial. Anyway, NONE of us posters REALLY and truly KNOW the Ramsey's, now do we...unless we have lived with them, which personally, I haven't. So, I cannot say for sure just what kind of parent, Patsy or John Ramsey was. IMO

LadyFisher

10-03-2006, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Well, as I said...theres more where those two came from. Yeah, I know that really Susan shouldn't be compared to Patsy, but Andrea was under stress...she was trying to homeschool all of her kids. What did her "idiot husband" have to do with anything? I haven't heard anything about him driving her to do it. I just know that he stood behind her, during her trial. Anyway, NONE of us posters REALLY and truly KNOW the Ramsey's, now do we...unless we have lived with them, which personally, I haven't. So, I cannot say for sure just what kind of parent, Patsy or John Ramsey was. IMO IMHO the two examples you provided are poor choices....Andrea Yates is mentally ill and showed signs of it for years...Susan Smith was a selfish young woman who had been molested by her own stepfather...there was precursive behavior there with both of these women...there was none with Patsy...Patsy was nearly 40 y/o....John was 53...these were not young people who just snapped one night and killed their daughter....one can understand LE first looking at the parents....but should have called in the big guns when there was no evidence that the parents were capable of this.....and there isn't any....only those who really are not familiar with this case believe the bedwetting theory..or the silly things leaked by LE trying to coerce the Ramseys into a confession...I will reiterate....this was not an accidental murder imho it was 1st degree murder! :seeya:

harz

10-03-2006, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Ames there is absolutely NO PROOF this family was under any stress during this Christmas season....that is only conjecture from you RDIs...this murder was NOT an accident..it was a brutal murder by a sociopath! imho

You mean a sociopath pedophile correct? Like David Westerfield? Didn't he had a daughter? I remember reading a report that David put his finger into his daughter's mouth one time while she was sleeping as it woke her up. Then David left, she never report it until after Van Damme's death I think. How come he didn't kill her or raped her? Even there are sociopath pedophiles do have wives and children, but many of them never were exposed or most time they had no history of sexual abuse on their records. Also Scott Peterson had wife and incoming child, they meant nothing to him when came along Amber Frey. He decided Laci & Connor would be a problem, so he got rid of them, staged the scene, then opened his life to Amber Frey. But thank to the media that got SP exposed on tv in order for Amber Frey to see him on news and contact the police exposing SP's secret affairs and thank to the water in lake that refloated Laci & Connor bodies back to the shore before SP's arrested. The point is, most of people do not know who or which person is a soicopath or a pedophile without records until there's some strong evidences to expose their dark truths. JMO

LadyFisher

10-03-2006, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by harz

You mean a sociopath pedophile correct? Like David Westerfield? Didn't he had a daughter? I remember reading a report that David put his finger into his daughter's mouth one time while she was sleeping as it woke her up. Then David left, she never report it until after Van Damme's death I think. How come he didn't kill her or raped her? Even there are sociopath pedophiles do have wives and children, but many of them never were exposed or most time they had no history of sexual abuse on their records. Also Scott Peterson had wife and incoming child, they meant nothing to him when came along Amber Frey. He decided Laci & Connor would be a problem, so he got rid of them, staged the scene, then opened his life to Amber Frey. But thank to the media that got SP exposed on tv in order for Amber Frey to see him on news and contact the police exposing SP's secret affairs and thank to the water in lake that refloated Laci & Connor bodies back to the shore before SP's arrested. The point is, most of people do not know who or which person is a soicopath or a pedophile without records until there's some strong evidences to expose their dark truths. JMO I thought it was a niece of Westerfields? Wasn't it proven that Westerfield was heavily into porno before the Van Dam child? I believe SP felt a child and wife would prevent him from enjoying his sexual pleasures with other women......with all the negative and false reporting concerning the Ramseys there has imo never been any dark secrets revealed on any of them...these folks were scrutinized like no others.....Thomas interviewed Patsy's former schoolmates and teachers...they were actually frightened of the man, his prejudiced showed against the Ramseys...they told him the truth and knew he wasn't accepting it...he had tunnel vision imho

harz

10-04-2006, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I thought it was a niece of Westerfields? Wasn't it proven that Westerfield was heavily into porno before the Van Dam child? I believe SP felt a child and wife would prevent him from enjoying his sexual pleasures with other women......with all the negative and false reporting concerning the Ramseys there has imo never been any dark secrets revealed on any of them...these folks were scrutinized like no others.....Thomas interviewed Patsy's former schoolmates and teachers...they were actually frightened of the man, his prejudiced showed against the Ramseys...they told him the truth and knew he wasn't accepting it...he had tunnel vision imho

Yes it was niece, I think your correct, it been awhile since I learned his case. Yes image if media didn't do the coverage on Laci's disappearing, that would leave Amber Frey clueless, then both SP & Amber would probably be married already. Or image the bodies of Laci & Connor haven't surfaced, then Laci's disappearing would remain mystery to us forever. IMO Ramseys are just lucky and their motives or reasons, if they did it, haven't been exposed yet, probably because the evidences or the motives are not clear enough to us yet. JMO

sweetcharlotte

10-04-2006, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Ames

<snip>

So, I cannot say for sure just what kind of parent, Patsy or John Ramsey was. IMO

But John's other children, John Andrew & Melinda, did say what kind of parents they were and they said they were good parents. Also, John's first wife Lucinda said John & Patsy were good parents. JMO

Ames

10-04-2006, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

But John's other children, John Andrew & Melinda, did say what kind of parents they were and they said they were good parents. Also, John's first wife Lucinda said John & Patsy were good parents. JMO

Well, what do you expect them to say....that they were horrible parents? Anyway, I am not doubting that they were wonderful parents, they probably were. (I don't know for sure, because I didn't live under their roof), but...good parents or not...I think that one of them snapped! (I don't think that they ever had physically abused JB or Burke, in the past). IMO

sweetcharlotte

10-04-2006, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
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......

<snip>

This is what John Douglas said about that (speaking about the Ramseys and of himself and Lou Smith) - "The Cases That Haunt Us" large print edition, page 713:

"Did they think they were so clever that they could go 'mano a mano' with either of us and not slip up? That shows incredible arrogance or incredible criminal sophistication. And here lies the crux of the postoffense behavioral issue........If the Ramseys were involved, then their postoffense behavior has been criminally sophisticated in the extreme. They are both master criminals and sociopaths who sprang full-blown into that position without preparation or practice."

sweetcharlotte

10-04-2006, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Well, what do you expect them to say....that they were horrible parents? Anyway, I am not doubting that they were wonderful parents, they probably were. (I don't know for sure, because I didn't live under their roof), but...good parents or not...I think that one of them snapped! (I don't think that they ever had physically abused JB or Burke, in the past). IMO

The older children were grown. I would expect them to tell the truth. What about John's first wife? What would be her motive for saying John and Patsy were good parents if they weren't?

This is what John Douglas had to say about "stressors."

Page 692, large print edition, "The Cases That Haunt Us"

"One of the first things we look for in profiling is a precipitating stressor: something that made the offender act or react the way he did. We don't have any here. There's nothing going on. No matter how badly JonBenet messed the bed .........I don't believe that Patsy would suddenly lose every instinct and inhibition she'd ever had and strike out violently at the being she clearly loved as much as anyone else in the entire world. And God knows she wouldn't strangle her daughter to death. It just doesn't happen that way. There would have to have been previous behavior to suggest this was possible, and there simply was not."

sweetcharlotte

10-04-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by treehouse

Are you trying to ruin someone's story.

For shame. lol

:seeya:

Hi.....no, just trying to get people to look at facts - as we wait.
I'm having lemonade myself. It's warm out here in the sun.
LOL LOL

bookratt

10-04-2006, 01:55 PM

don't they have a pre-determined "possible suspect" list?

Ie: if a wife and mother is killed, they look first to the husband, then her children, then her her co-workers, neighbors, friends, parents, etc. They check first her current associations/activities and behaviors and then any ones in her past that might seem relevant.

They follow the rumors and they follow the money, if there is any.

My questions are:

Who benefitted by JB's death, financially?

Who benefitted in any other significant way?

ie: JB's gone now, so _________ can do such and such or feel _________.

Ames

10-04-2006, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by bookratt
don't they have a pre-determined "possible suspect" list?

Ie: if a wife and mother is killed, they look first to the husband, then her children, then her her co-workers, neighbors, friends, parents, etc. They check first her current associations/activities and behaviors and then any ones in her past that might seem relevant.

They follow the rumors and they follow the money, if there is any.

My questions are:

Who benefitted by JB's death, financially?

Who benefitted in any other significant way?

ie: JB's gone now, so _________ can do such and such or feel _________.

Right...and if a child is killed, the first people that they look at, and suspect, are the child's parent or parents...especially when the murder takes place INSIDE OF THE HOUSE!! Obviously, nobody benefited from JB's death financially, or any other significant way. Thats why...IMO...one or both Ramsey's are involved...its the only thing that makes sense. IMO

bookratt

10-04-2006, 02:47 PM

that no one benefitted financially? Including JR and PR themselves?

Did Gma and Gpa Paugh have insurance on her, for instance? Did anyone else connected to the family have insurance on her? A few years ago, it was possible to take out life insurance on just about anyone, including policies on their lives, without their knowledge (it may not be possible/may be harder to do that now).

Did Access Graphics or Lockheed-Martin have "key man" life insurance on JR, which may have included policies on his family members?

It was JR, and thru him, that PR had access to money and an affluent lifestyle. The other Paughs hanging around who benefitted thru PR's association to JR may have been about to lose that association, if they had not already done so, when in May of 1997, it was rumored that JR was slated to go/move on from the company.

He may have started a company in his garage with PR and her family's help, but once that company merged with two others to form Access, then it in turn was swallowed up by Lockheed-Martin, there was no real need to keep John any longer and in fact, many more reasons not to have him around.

Just some random thoughts of mine as I sit here and ponder this strange and troubling case, once again.

I tend to be a RDI person, but I just can't make everything fit.

thewhitewitch1

10-04-2006, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

But John's other children, John Andrew & Melinda, did say what kind of parents they were and they said they were good parents. Also, John's first wife Lucinda said John & Patsy were good parents. JMO

What else are they gonna say? Wouldn't want to be cut out of the will, would they? :D
How would Johns ex-wife know the inside story of what JR and PRs relationship with each other and their children were anyway? All she would know is what they show in front of her.
The former housekeeper (not Linda H-P) had a few things to say about the Ramseys that showed they were less than perfect. What reason would she have to say anything negative about them?

Ames

10-04-2006, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

What else are they gonna say? Wouldn't want to be cut out of the will, would they? :D
How would Johns ex-wife know the inside story of what JR and PRs relationship with each other and their children were anyway? All she would know is what they show in front of her.
The former housekeeper (not Linda H-P) had a few things to say about the Ramseys that showed they were less than perfect. What reason would she have to say anything negative about them?

Exactly! Nobody...and I mean NOBODY, knows what kind of parent anybody is, unless they live under the same roof (yes, I know that the older children did, but what else would they say?) Besides, I don't really think that it matters anyway...I believe that even if they never laid a hand on their children....I still think that one of them SNAPPED, and that led to an unfortunate series of events. IMO

rashomon

10-04-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

The older children were grown. I would expect them to tell the truth. What about John's first wife? What would be her motive for saying John and Patsy were good parents if they weren't?

This is what John Douglas had to say about "stressors."

Page 692, large print edition, "The Cases That Haunt Us"

"One of the first things we look for in profiling is a precipitating stressor: something that made the offender act or react the way he did. We don't have any here. There's nothing going on. No matter how badly JonBenet messed the bed .........I don't believe that Patsy would suddenly lose every instinct and inhibition she'd ever had and strike out violently at the being she clearly loved as much as anyone else in the entire world. And God knows she wouldn't strangle her daughter to death. It just doesn't happen that way. There would have to have been previous behavior to suggest this was possible, and there simply was not."
There were enough stressors in Patsy's life. She was a cancer survivor, an ex-beauty queen with her 40th birthday approaching; she complained to her housekeeper that she had lost interest in sex with her husband; she was also the type who took on more activities than she could handle. Patsy said she was totally exhausted around Christmas. And when coming home she had to prepare for the trip to Michigan where she didn't really want to go.
The Ramseys also had wine at the Whites' party, and alcohol can trigger aggressive behavior too.

Prisons are full of people who, in one tragic moment when losing control, have done things which they will regret for the rest of their lives. There doesn't always have to be a history of previous violence for that to happen.
And if Douglas believes that the Ramseys garroted JB, he swallowed their staging scenario, that's all. I suppose he wanted to swallow it.
What do you think Douglas'conclusions would have been if instead of the impeccably dressed, rich and eloquent Ramseys, two toothless and bad-smelling slum dwellers had sat across him at the table to be interviewed? :D

sweetcharlotte

10-04-2006, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

<snip>

What do you think Douglas'conclusions would have been if instead of the impeccably dressed, rich and eloquent Ramseys, two toothless and bad-smelling slum dwellers had sat across him at the table to be interviewed? :D

All indicators/previous behaviors being the same as for the Ramseys I would expect John Douglas to reach the same conclusion. Wouldn't you? ;)

Athena

10-04-2006, 06:39 PM

sweetcharlotte

10-04-2006, 06:43 PM

I think Lucinda is the one who would have spilled the beans on any bad behavior toward the kids by John or Patsy and you know Beth, John Andrew, and Melinda would have told her if they (or Burke and JonBenet) were mistreated. (And I still don't buy the "snapping" and "one time" scenario.) JMO

Athena

10-04-2006, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I think Lucinda is the one who would have spilled the beans on any bad behavior toward the kids by John or Patsy and you know Beth, John Andrew, and Melinda would have told her if they (or Burke and JonBenet) were mistreated. (And I still don't buy the "snapping" and "one time" scenario.) JMO

I agree "nothing like a woman scorned"

bookratt

10-04-2006, 11:32 PM

Since one of her parents married one of his----they were step sister and stepbrother to each other as well!

John Ramsey's father, James, married Lucinda's mother, Irene, after John and Lucinda divorced.

MORE weird stuff about these people, their families, their friends and their lifestyles? I just cannot take anymore.

Perhaps this explains why, in addition to wanting to protect the children she had with him, Lucinda never said anything negative about John.

Think about it. You'd draw attention to yourself, your children, your mother, etc. You'd hurt a lot of people if you did so.

So, unless you knew without doubt that something you saw or heard yourself or that something someone told you was 100% true, you'd probably hold your tongue and hope for the best. Especially, as in this case, if the child involved was not your own child.

And, JR hired a lawyer for Lucinda and his children with her. Was that to protect them, or him? If he paid the lawyer, the lawyer was beholden to him or had to report to him, correct? There would be a split loyalty there, would there not? How could a lawyer John provides defend both him and them---if it came down to a choice of covering for him or protecting them?

Can someone please explain that to me? I am not a legal expert, but this arrangement sounds fishy to me. Isn't that why they sever trials when there are two defendants?

A loyal dog cannot serve two masters, as they say.

They said it in my 9th grade Latin class, anyway.

Athena

10-04-2006, 11:52 PM

If what you say is true about the parents marrying each other AFTER the divorce -- I really do not find anything wierd about that. Sounds like they may have met as a result of Lucinda and John marrying -- they are not blood related.

Also re: the lawyer -- they all had different lawyers. The lawyer's loyalty is to his client not to who is paying him. There are ethics involved here. I would have thought since the entire family was being investigated, they all should have had lawyers. jmo

thewhitewitch1

10-05-2006, 12:02 AM

Good points, Bookratt! Made sense to me.

thewhitewitch1

10-05-2006, 10:52 PM

More troubling details:

Patsy changing of the story of how much of the note she had read before making the 911 call. At first she said she just read the first line or two. Later, she claimed to have been reading it over Johns shoulder while she dialed 911. If you look at the layout of the house and where the staircase is (where John had the note spread out on the floor) and where the phone was located that she used, there is no way this could happen. I am sure the question arose about how she knew who signed the note if she hadn't read it and even why she hadn't read the entire note. Hence (:D ) change story to seem more believable.
Also, while looking at the photos the LE had taken of the house that morning, she was shown a picture of the window sash that was in disarray and said "I don't see any blood on it, do you?"
Why in the HELL would she say a thing like that? Very weird.

sweetcharlotte

10-06-2006, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Athena
If what you say is true about the parents marrying each other AFTER the divorce -- I really do not find anything wierd about that. Sounds like they may have met as a result of Lucinda and John marrying -- they are not blood related.

Also re: the lawyer -- they all had different lawyers. The lawyer's loyalty is to his client not to who is paying him. There are ethics involved here. I would have thought since the entire family was being investigated, they all should have had lawyers. jmo

I agree on both issues. JMO

MyrDawn

10-06-2006, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
More troubling details:

Patsy changing of the story of how much of the note she had read before making the 911 call. At first she said she just read the first line or two. Later, she claimed to have been reading it over Johns shoulder while she dialed 911. If you look at the layout of the house and where the staircase is (where John had the note spread out on the floor) and where the phone was located that she used, there is no way this could happen. I am sure the question arose about how she knew who signed the note if she hadn't read it and even why she hadn't read the entire note. Hence (:D ) change story to seem more believable.
Also, while looking at the photos the LE had taken of the house that morning, she was shown a picture of the window sash that was in disarray and said "I don't see any blood on it, do you?"
Why in the HELL would she say a thing like that? Very weird.

Patsy didn't change her story about how much she read of the note before calling 911. She said read the first lines, and as soon as she realized it was about JonBenet being kidnapped, she ran upstairs to check on JonBenet. When she realized JonBenet wasn't in her bedroom, she screamed for John.

John went down the stairs and picked up the note, took it away from the stairs and spread it out on the floor where there was better light and started reading it. Patsy called 911, then, after she dialled 911, she looked over John's shoulder at the note.

When the operator asked her if the note says who took JonBenet, Patsy said:

"Patsy: No! I don't know. There's a... there's a ransom note here.

911: It's a ransom note?

Patsy: It says SBTC....Victory....Please!"

Patsy looked at the last page of the note after the operator asked who wrote it, to see if there was a signature.

MOO

Ames

10-06-2006, 11:08 AM

LindaA

10-06-2006, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Ames

I hadn't read that...VERY weird indeed. IMO

I hadn't read the bit about the window blind ever before. Could we have a link to the source, please?

It's not particularly incriminating. PR knew at that point that JB was missing and was fearing JBR had been injured. If she had killed JBR and done all the elaborate staging she would have known there was no blood. MOO

sweetcharlotte

10-06-2006, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
More troubling details:

<snip>

Also, while looking at the photos the LE had taken of the house that morning, she was shown a picture of the window sash that was in disarray and said "I don't see any blood on it, do you?"
Why in the HELL would she say a thing like that? Very weird.

When was she shown the photos? I'd like to see a link, too. TIA

thewhitewitch1

10-06-2006, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

When was she shown the photos? I'd like to see a link, too. TIA

Go to acandyrose.com and read the 1998 interview. It's a very long read but I think she is shown photos somewhere in the middle of the interview.
While you are reading it, notice whenever she contradicts herself or slips up, she immediately changes the subject, says something off the wall or starts to cry. It seemed so contrived (the crying)...especially after she just made a slip up. I read that interview quite a few times and got something new out of it each time. I would advise everyone to read the '97 and '98 interviews of both Ramseys and compare how their stories change ever so slightly to their advantage. If this does not give you pause to rethink (IDIs), I will be amazed.

thewhitewitch1

10-06-2006, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

I hadn't read the bit about the window blind ever before. Could we have a link to the source, please?

It's not particularly incriminating. PR knew at that point that JB was missing and was fearing JBR had been injured. If she had killed JBR and done all the elaborate staging she would have known there was no blood. MOO

Linda....at that point Patsy already knew she was dead. This came out in her 1998 interview (acandyrose.com). If JB had been hit in the head in her bedroom, that would be a very good reason for Patsy to mention blood. IMO

thewhitewitch1

10-06-2006, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Patsy didn't change her story about how much she read of the note before calling 911. She said read the first lines, and as soon as she realized it was about JonBenet being kidnapped, she ran upstairs to check on JonBenet. When she realized JonBenet wasn't in her bedroom, she screamed for John.

John went down the stairs and picked up the note, took it away from the stairs and spread it out on the floor where there was better light and started reading it. Patsy called 911, then, after she dialled 911, she looked over John's shoulder at the note.

When the operator asked her if the note says who took JonBenet, Patsy said:

"Patsy: No! I don't know. There's a... there's a ransom note here.

911: It's a ransom note?

Patsy: It says SBTC....Victory....Please!"

Patsy looked at the last page of the note after the operator asked who wrote it, to see if there was a signature.

MOO

No. Obviously you haven't read all of the interviews. You need to do it. The first interview, she said she only read a few lines, ran upstairs yelling for John and on the stairs he told her to call 911 immediately. No other conversation between them. She said she did not read the entire note until later.
In the second interview ('98), she said she read the note over Johns shoulder while she dialed 911. Now, we've all seen diagrams of the house and we all know which phone she called from (there is a picture). Look at the diagram and tell me how she stretched that cord all the way out to the stairs to read the note over his shoulder. Seriously...go look. Once again, acandyrose.com.

Athena

10-07-2006, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

No. Obviously you haven't read all of the interviews. You need to do it. The first interview, she said she only read a few lines, ran upstairs yelling for John and on the stairs he told her to call 911 immediately. No other conversation between them. She said she did not read the entire note until later.
In the second interview ('98), she said she read the note over Johns shoulder while she dialed 911. Now, we've all seen diagrams of the house and we all know which phone she called from (there is a picture). Look at the diagram and tell me how she stretched that cord all the way out to the stairs to read the note over his shoulder. Seriously...go look. Once again, acandyrose.com.

That is not how I read the interview. It says after she read the first few lines she realized what it was pertaining to. It appears to me that she did not read the note word for word but rather skimmed it. She also appears to have read more after John spread it out on the floor.

Here are both interviews in which she is questioned about the note:

4/97

PR: And uh, I, I remember reading the first couple of lines and I kind of, didn’t know what it was or uh, and then I (inaudible) you know after the first couple of lines I, it dawned on me, it said something about, ‘We have your daughter’ or something . . .

PR: To see about getting that money together and uh, and I think two other, two ladies came that were social workers or something, came and uh, Linda Arndt came and some more policemen. Uh, and, oh, there uh, something in the note about they were going to call. I think it said they were going to call sometime in the morning.

PR: Cause I went down to the bottom and turned around and read it, you know, like kind of leaned over it looking at it.
TT: Okay. So, it, as it was laid out and you look, you’re standing on the bottom stair or the front . . .
PR: On the floor, yeah.
TT: . . .your looking at it, was it laid out from left to right like you would normally . . .
PR: Yeah.
TT: . . .read a book or something?
PR: Yeah, um hum.

PR: Well, I don’t remember if I picked it or, or just leaned over and read it. I can’t remember. I don’t think I picked it up cause I remember just then bounding up the stairs toward her room.

PR: ell, I mean we were real, the phone’s right here and he was right there.
TT: Right.
PR: I mean it’s just . . .
TT: Right around the corner. Okay. When did you check on burke during all this? You talked about John going to check on Burke.

PR: Right, well uh, they uh, I just remember they were setting up back there that tape stuff or whatever so that we’re, and I think Linda had instructed John about what to say when they called and uh, uh, and she was talking to me and said uh, that they weren’t sure, I guess the note said something about like we’ll call at, I forget what time, 10:00 tomorrow or something and, and she wasn’t sure if that was going to be that day, you know . . .
TT: …(Inaudible). Um, did you ever get a chance before the officer got there to read the whole note other than just the first little bit when you talked about when you first read it? Did you ever get a chance to, to read through that…
PR: I think I glanced back at it. I looked at the, to see who had signed it.
TT: Um hum.
PR: But I did not…
TT: Didn’t read word for word (inaudible). Okay. Later on when you kind of had a chance when the note was laid in, in the TV room there, you guys had kind of chance to look it over. Anything, any of the wording seem significant to you. Anything jump out at you from reading that note?
PR: I just, you know, I just, I didn’t really read it. I just couldn’t bear to read it.
TT: Okay.
PR: So, I mean I just, you know, I kind of glanced at it to kind of see if I recognized the handwriting, but I just, I never, I don’t know if I ever did read the whole thing.
TT: Okay. So, let me make sure I got this right. You read a little bit of it. The first part of it at the very beginning, got the flavor for what had gone on and then you remember reading the signature and that, that’s about the extent of the note you read?
PR: Right. I mean I, you know, I might have glanced and seen the $118,000…
TT: Um hum.
PR: …but I don’t, I didn’t read the whole thing.

6/98

16 And then I started down the stairs,
17 this staircase, to go to the kitchen. And the
18 note was on the landing, on the stairs, the
19 bottom of the stairs here. And I, there was
20 some lighting on, but it wasn't bright lights
21 (INAUDIBLE) and looked -- you know, started
22 reading the letter.
23 And after the first couple of
24 sentences realized, you know, what was
25 happening, and I ran back up these stairs, okay,

15 TOM HANEY: And you said that you
16 just read that first paragraph?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
18 TOM HANEY: And that's when you
19 stopped?
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
21 TOM HANEY: Had you since or did
22 you that day read the rest of the note?
23 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I read -- I
24 came back down and John had it, you know, on the
25 floor, and what not, and I was glancing at it,
0036
1 and somewhere I thought in there, because I
2 didn't read it line by line, I looked over to
3 see who it was from, and I didn't know who that
4 was. And somewhere I caught in there where it
5 said if you call some -- don't call the police
6 or -- wherever it said that.
7 Oh, here, police, FBI, et cetera,
8 your daughter being held. And I read that and I
9 mean, my blood just went cold. You know, I
10 couldn't --
11 TOM HANEY: That was some time
12 later?
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, it was kind of
14 all during, I mean after John came down and he
15 had the note and I was "God, what are we going
16 to do, what are we going to do?"
17 And he said, "call the police, call
18 911" and I was looking around reading but it
19 said don't do that. You know, what if they
20 heard, it said we got to call, call them, I mean
21 all this was like in minutes.

Athena

10-07-2006, 10:17 AM

This is the picture of the phone she made the call from. There is at least a 25 foot cord on that phone. So although it was a wall phone that cord would have stretched at least 25 feet.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-panic911.htm

WallyCleaver

10-07-2006, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Athena

That is not how I read the interview. It says after she read the first few lines she realized what it was pertaining to. It appears to me that she did not read the note word for word but rather skimmed it. She also appears to have read more after John spread it out on the floor.

Here are both interviews in which she is questioned about the note:

4/97

PR: And uh, I, I remember reading the first couple of lines and I kind of, didn’t know what it was or uh, and then I (inaudible) you know after the first couple of lines I, it dawned on me, it said something about, ‘We have your daughter’ or something . . .

PR: To see about getting that money together and uh, and I think two other, two ladies came that were social workers or something, came and uh, Linda Arndt came and some more policemen. Uh, and, oh, there uh, something in the note about they were going to call. I think it said they were going to call sometime in the morning.

PR: Cause I went down to the bottom and turned around and read it, you know, like kind of leaned over it looking at it.
TT: Okay. So, it, as it was laid out and you look, you’re standing on the bottom stair or the front . . .
PR: On the floor, yeah.
TT: . . .your looking at it, was it laid out from left to right like you would normally . . .
PR: Yeah.
TT: . . .read a book or something?
PR: Yeah, um hum.

PR: Well, I don’t remember if I picked it or, or just leaned over and read it. I can’t remember. I don’t think I picked it up cause I remember just then bounding up the stairs toward her room.

PR: ell, I mean we were real, the phone’s right here and he was right there.
TT: Right.
PR: I mean it’s just . . .
TT: Right around the corner. Okay. When did you check on burke during all this? You talked about John going to check on Burke.

PR: Right, well uh, they uh, I just remember they were setting up back there that tape stuff or whatever so that we’re, and I think Linda had instructed John about what to say when they called and uh, uh, and she was talking to me and said uh, that they weren’t sure, I guess the note said something about like we’ll call at, I forget what time, 10:00 tomorrow or something and, and she wasn’t sure if that was going to be that day, you know . . .
TT: …(Inaudible). Um, did you ever get a chance before the officer got there to read the whole note other than just the first little bit when you talked about when you first read it? Did you ever get a chance to, to read through that…
PR: I think I glanced back at it. I looked at the, to see who had signed it.
TT: Um hum.
PR: But I did not…
TT: Didn’t read word for word (inaudible). Okay. Later on when you kind of had a chance when the note was laid in, in the TV room there, you guys had kind of chance to look it over. Anything, any of the wording seem significant to you. Anything jump out at you from reading that note?
PR: I just, you know, I just, I didn’t really read it. I just couldn’t bear to read it.
TT: Okay.
PR: So, I mean I just, you know, I kind of glanced at it to kind of see if I recognized the handwriting, but I just, I never, I don’t know if I ever did read the whole thing.
TT: Okay. So, let me make sure I got this right. You read a little bit of it. The first part of it at the very beginning, got the flavor for what had gone on and then you remember reading the signature and that, that’s about the extent of the note you read?
PR: Right. I mean I, you know, I might have glanced and seen the $118,000…
TT: Um hum.
PR: …but I don’t, I didn’t read the whole thing.

6/98

16 And then I started down the stairs,
17 this staircase, to go to the kitchen. And the
18 note was on the landing, on the stairs, the
19 bottom of the stairs here. And I, there was
20 some lighting on, but it wasn't bright lights
21 (INAUDIBLE) and looked -- you know, started
22 reading the letter.
23 And after the first couple of
24 sentences realized, you know, what was
25 happening, and I ran back up these stairs, okay,

15 TOM HANEY: And you said that you
16 just read that first paragraph?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
18 TOM HANEY: And that's when you
19 stopped?
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
21 TOM HANEY: Had you since or did
22 you that day read the rest of the note?
23 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I read -- I
24 came back down and John had it, you know, on the
25 floor, and what not, and I was glancing at it,
0036
1 and somewhere I thought in there, because I
2 didn't read it line by line, I looked over to
3 see who it was from, and I didn't know who that
4 was. And somewhere I caught in there where it
5 said if you call some -- don't call the police
6 or -- wherever it said that.
7 Oh, here, police, FBI, et cetera,
8 your daughter being held. And I read that and I
9 mean, my blood just went cold. You know, I
10 couldn't --
11 TOM HANEY: That was some time
12 later?
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, it was kind of
14 all during, I mean after John came down and he
15 had the note and I was "God, what are we going
16 to do, what are we going to do?"
17 And he said, "call the police, call
18 911" and I was looking around reading but it
19 said don't do that. You know, what if they
20 heard, it said we got to call, call them, I mean
21 all this was like in minutes.

So her story changed, and she admits knowing the note said don't call anyone, but she immediately calls neighbors after calling the police.

thewhitewitch1

10-07-2006, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Athena
This is the picture of the phone she made the call from. There is at least a 25 foot cord on that phone. So although it was a wall phone that cord would have stretched at least 25 feet.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-panic911.htm

Athena...25 feet or not, look at the diagram of the house and where the phone was in ratio to the stairs. I don't believe it could have stretched that far.

thewhitewitch1

10-07-2006, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

So her story changed, and she admits knowing the note said don't call anyone, but she immediately calls neighbors after calling the police.

She changed the story significantly enough to answer the question of how she knew how the note was signed to the 911 operator because she originally stated that she had not read the entire note and I am sure she was asked how she could have known that. (I asked that same question in here so if I could think of that, I'm sure the LE could). Also, during her original interview, you notice she said she glanced at who signed it but she did not say when that was. At the time, she didn't know 911 calls were recorded. When she found this out, she HAD to tweak the story. IMO

Ames

10-07-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Go to acandyrose.com and read the 1998 interview. It's a very long read but I think she is shown photos somewhere in the middle of the interview.
While you are reading it, notice whenever she contradicts herself or slips up, she immediately changes the subject, says something off the wall or starts to cry. It seemed so contrived (the crying)...especially after she just made a slip up. I read that interview quite a few times and got something new out of it each time. I would advise everyone to read the '97 and '98 interviews of both Ramseys and compare how their stories change ever so slightly to their advantage. If this does not give you pause to rethink (IDIs), I will be amazed.

With all the evidence pointing toward the Ramsey's, and the IDI's still sticking to their theory, I believe that if John Ramsey confessed to the crime, the IDI's would still blame an intruder. IMO

WallyCleaver

10-07-2006, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Ames

With all the evidence pointing toward the Ramsey's, and the IDI's still sticking to their theory, I believe that if John Ramsey confessed to the crime, the IDI's would still blame an intruder. IMO

No doubt the confessor would be JR's double, who happened to have a grudge against JR and was willing to go to prision to blemish JR's reputation.

Ames

10-07-2006, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

No doubt the confessor would be JR's double, who happened to have a grudge against JR and was willing to go to prision to blemish JR's reputation.

I am pretty sure that JR's has an evil twin that nobody knows about, and there has always been a rivalry between the two, because John made more money, and had the better looking family.

Devotion

10-07-2006, 05:53 PM

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)
:shrug: imo: WHO and WHY would someone have a book like this to read?...
Who bought the book and who in that family wanted to read such a book????I feel it could be a clue..
I also read where a Bible was opened to page 118, did anyone else read this, several months back??...jmo

Ames

10-07-2006, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Devotion

:shrug: imo: WHO and WHY would someone have a book like this to read?...
Who bought the book and who in that family wanted to read such a book????I feel it could be a clue..
I also read where a Bible was opened to page 118, did anyone else read this, several months back??...jmo

The IDI folks are saying that the detective that said he saw the book, was "mistaken", because it wasn't taken into evidence. I have no clue why a person would LIE about that...seeing a book on the nightstand, when they REALLY didn't. I believe it was there, and yes...I too, have read where Patsy's Bible was opened to Psalm 118 (not page 118). Psalm 118, verse 5 says..."In my anguish I cried to the Lord, and he answered by setting me free" Verse 6 "The Lord is with me; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me? Verse 7, "The Lord is with me; He is my helper. I will look in triumph on my enemies." verses 10, 11 and 12..."All the nations surrounded me, but in the name of the Lord I cut them off. They surrounded me on every side, but in the name of the Lord, I cut them off. They swarmed around me like bees, but they died out as quickly as burning thorns, in the name of the Lord I cut them off."

Didn't mean for this to turn into a Sermon...BUT...I found some of these verses...(and I didn't list them all), to be quite odd...considering the circumstances. All of the verses that I listed, when applied to Patsy, sounds to me like it was talking about the detectives, police...and alot of the general public. IMO

Athena

10-07-2006, 07:03 PM

OK gusy -- it is not IDIs just "saying this". John Douglas is the one who said in his book that Ramsey never read the book and did not even know who he was. He also said there was no such book removed from the house.

It is not listed in any of the search warrants nor is it on the crime scene inventory which means the book was not there. Those search warrants were based on what the investigators saw in that home and if it had been removed after a PO seeing it still would have still been mentioned in the search warrant since they are issued BEFORE removing evidence and would have been noted as missing.

This is from Thomas depo re: MindHunter. He wrote it in his book and claims that another PO told him about it and others. But he is the ONLY one that claims that. If you do a search re: Mind Hunter -- it all points back to Thomas.

5 Q. There has been a lot of debate

6 about whether or not John Ramsey or Patsy

7 Ramsey or some of the Ramsey family before

8 the murder of JonBenet owned the book Mind

9 Hunter by John Douglas. Have you ever seen

10 a photograph of that from a crime scene photo

11 in their house?

12 A. No, but Tom Wickman swears up and

13 down it was in the parents' bedroom.

14 Q. Does anyone else, besides Tom

15 Wickman, swear that up and down?

16 A. No, but Tom Wickman has told that

17 to several people.

18 Q. Where in the bedroom?

19 A. I was always under the impression

20 as we recollect it now on one of the two

21 night stands.

22 Q. By John's bed or by Patsy's?

23 A. I'm sorry, it's one or the other,

24 I thought. Maybe I -- no, maybe I

25 referenced it in the book, maybe I didn't.

422

1 All I can tell you right now is on one of

2 the night stands.

3 Q. Did you keep a -- but Wickman is

4 the only person that says that, right?

5 A. As far as crime scene people that

6 were in the house.

7 Q. Or anybody.

8 A. Yeah, Wickman is the source of

9 Mind Hunter by Douglas.

10 Q. Anyone else, besides Wickman, is

11 all I'm trying to find out?

12 A. Not that I'm aware of.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm

Ames

10-07-2006, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Athena
OK gusy -- it is not IDIs just "saying this". John Douglas is the one who said in his book that Ramsey never read the book and did not even know who he was. He also said there was no such book removed from the house.

It is not listed in any of the search warrants nor is it on the crime scene inventory which means the book was not there. Those search warrants were based on what the investigators saw in that home and if it had been removed after a PO seeing it still would have still been mentioned in the search warrant since they are issued BEFORE removing evidence and would have been noted as missing.

This is from Thomas depo re: MindHunter. He wrote it in his book and claims that another PO told him about it and others. But he is the ONLY one that claims that. If you do a search re: Mind Hunter -- it all points back to Thomas.

5 Q. There has been a lot of debate

6 about whether or not John Ramsey or Patsy

7 Ramsey or some of the Ramsey family before

8 the murder of JonBenet owned the book Mind

9 Hunter by John Douglas. Have you ever seen

10 a photograph of that from a crime scene photo

11 in their house?

12 A. No, but Tom Wickman swears up and

13 down it was in the parents' bedroom.

14 Q. Does anyone else, besides Tom

15 Wickman, swear that up and down?

16 A. No, but Tom Wickman has told that

17 to several people.

18 Q. Where in the bedroom?

19 A. I was always under the impression

20 as we recollect it now on one of the two

21 night stands.

22 Q. By John's bed or by Patsy's?

23 A. I'm sorry, it's one or the other,

24 I thought. Maybe I -- no, maybe I

25 referenced it in the book, maybe I didn't.

422

1 All I can tell you right now is on one of

2 the night stands.

3 Q. Did you keep a -- but Wickman is

4 the only person that says that, right?

5 A. As far as crime scene people that

6 were in the house.

7 Q. Or anybody.

8 A. Yeah, Wickman is the source of

9 Mind Hunter by Douglas.

10 Q. Anyone else, besides Wickman, is

11 all I'm trying to find out?

12 A. Not that I'm aware of.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm

Gusy? LOL...I just love debating with you...you are SO much fun! I haven't heard that word in a long time.

Why would Wickman say it was there, when it really wasn't? Was he lying intentionally, or did he just imagine that he saw it there? Was it a dream? IMO

Devotion

10-07-2006, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Exactly! Nobody...and I mean NOBODY, knows what kind of parent anybody is, unless they live under the same roof (yes, I know that the older children did, but what else would they say?) Besides, I don't really think that it matters anyway...I believe that even if they never laid a hand on their children....I still think that one of them SNAPPED, and that led to an unfortunate series of events. IMO
:shrug:IMO: You are soooo right...
Maybe the brother choked her, for some unknown reason, and both parents covered it up...just a thought

Athena

10-07-2006, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Gusy? LOL...I just love debating with you...you are SO much fun! I haven't heard that word in a long time.

Why would Wickman say it was there, when it really wasn't? Was he lying intentionally, or did he just imagine that he saw it there? Was it a dream? IMO

I had to figure out what you were talking about saying I called you 'Gusy". Actually that should have been "guys" so it was a typo. What does Gusy mean? But in any event -- I like debating wtih you as well. You are just as stubborn as I am. Are you a Taurus or Scorpio by any chance??? LOL

Anyway -- why didn't Wickman put that in the police report and search warrant instead of supposedly "telling" everyone? That's why I don't take that as credible.

Anyway -- I actually came back about the Psalm 118 -- did you know this is a part of the bible shared by many Christian cancer survivors including Lance Armstrong. Also according to PMPT, Linda Hoffman-Pugh said the bible was ALWAYS opened to that verse because Patsy read it every day.

Take this prescription everyday and read these scriptures OUTLOUD everyday at least 3 times a day: Genesis 6:3; Deuteronomy 30:19-20; Psalms 118:17; Proverbs 4:20-23; Isaiah 53:4-5; Matthew 8:17; 1 Peter 2:24; 3 john 1:2; Hebrews 11:1; Romans 10:17; and others as you search the scriptures for comparable healing scriptures.

http://www.thecancerblog.com/2006/02/06/100-000-chemicals-can-cause-breast-cancer/

My daily affirmation is Psalm 118:17 “I will not die but live, and will proclaim what t he Lord has done.” I am very patient active as I constantly learn updated information regarding my disease and its treatment. I have cheated death twice and plan on doing it again, should I require another stem-cell transplant. Prior to and upon my diagnosis I was a Professional Technical Writer and a student at Pacific Oaks College

http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=5945
Healing from Prostate Cancer
God also has His ways of reassuring us of His continuing purposes for our lives. I am involved in prison ministry. I was reading the assignments the same as the inmates. One particular week we were to read Psalm 118, a chapter I have probably read one hundred times. But that day, when I came to verses 19-20, for lack of a better term, I came unglued. All I could do was weep for about five minutes. My dear wife thought I was having a heart attack. I could not verbalize what was happening in those moments of divine confrontation. God reassured me through those two verses that I would lay hands on my great grandchildren and bless them, especially my eleven year old grandson in Wyoming. Again, there is that divine sense of mission and identification with what God is accomplishing in the world.
http://www.renewingyourmind.com/Testimonies/prostate-cancer.htm

Morgan Welch was married five weeks when she was diagnosed with stage 4b IBC. Her Husband, Mark, and her medical team at M.D.Anderson Cancer Center at Houston waged a fierce battle to save her life. But IBC is not a respector of persons, and Morgan's diagnosis was the beginning of 18 months of medical treatment and ultimately of her path home to Heaven. We miss her and look to the day when we embrace this lovely woman again.
'This is the day that the Lord has made, we will rejoice and be glad in it.' Psalm 118:24
http://www.ibcmemorial.org/morgan.html
In spite of some negative reports, I have not been detoured from my focus being upon God’s report in His Word. Because of the Word, I have never lost my hope or been discouraged. There simply is no other option but what God has said, “I shall not die but live to declare the works of the Lord.” (see Psalm 118:17) Following is God’s Report that we are confessing and believing every day.
Please continue to believe with us and take time to read our newest Shepherd Song on the front page of our website that speaks of the supernatural rest that I have found in the midst of the storm. Focus your prayer upon what God’s report is and speak to these areas:
• That the blood clot in my left calf dissolve safely,
• That the fluid dry up on my left lung,
• That my liver clear up and there be no more metastasis,
• That all cancer be removed. It has no right to my body,

http://www.shilohplace.org/HealthUpdate7.htm

Ames

10-07-2006, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I had to figure out what you were talking about saying I called you 'Gusy". Actually that should have been "guys" so it was a typo. What does Gusy mean? But in any event -- I like debating wtih you as well. You are just as stubborn as I am. Are you a Taurus or Scorpio by any chance??? LOL

Anyway -- why didn't Wickman put that in the police report and search warrant instead of supposedly "telling" everyone? That's why I don't take that as credible.

Anyway -- I actually came back about the Psalm 118 -- did you know this is a part of the bible shared by many Christian cancer survivors including Lance Armstrong. Also according to PMPT, Linda Hoffman-Pugh said the bible was ALWAYS opened to that verse because Patsy read it every day.

Take this prescription everyday and read these scriptures OUTLOUD everyday at least 3 times a day: Genesis 6:3; Deuteronomy 30:19-20; Psalms 118:17; Proverbs 4:20-23; Isaiah 53:4-5; Matthew 8:17; 1 Peter 2:24; 3 john 1:2; Hebrews 11:1; Romans 10:17; and others as you search the scriptures for comparable healing scriptures.

http://www.thecancerblog.com/2006/02/06/100-000-chemicals-can-cause-breast-cancer/

My daily affirmation is Psalm 118:17 “I will not die but live, and will proclaim what t he Lord has done.” I am very patient active as I constantly learn updated information regarding my disease and its treatment. I have cheated death twice and plan on doing it again, should I require another stem-cell transplant. Prior to and upon my diagnosis I was a Professional Technical Writer and a student at Pacific Oaks College

http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=5945
Healing from Prostate Cancer
God also has His ways of reassuring us of His continuing purposes for our lives. I am involved in prison ministry. I was reading the assignments the same as the inmates. One particular week we were to read Psalm 118, a chapter I have probably read one hundred times. But that day, when I came to verses 19-20, for lack of a better term, I came unglued. All I could do was weep for about five minutes. My dear wife thought I was having a heart attack. I could not verbalize what was happening in those moments of divine confrontation. God reassured me through those two verses that I would lay hands on my great grandchildren and bless them, especially my eleven year old grandson in Wyoming. Again, there is that divine sense of mission and identification with what God is accomplishing in the world.
http://www.renewingyourmind.com/Testimonies/prostate-cancer.htm

Morgan Welch was married five weeks when she was diagnosed with stage 4b IBC. Her Husband, Mark, and her medical team at M.D.Anderson Cancer Center at Houston waged a fierce battle to save her life. But IBC is not a respector of persons, and Morgan's diagnosis was the beginning of 18 months of medical treatment and ultimately of her path home to Heaven. We miss her and look to the day when we embrace this lovely woman again.
'This is the day that the Lord has made, we will rejoice and be glad in it.' Psalm 118:24
http://www.ibcmemorial.org/morgan.html
In spite of some negative reports, I have not been detoured from my focus being upon God’s report in His Word. Because of the Word, I have never lost my hope or been discouraged. There simply is no other option but what God has said, “I shall not die but live to declare the works of the Lord.” (see Psalm 118:17) Following is God’s Report that we are confessing and believing every day.
Please continue to believe with us and take time to read our newest Shepherd Song on the front page of our website that speaks of the supernatural rest that I have found in the midst of the storm. Focus your prayer upon what God’s report is and speak to these areas:
• That the blood clot in my left calf dissolve safely,
• That the fluid dry up on my left lung,
• That my liver clear up and there be no more metastasis,
• That all cancer be removed. It has no right to my body,

http://www.shilohplace.org/HealthUpdate7.htm

:lol: LOL...now THAT is funny!! DUHHHHHH....
When I was little, my dad used to call ladies Gusy's....or Gusy Belle. Strange? Yep...I know. I have NO clue what it means...he also used to say Flossy Belle. So, every woman on earth, was either Gusy, Gusy Belle, or Flossy Belle...it didn't matter what their name was. LOL I am from the south, and my dad is really, REALLY old!!!!!

118,000 was not the EXACT amount of J. Ramsey's bonus. Thats why I think that 118 came from Psalm 118....that chapter was embedded in Patsy R. brain. I can get the link to the amount of the bonus, if you do not have it already.

Oh..by the way...I am a Leo...we are also pretty doggone stubborn, if you don't believe ME...ask my husband. LOL

thewhitewitch1

10-07-2006, 09:58 PM

Hey Ames...LEO here too! :beer:
I am stubborn when I believe I am right about something but I can admit when I am wrong. That just hasn't happened yet. :D j/k

Ames

10-07-2006, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Hey Ames...LEO here too! :beer:
I am stubborn when I believe I am right about something but I can admit when I am wrong. That just hasn't happened yet. :D j/k

Well HELLO there fellow LEO!!!!

Me too...I can admit it too, when I am wrong. But, I am still waiting for someone to prove to me that the Ramsey's are innocent. I have to have solid proof, though...something that just hasn't been discovered, or brought forth, yet. IMO

MyrDawn

10-08-2006, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Athena...25 feet or not, look at the diagram of the house and where the phone was in ratio to the stairs. I don't believe it could have stretched that far.

By that time, the note was no longer on the stairs.

"21 TOM HANEY: Had you since or did
22 you that day read the rest of the note?
23 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I read -- I
24 came back down and John had it, you know, on the
25 floor, and what not, and I was glancing at it,
0036
1 and somewhere I thought in there, because I
2 didn't read it line by line, I looked over to
3 see who it was from, and I didn't know who that
4 was. And somewhere I caught in there where it
5 said if you call some -- don't call the police
6 or -- wherever it said that.

MyrDawn

10-08-2006, 08:55 AM

thewhitewitch1

10-09-2006, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Obviously you didn't read the part where she said John had already moved the note to the floor and spread it out there, where there was better light. She didn't HAVE to stretch the phone cord all the way to the stairs. Seriously...go look.

Umm...I guess she would have had to stretch the phone cord all the way to the bottom of the stairs because that's where he spread out the note on the floor.
I guess you've chosen that version to believe. I haven't decided yet which of their many versions I believe...if any.
No need to be such a smart ass either.

sweetcharlotte

10-09-2006, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Umm...I guess she would have had to stretch the phone cord all the way to the bottom of the stairs because that's where he spread out the note on the floor.
I guess you've chosen that version to believe. I haven't decided yet which of their many versions I believe...if any.
No need to be such a smart ass either.

John spread the note in front of a window or door for more light. Fernie (I believe) saw the note still laying there as he was approached the door he came that morning. (PM/PT)

MyrDawn

10-09-2006, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

John spread the note in front of a window or door for more light. Fernie (I believe) saw the note still laying there as he was approached the door he came that morning. (PM/PT)

From Steve Thomas' book "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation"

"Another tech saw the ransom note on the bottom step of the spiral staircase and photographed it there. But the photograph lied. The note had traveled from the stairs, possibly into Patsy's hands, then had been spread out on the hallway floor where John Ramsey and the police had read it, and French had put it back on the stairs. The photograph, which was suppose to show exactly where evidence had been discovered, was inaccurate."

Thomas was guessing it was Patsy that spread it out on the hallway floor, but it was John.

Patsy could easily have been able to stretch the phone cord far enough to read the note over John's shoulder when it was spread out on the hallway floor.

But, you can choose to believe your own version, TWW, rather than the BPD's.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-panic911.htm

MOO

LindaA

10-09-2006, 10:33 AM

You can purchase verrrry long phone cords. I once had one that would allow me to roam anywhere iin my kitchen while still talking. Do we know the length of the cord on the phone is question?

thewhitewitch1

10-09-2006, 11:41 AM

I chose to believe no version. In other words, I read what the Ramseys say and watch them change their story. Patsy picked it up and handed it to John...no, she didn't pick it up. She only read the first couple of lines....no she read more over Johns shoulder while the note was spread out on the floor....blah blah. Only John and Patsy know where they read the note, or if they even did read it (no need if they wrote it). By the time the BPD got there, they could have placed it anywhere.
I still think the distance between the phone and the hall (which part of the hall?) was too far for the cord to reach. Notice John did not say Patsy read the note from behind him in this version:

JR: Well, I’d gotten up at a little before the alarm went off, 5:30 a.m., 5:25 a.m. and went and took a shower; was getting dressed and uh, heard Patsy screaming, and I ran downstairs and I think probably intercepted her maybe in the landing there, the second floor landing I don’t remember exactly; but, ah she showed me the note and uh, . . .

ST: Did she show the note on the second floor landing?

JR: I don’t remember, uh it seems like I came downstairs, but I think she was running up and I was running down, I think, as best as I can remember, the note was still down on the first floor.

ST: Go ahead Tom.

TT: Telling me you shaved, showered, cleaned up, you’re out of the shower by the time I hear Patsy scream. Which set of stairs is the note, front of back did you run down?

JR: Back,

TT: OK. Is that kind of normal, the set of stairs you guys use to go up and down?

JR: Yeah.

TT: OK. You run down stairs and about where was Patsy at when she was running up the stairs?

JR: Well, I don’t remember exactly, but I think she was kind of either coming up the spiral staircase or was up fully. I just kind of remember, kind of meeting her.

TT: Actually why don’t I just talk to you and I’ll go back and try to get some of the things we missed. Kind of talk to you just like you did on the 25th. You guys meet on the landing, what happened after that?

JR: Well I’m, it’s a lot of screaming going on around that, but we saw the note and read the first part. Ah, I think I might have run upstairs to look in JonBenet’s room. At one point I laid it on the floor and spread it out so I could read it real fast without having to sit and read it. At some point we checked Burke, I think I checked Burke. Patsy asked what should we do, and I said call the police, and she called 911.

TT: Patsy called 911 (inaudible).

JR: Yeah. It was, I remember she was on the phone, I was, I think that was when I was looking at the note again, which was on the floor and I was in the back hallway.

TT: OK. Can we back up for just a little bit. Was JonBenet’s, when you guys were coming back, do you recall whether JonBenet’s door was opened or closed?

JR: I didn’t notice.

TT: OK. When you went to check on Burke, was his door opened or closed?

JR: I can’t say, I don’t know.

TT: Can you recall pushing open anything?

JR: Well, and I can’t, normally is partially closed, but I can’t specifically remember that it was opened, but I don’t remember it being abnormal.

TT: OK. Let’s go back further, was Patsy screaming in a high-pitched scream, shrill scream, control scream, how loud did she scream?

JR: It was a scream of panic, (inaudible) was my name, like something was badly wrong.

TT: OK. When you checked on Burke, did he, was he disturbed at all by that, did he wake up at all by that scream?

JR: No, he was asleep still.

TT: OK. Hadn’t moved at all from where he was at. OK. And you checked on Burke before the 911 call? Is that how you did, you went to JonBenet’s bedroom and then to Burke’s? How’d that all play out?

JR: I don’t remember, I mean it was so dramatic. Ah, I don’t, I think I checked on him, you know, fairly quickly, but I don’t remember exactly the sequence.

TT: Let’s move back downstairs, Patsy makes the 911 call, she talk through that on the kitchen phone?

JR: Uh-hum.

TT: Which is right around the corner from the floor that you talk about where you were reading the note?

JR: Right Uh-huh.

TT: What happened after Patsy called the police?

JR: Well, I think she called the Fernies and the Whites

thewhitewitch1

10-09-2006, 02:49 PM

11 JOHN RAMSEY: Well sometime in that sequence,

12 I mean, Patsy called 911. I might have looked

13 around the house some more.

14 LOU SMIT: You have to describe that just a

15 little bit.

16 JOHN RAMSEY: I know I looked in the refrigerator.

17 We have this walk-in refrigerator. We always

18 worried about the kids getting in there.

19 LOU SMIT: Before or after the 911 call?

20 JOHN RAMSEY: I think it was after, probably.

21 You see, as I recall, that was pretty quick.

22 LOU SMIT: Okay. Now you've called the police.

23 Patsy calls the police. Are you there with her

24 when she calls the police?

25 JOHN RAMSEY: I'm -- yeah.

0138

1 LOU SMIT: Where is she at?

2 JOHN RAMSEY: She's at the phone in the kitchen.

3 It's here, yeah, right here. I think I stood kind

4 of right here.

5 LOU SMIT: All right. Do you remember what she

6 said on that 911 call?

7 JOHN RAMSEY: She was screaming, as I recall.

8 I remember her struggling to make the person

9 understand what the emergency was (INAUDIBLE).

10 LOU SMIT: So then the 911 call was made.

11 Do you hear Patsy then call her friends, or were

12 her friends called before?

13 JOHN RAMSEY: No, they were called after. I

14 remember hearing her scream, (Come over, come

15 over.Þ

16 LOU SMIT: Where were you when you heard her

17 scream?

18 JOHN RAMSEY: I think I was still in the same

19 general area. But I don't think -- somewhere here.

20 I was on the first floor, I think.

21 LOU SMIT: So then what? Then what do you do?

22 JOHN RAMSEY: Well before the first policeman

23 arrived I went upstairs and put on some pants and

24 a shirt and probably looked through the house some

25 more. You know.

0139

lucky13

10-09-2006, 02:57 PM

Those interviews just intensify my feelings of their guilt! So many things...what mother would NOT read the entire note? Wouldn't you try to see if you could identify the writing, the diction, something that might give you a clue to who it was from? Think about what it's saying & try to figure out who would do this? TRY TO HELP. I cannot believe that any mother would just 'glance at it' & not want to hear exactly what the person who has taken your child! away from you has to say about it. Of course you'de be upset, & it would be difficult, but you would just HAVE to read it.....Is it just me? And why wouldn't she want to touch it as soon as she saw it? It's a note, on her stairs, in her house. Why wouldn't she just pick it up & see what the heck it is? Bending over, in a dimly lit room to read it is just weird IMO. And she says " I think it said they were going to call some time in the morning." What?? Where is that from? Sounds like she is deliberately trying to sound clueless. And then John admits to reading the note, & even going back over it. Including threats that took up one entire page of the 3 pg. 'note' stating NOT to call anyone. Mentioning 3 times-SHE DIES, & talking to the police will result in her being beheaded....& he feels that it's in JonBenet's best interest to tell Patsy to call the police...& then the Fernies...& then the Whites... & then the Reverend.

thewhitewitch1

10-09-2006, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by lucky13
Those interviews just intensify my feelings of their guilt! So many things...what mother would NOT read the entire note? Wouldn't you try to see if you could identify the writing, the diction, something that might give you a clue to who it was from? Think about what it's saying & try to figure out who would do this? TRY TO HELP. I cannot believe that any mother would just 'glance at it' & not want to hear exactly what the person who has taken your child! away from you has to say about it. Of course you'de be upset, & it would be difficult, but you would just HAVE to read it.....Is it just me? And why wouldn't she want to touch it as soon as she saw it? It's a note, on her stairs, in her house. Why wouldn't she just pick it up & see what the heck it is? Bending over, in a dimly lit room to read it is just weird IMO. And she says " I think it said they were going to call some time in the morning." What?? Where is that from? Sounds like she is deliberately trying to sound clueless. And then John admits to reading the note, & even going back over it. Including threats that took up one entire page of the 3 pg. 'note' stating NOT to call anyone. Mentioning 3 times-SHE DIES, & talking to the police will result in her being beheaded....& he feels that it's in JonBenet's best interest to tell Patsy to call the police...& then the Fernies...& then the Whites... & then the Reverend.

Yes...and funny how IDI's do not find any of this in the least bit strange. During the Lou Smit interview Patsy contradicted herself, slipped up about what JB was wearing to the Whites and so on and he totally missed it all. Tell me that he did not walk in there with his mind made up that they were innocent.

lucky13

10-09-2006, 03:08 PM

He just read a ransom note about his daughter being kidnapped & he thinks to go look in the walk-in fridge for her? Why would kidnappers put JB into their fridge? Am I missing something???
Are they saying that they never woke Burke up at all? Not with all of the screaming? Not to make sure he was actually okay? To be SURE that he was in fact, alive? He coulda been laying there dead for all they knew. They didn't wake him up to ask him if he had seen or heard anything during the night/morning hours? He coulda had crucial information. They didn't want to just wake him up to HUG him? OMG! I would hug & hang on to my remaining child for sure. Are people really that different??

sweetcharlotte

10-09-2006, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by lucky13
He just read a ransom note about his daughter being kidnapped & he thinks to go look in the walk-in fridge for her?
<snip>

What walk-in fridge?

thewhitewitch1

10-09-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

What walk-in fridge?

Go back and read my exerpts from the interviews a few posts up.
No offense, Charlotte, but I have questioned before whether IDI supporters ever really read all of the interviews with J and P. If you haven't, you need to...and maybe you might start seeing what us RDIs are seeing and understand why we believe what we do.

sweetcharlotte

10-09-2006, 05:35 PM

LindaA

10-09-2006, 06:30 PM

about looking in the walk-in fridge. JR mentioned that that was one thing they worried about with the children. Seems natural to check there. Not logical from what the note says but if you are in a panic not everything you do makes a lot of sense. Dozens of possibilities must fly through your head in that case.

Athena

10-09-2006, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Go back and read my exerpts from the interviews a few posts up.
No offense, Charlotte, but I have questioned before whether IDI supporters ever really read all of the interviews with J and P. If you haven't, you need to...and maybe you might start seeing what us RDIs are seeing and understand why we believe what we do.

I don't believe that to be true TWW. You are just one of a couple of the RDI's that provide links and it is appreciated. Most of the RDIs do not. I'm going out on a limb here and if you look back at posts I would say most of the IDI's read AND post links far more than the RDIs do. Sweet may have missed that one but she is usually dead-on with her knowledge of this case. JMO

Athena

10-09-2006, 09:15 PM

harz

10-10-2006, 03:40 AM

http://www.lousmit.com/intrudertheory.htm

"Small footprint: A third mark in the mold could belong to a small footprint. Smit said it matches the size and width of his own six-year-old granddaughter's foot. Could it be JonBenet's? If so, it suggests she was standing in the basement, not knocked out upstairs by a parent in a fit of rage as one police theory suggests."

IMO, Interesting about Smit's theory and his discovery on JB's footprint. If she was alive and standing in the basement that night, so any more theories about that? Also a paintbrush stick used as garrote was broken in 3 pieces? So did it break during the strangling? Anyway, there's more pictures and infos that's new to me at that site.

That link was under http://lousmit.com/

LindaA

10-11-2006, 10:13 AM

I'm wondering about the cord. The bone of contention between the RDIs and the IDIs is that amount of cord that was used vs. the amount that was present in the home. That is, is there some missing cord or not?

Let's go back to the claim that Pr purchased cord and duct tape in a hardware store prior to the murder. Do the proponants of that theory -- based on the register tape wich did not name the items purchased, just the amount each item cost -- think that PR purchased a roll of cord or a specified amount cut from stock? If it was the same price as a roll of cord, then it is possible that some vanished from the house. If it is from a length, it would seem to me the combinatons would be almost infinite. Has anyone every compared the price of the type of cord used to the cost per foot to the total amount for that item on the register receipt?

Buying these items is not evidence of guilt -- unless you think it was premeditated murder. They are common enough items to need especially during the holidays. However, I"d like to reconcile the mystery of the register receipt with the theory that all the rope was used and none is therefore missing. If that can be done.

MOO

Ames

10-11-2006, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by lucky13
He just read a ransom note about his daughter being kidnapped & he thinks to go look in the walk-in fridge for her? Why would kidnappers put JB into their fridge? Am I missing something???
Are they saying that they never woke Burke up at all? Not with all of the screaming? Not to make sure he was actually okay? To be SURE that he was in fact, alive? He coulda been laying there dead for all they knew. They didn't wake him up to ask him if he had seen or heard anything during the night/morning hours? He coulda had crucial information. They didn't want to just wake him up to HUG him? OMG! I would hug & hang on to my remaining child for sure. Are people really that different??

GOOD POINTS!!! I, for sure would have woke him up, and asked if he had heard anything. That would have been the first thing that I would have done. Notice in the interview that John said that he "probably" searched the house some more, after Patsy made that phone call. It was a "kidnapping'.....WHY search the house, and even if he did...you would think that he would have remembered that. But he "probably" searched the house. IMO

Ames

10-11-2006, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by LindaA
about looking in the walk-in fridge. JR mentioned that that was one thing they worried about with the children. Seems natural to check there. Not logical from what the note says but if you are in a panic not everything you do makes a lot of sense. Dozens of possibilities must fly through your head in that case.

Seems odd to me....a "kidnapper" has taken his child, and he checks the walk in freezer?? IMO

Ames

10-11-2006, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Apparently Wickman got the book wrong:

16 LOU SMIT: You know what? Just a thought

17 popped into my mind, I just wrote a little note.

18 Can you talk about your daughter a bit? Near your

19 nightstand on your bed there was a book on dying?

20 How did that get there and did you read that a lot

21 or what?

22 JOHN RAMSEY: I'm not sure what book was

23 there, but I did a lot of reading after she died.

24 I did a lot of reading about, a lot of books on

25 near death experiences and life after life and Dr.

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

Do you actually think that John would have admitted having a book on his nightstand, about how to stage a crimescene?? IMO

MissOtisRegrets

10-11-2006, 11:06 AM

According to John Douglas, in a crime such as this, a perp will bring to the scene the items that will be needed for control of his victim. The items that would have been brought to the scene in this crime are the only ones used that were missing afterward. And there is absolutely no evidence that they came from the house in the first place.

MOO

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by LindaA

<snip>

Do the proponants of that theory -- based on the register tape wich did not name the items purchased, just the amount each item cost -- think that PR purchased a roll of cord or a specified amount cut from stock? If it was the same price as a roll of cord, then it is possible that some vanished from the house. If it is from a length, it would seem to me the combinatons would be almost infinite. Has anyone every compared the price of the type of cord used to the cost per foot to the total amount for that item on the register receipt?

<snip>

MOO

Just throwing this in for discussion. In Perfect Murder/Perfect Town they mentioned a brand of rope that "matched" the rope used. I looked that brand up and it came "prepackaged" in different thicknesses and lengths.

MissO - do you remember reading that in PM/PT?

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
According to John Douglas, in a crime such as this, a perp will bring to the scene the items that will be needed for control of his victim. The items that would have been brought to the scene in this crime are the only ones used that were missing afterward. And there is absolutely no evidence that they came from the house in the first place.

MOO

People have been carrying backpacks as an "everyday" accessory for some time now especially in "backpacking/hiking" country and around campuses. I think the intruder came prepared and everything s/he used was in his/her backpack. JMO

LindaA

10-11-2006, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Seems odd to me....a "kidnapper" has taken his child, and he checks the walk in freezer?? IMO

Yes, it does seem odd. But let's assume for the minute the Ramsey's are innocent (if they are guilty then that would really be weird to look in the freezer) What could they have been thinking? Maybe , "this is some very bad joke and someone has convince JB to hide in the freezer." Or "It doesn't seem likely, but I'd better check all the possibilities. " ( Getting locked in a freezer/refrigerator is a common fate for children.)

MissOtisRegrets

10-11-2006, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Just throwing this in for discussion. In Perfect Murder/Perfect Town they mentioned a brand of rope that "matched" the rope used. I looked that brand up and it came "prepackaged" in different thicknesses and lengths.

MissO - do you remember reading that in PM/PT?

PMPT, Pg. 322-323

"Meanwhile Steve Thomas visited McGuckin Hardware, which John Ramsey – or someone impersonating him – had called in January. In the sporting goods department, Thomas found white nylon cord similar to the cord around JonBenet’s neck. He bought four packages of Coghlan’s Cord, for $2.29 each. In addition, he found black duct tape with the brand name Suretape. Both items sold for the same price and came from the same department that appeared on Patsy Ramsey’s December 1996 sales slips.

A week after Thomas made his purchases, Dave Williams, an investigator for the Ramseys, called Joanne Hanks at McGuckin and asked for itemized receipts of Patsy’s December 2 and December 9 purchases, only to discover that the police had them. In Patsy’s April 30 police inverview, Thomas had asked her about the purchase of duct tape, and Williams was following up for his clients.

Now both the police and the Ramsey’s investigators knew that the items could have been purchases by Patsy just weeks before JonBenet’s murder."

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

PMPT, Pg. 322-323

"Meanwhile Steve Thomas visited McGuckin Hardware, which John Ramsey – or someone impersonating him – had called in January. In the sporting goods department, Thomas found white nylon cord similar to the cord around JonBenet’s neck. He bought four packages of Coghlan’s Cord, for $2.29 each. In addition, he found black duct tape with the brand name Suretape. Both items sold for the same price and came from the same department that appeared on Patsy Ramsey’s December 1996 sales slips.

<snip>

Thanks, MissO.

LindaA

10-11-2006, 02:36 PM

is that ST was able to buy these items which sold for the same price as items PR bought from the same store in the same departments. IIRC (Sorry no link) others have posted there were many items in that department at the same price point.

So if she bought cord she bought it in prepackaged lengths -- not a cut-to-order piece. Am I correct in thinking this according the what has been posted here.

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
is that ST was able to buy these items which sold for the same price as items PR bought from the same store in the same departments. IIRC (Sorry no link) others have posted there were many items in that department at the same price point.

So if she bought cord she bought it in prepackaged lengths -- not a cut-to-order piece. Am I correct in thinking this according the what has been posted here.

Since we don't know what other $$ amounts were on the receipt, and we don't know what cut-to-order rope cost we can't say that for sure. The only thing that we know is that both tape and cord were available in the department for amounts ($2.29) on the receipt. Students from UC did a study (no link) that indicated there were over 1000 items available for that amount.

WallyCleaver

10-11-2006, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
I'm wondering about the cord. The bone of contention between the RDIs and the IDIs is that amount of cord that was used vs. the amount that was present in the home. That is, is there some missing cord or not?

Let's go back to the claim that Pr purchased cord and duct tape in a hardware store prior to the murder. Do the proponants of that theory -- based on the register tape wich did not name the items purchased, just the amount each item cost -- think that PR purchased a roll of cord or a specified amount cut from stock? If it was the same price as a roll of cord, then it is possible that some vanished from the house. If it is from a length, it would seem to me the combinatons would be almost infinite. Has anyone every compared the price of the type of cord used to the cost per foot to the total amount for that item on the register receipt?

Buying these items is not evidence of guilt -- unless you think it was premeditated murder. They are common enough items to need especially during the holidays. However, I"d like to reconcile the mystery of the register receipt with the theory that all the rope was used and none is therefore missing. If that can be done.

MOO

I can't reconcile the register tape, but I'll comment on "missing" cord.

The idea the IDIs have is that if the Rs used cord and tape from their home in this murder, where's the unused roll of tape and cord? This, they believe, points to an intruder.

In the case of cord, it depends on how it was sold. Sometimes it's on rolls, but more often not. It's on a large spool at the store and a piece is cut off at the customer's request. Sometimes it's sold in packages. So there wouldn't necessarily be any unused roll of cord. IMO, it's unlikely there would be, as the cord most likely was not purchesed on a roll.

Ames

10-14-2006, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

Yes, it does seem odd. But let's assume for the minute the Ramsey's are innocent (if they are guilty then that would really be weird to look in the freezer) What could they have been thinking? Maybe , "this is some very bad joke and someone has convince JB to hide in the freezer." Or "It doesn't seem likely, but I'd better check all the possibilities. " ( Getting locked in a freezer/refrigerator is a common fate for children.)

Yes, alot of times kids do accidently lock themselves in freezers...BUT...JR had just read a ransom note. Did he think that JB wrote it herself, and accidently locked herself in the freezer? Or did he think that the "kidnapper" may have lied about having her, and that he had really stuck her in the freezer? Why would he have thought it was all a prank? I just don't see why he would have checked the freezer, after reading the ransom note...stating that they had JB. IMO

LindaA

10-14-2006, 08:19 PM

I doubt he was thinking logically. All sorts of things pop into your head at a time like this, I imagine. He could have been thinking the note was a hoax or a bad joke -- just for a moment. MOO

Ames

10-14-2006, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
I doubt he was thinking logically. All sorts of things pop into your head at a time like this, I imagine. He could have been thinking the note was a hoax or a bad joke -- just for a moment. MOO

Yeah, maybe....

thewhitewitch1

10-14-2006, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

Yes, it does seem odd. But let's assume for the minute the Ramsey's are innocent (if they are guilty then that would really be weird to look in the freezer) What could they have been thinking? Maybe , "this is some very bad joke and someone has convince JB to hide in the freezer." Or "It doesn't seem likely, but I'd better check all the possibilities. " ( Getting locked in a freezer/refrigerator is a common fate for children.)

Sure. And then find a broken open window with a suitcase under it and then close the window and say nothing to the police until hours later when someone has supposedly broken in your house and kidnapped your child and here is an obvious place that they could have gotten in. Right. There is no way any of you IDI's can ever explain that.

Ames

10-14-2006, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Sure. And then find a broken open window with a suitcase under it and then close the window and say nothing to the police until hours later when someone has supposedly broken in your house and kidnapped your child and here is an obvious place that they could have gotten in. Right. There is no way any of you IDI's can ever explain that.

Just yet another case, of the Ramsey's ODD behavior....IMO

thewhitewitch1

10-14-2006, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Just yet another case, of the Ramsey's ODD behavior....IMO

I would like to hear how IDI's explain it.

Ames

10-14-2006, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I would like to hear how IDI's explain it.

Me too...I am sure that they will find a way to explain it away though...like they do all of the other evidence that points straight to the Ramsey's. IMO

thewhitewitch1

10-14-2006, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Me too...I am sure that they will find a way to explain it away though...like they do all of the other evidence that points straight to the Ramsey's. IMO

Maybe they can explain this blatant lie too:

From DOI:

"The investigators spent a great deal of time talking with me about a large diagram of the house on the wall behind me. I later learned that they also used the same diagram with Patsy. I was shocked to see that they had found the butler kitchen door, which led to the outside, open. This was reported by one of our friends when he arrived shortly after six in the morning. I'd never even noticed that open door as we frantically rushed around making phone calls, and yet there on the police diagram of our home was the note: "Door found open."

Now, John Fernies testimony:

John Fernie: "I drove my car into the -- up the alley and parked in the back of your house, and went around to the patio door, which was a glass door leading into the kitchen and back of the house, and didn't see anybody, but saw a piece of paper laying on the floor. Looked at that. It was facing the other direction. Read it. And after the first few lines realized something very strange was happening. And so I ran around to the front of the house and knocked on the door and was let in."

John Fernie: "I didn't pick it up. It was inside the door and I was outside. The door was locked. I read it through the door."

thewhitewitch1

10-14-2006, 11:48 PM

That's another thing. I have read several times that John Fernie was with Fleet and JR when JB was found. All three went to the basement at the same time. John Fernie has even said that he stood right next to where JB was found but that the police never asked to examine his shoes. Why is his presence there so down-played? Did he later lie about the door being unlocked and open? If it really was unlocked, why didn't he just come in that way? He has also said that there was snow outside and that he left footprints in it as he went around to the front door. He is trying to say that the police never looked for footprints from an intruder. I am wondering if he didn't try to cover for JR for some reason.
Also, if the door was open, as JR claims and the ransom note was so close to it that Fernie could read it through the door, why didn't John notice the cold air that was surely blowing on his underwear clad ass as he was reading it?
More things that make you go...hmmmm.

Ames

10-15-2006, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
That's another thing. I have read several times that John Fernie was with Fleet and JR when JB was found. All three went to the basement at the same time. John Fernie has even said that he stood right next to where JB was found but that the police never asked to examine his shoes. Why is his presence there so down-played? Did he later lie about the door being unlocked and open? If it really was unlocked, why didn't he just come in that way? He has also said that there was snow outside and that he left footprints in it as he went around to the front door. He is trying to say that the police never looked for footprints from an intruder. I am wondering if he didn't try to cover for JR for some reason.
Also, if the door was open, as JR claims and the ransom note was so close to it that Fernie could read it through the door, why didn't John notice the cold air that was surely blowing on his underwear clad ass as he was reading it?
More things that make you go...hmmmm.

Underwear clad ass! :lol: That is way too funny!!! Fernie must have had some wonderful eyesight, to have read that note through the glass door. That makes NO sense....why stand OUTSIDE the door and read the note...why not go INSIDE and read it. That is weird...IMO

LindaA

10-15-2006, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Sure. And then find a broken open window with a suitcase under it and then close the window and say nothing to the police until hours later when someone has supposedly broken in your house and kidnapped your child and here is an obvious place that they could have gotten in. Right. There is no way any of you IDI's can ever explain that.

Since this happened later in the day, after the police had been there, they assumed the police had already seen it?

Athena

10-15-2006, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Maybe they can explain this blatant lie too:

From DOI:

"The investigators spent a great deal of time talking with me about a large diagram of the house on the wall behind me. I later learned that they also used the same diagram with Patsy. I was shocked to see that they had found the butler kitchen door, which led to the outside, open. This was reported by one of our friends when he arrived shortly after six in the morning. I'd never even noticed that open door as we frantically rushed around making phone calls, and yet there on the police diagram of our home was the note: "Door found open."

Now, John Fernies testimony:

John Fernie: "I drove my car into the -- up the alley and parked in the back of your house, and went around to the patio door, which was a glass door leading into the kitchen and back of the house, and didn't see anybody, but saw a piece of paper laying on the floor. Looked at that. It was facing the other direction. Read it. And after the first few lines realized something very strange was happening. And so I ran around to the front of the house and knocked on the door and was let in."

John Fernie: "I didn't pick it up. It was inside the door and I was outside. The door was locked. I read it through the door."

Actually the explanation is simple. Did it ever occur to you that it was Fernie who lied. Don't forget Miller's client was being charged with trying to source the note to sell. Why would Fernie admit he had access to the note?

JR is not lying in that statement. It is common knowledge that there are police photographs showing the butler door open. The question is though when was the door opened? Notice he says he found out a year later looking at "police diagrams".

thewhitewitch1

10-15-2006, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Actually the explanation is simple. Did it ever occur to you that it was Fernie who lied. Don't forget Miller's client was being charged with trying to source the note to sell. Why would Fernie admit he had access to the note?

JR is not lying in that statement. It is common knowledge that there are police photographs showing the butler door open. The question is though when was the door opened? Notice he says he found out a year later looking at "police diagrams".

Why would Fernie lie? If the door was open, why didn't he just come in that way? I think John lied about Fernie telling him the door was open. You didn't explain how John didn't notice that the door was open when he was right there. The police did note that all the doors were locked upon arrival. The door must have been opened by someone after that and John was quick to jump on the fact that an intruder may have come in or left that way. What happened to the window/suitcase theory?

thewhitewitch1

10-15-2006, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

Since this happened later in the day, after the police had been there, they assumed the police had already seen it?

You don't think the police would have been right on that and shown a bit more interest in it??

sweetcharlotte

10-15-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

You don't think the police would have been right on that and shown a bit more interest in it??

Just like they were in finding JonBenet?

thewhitewitch1

10-15-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Just like they were in finding JonBenet?

Hmm...they were operating under the assumption that it was a kidnapping. There was no reason to believe she was in the house. However....they would be looking for a point of entry, would they not?

Ames

10-15-2006, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Just like they were in finding JonBenet?

Please remember, they thought that it was a kidnapping...why would they even consider searching the house for her? Usually kidnappers don't kidnap a child and leave them in their OWN HOME. Kinda defeats the meaning of the word, kidnapping, doesn't it? IMO

Ames

10-15-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Hmm...they were operating under the assumption that it was a kidnapping. There was no reason to believe she was in the house. However....they would be looking for a point of entry, would they not?

Good answer...our posts must have overlapped...

sweetcharlotte

10-15-2006, 03:27 PM

thewhitewitch1

10-15-2006, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Unless they looked in ALL the rooms how would they know they had not located the point of entry?

Well, true...they should have looked in all the rooms, I'll give you that.
Still, if the police had searched even the basement, they would have noticed that open window and suitcase, don't you think? John should have brought it up and not assumed anything. Doesn't that seem like the logical thing to do? Unless the window wasn't open and the suitcase was not there at the time that the police searched...and we know that they did.
Also, didn't John tell the police that the door to the cellar was painted shut? This would account for why the policeman that tried to open the door said it was stuck and didn't look there.

Ames

10-15-2006, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Well, true...they should have looked in all the rooms, I'll give you that.
Still, if the police had searched even the basement, they would have noticed that open window and suitcase, don't you think? John should have brought it up and not assumed anything. Doesn't that seem like the logical thing to do? Unless the window wasn't open and the suitcase was not there at the time that the police searched...and we know that they did.
Also, didn't John tell the police that the door to the cellar was painted shut? This would account for why the policeman that tried to open the door said it was stuck and didn't look there.

Yes, he did tell them that...I had forgotten about that. That was why they didn't open it.

sweetcharlotte

10-15-2006, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

<snip>

Also, didn't John tell the police that the door to the cellar was painted shut? This would account for why the policeman that tried to open the door said it was stuck and didn't look there.

How could the door be stuck when the policeman tried it since someone obviously opened it to put JonBenet in there?

Ames

10-15-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

How could the door be stuck when the policeman tried it since someone obviously opened it to put JonBenet in there?

I believe that TWW is mistaken about the policeman trying to open it. Because I read that JR had told them that it was painted shut, and wouldn't open...and so they never did even TRY to open it, because of that comment. Guess they figured that there would be no need to search, if the door wouldn't even open. IMO

Ames

10-15-2006, 04:30 PM

"Most people focus on the fact that Det. Arndt was wrong for having non-police search the house, resulting in destruction of the crime scene when Ramsey pulled the tape from JonBenet's mouth and then carried her upstairs. First, this "wine room" is the same room where, earlier in the day, Ramsey reportedly told a policeman the door had been painted shut. There have also been published reports to the effect that Fleet White has said Ramsey tried to discourage him from looking in that room. Thomas reports in his book that White did look into the wine room but did not see JonBenet's body because it was too dark inside and he didn't know that the two light switches were outside the room. "

This is from crimemagazine.com
It says that JR told a policeman that the door had been painted shut...AND that he had tried to discourage Fleet White from looking in there.

Mimi428

10-15-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Unless they looked in ALL the rooms how would they know they had not located the point of entry?

Why would the police look in the interior spaces for a point of entry? Only rooms with doors and/or windows to the outside would qualify as points of entry in the first place. I don't think even the most fervent believer in an intruder would go so far as to suggest the perp was beamed in ala Star Trek.

LindaA

10-15-2006, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

You don't think the police would have been right on that and shown a bit more interest in it??
Given their record on this case, no I wouldn't assume they were doing anything they should.

WallyCleaver

10-15-2006, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Ames
"Most people focus on the fact that Det. Arndt was wrong for having non-police search the house, resulting in destruction of the crime scene when Ramsey pulled the tape from JonBenet's mouth and then carried her upstairs. First, this "wine room" is the same room where, earlier in the day, Ramsey reportedly told a policeman the door had been painted shut. There have also been published reports to the effect that Fleet White has said Ramsey tried to discourage him from looking in that room. Thomas reports in his book that White did look into the wine room but did not see JonBenet's body because it was too dark inside and he didn't know that the two light switches were outside the room. "

This is from crimemagazine.com
It says that JR told a policeman that the door had been painted shut...AND that he had tried to discourage Fleet White from looking in there.

But by 1:05 the paint had deteriorated sufficiently that JR was able to open the door w/o trouble and find JB.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't suggest JR was lying. He probably just couldn't remember everything, what with the shock of killing - er, I mean having his daughter kidnapped and all.

WallyCleaver

10-15-2006, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Why would the police look in the interior spaces for a point of entry? Only rooms with doors and/or windows to the outside would qualify as points of entry in the first place. I don't think even the most fervent believer in an intruder would go so far as to suggest the perp was beamed in ala Star Trek.

You have to admit it's possible. There is no evidence that conclusively rules out beaming in as a method of entry :lol:

LindaA

10-15-2006, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

How could the door be stuck when the policeman tried it since someone obviously opened it to put JonBenet in there?

Excellent point,. And if JR was not the person who put here there, he would assume it was still painted shut as it had been the last time he had knowledge of it.

Mimi428

10-15-2006, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

You have to admit it's possible. There is no evidence that conclusively rules out beaming in as a method of entry :lol:

Now that you mention it - it would be mighty handy for getting rid of the supposedly missing tape, rope, perp himself. Just beamed all that stuff straight into outer space. Never to be seen or heard from again.

WallyCleaver

10-15-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

Excellent point,. And if JR was not the person who put here there, he would assume it was still painted shut as it had been the last time he had knowledge of it.

Then why, when Linda Arendt sent him and FW to search for clues to JB's disappearance, would he have tried that door "knowing" it was painted shut. ?

Ames

10-15-2006, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

But by 1:05 the paint had deteriorated sufficiently that JR was able to open the door w/o trouble and find JB.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't suggest JR was lying. He probably just couldn't remember everything, what with the shock of killing - er, I mean having his daughter kidnapped and all.

Yep...guess the paint must have peeled off or "something"...for JR to be able to open that door. Well, I have no problem whatsoever suggesting that JR was lying. He, for some reason, wanted to keep the policeman AND Fleet out of that room. WHY? Because he knew that his daughter lay dead in there. You know, he may at first, had no intention of "finding" her, but...as the day wore on, he thought about it...and decided to go ahead and "find" her...and get it done and over with. IMO

sweetcharlotte

10-15-2006, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Why would the police look in the interior spaces for a point of entry? Only rooms with doors and/or windows to the outside would qualify as points of entry in the first place. I don't think even the most fervent believer in an intruder would go so far as to suggest the perp was beamed in ala Star Trek.

Based on the attached floor plan the wine celler where JonBenet was found was no more "interior" than some of the other rooms in the basement which had windows. I wasn't aware the police were intimately familiar with the layout of the house to know that.

JMO

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4196739

Ames

10-15-2006, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

Excellent point,. And if JR was not the person who put here there, he would assume it was still painted shut as it had been the last time he had knowledge of it.

The policeman NEVER tried to open the door, because John had told him that it had been painted shut, and he felt that there wasn't any reason to try it. Okay, if JR said that because "he assumed it was still painted shut as it had been the last time he had knowledge of it", why did he ALSO try and discourage Fleet from entering that room?? Can't you see...he told the policeman that, to keep him OUT OF THAT ROOM. IMO

WallyCleaver

10-15-2006, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Yep...guess the paint must have peeled off or "something"...for JR to be able to open that door. Well, I have no problem whatsoever suggesting that JR was lying. He, for some reason, wanted to keep the policeman AND Fleet out of that room. WHY? Because he knew that his daughter lay dead in there. You know, he may at first, had no intention of "finding" her, but...as the day wore on, he thought about it...and decided to go ahead and "find" her...and get it done and over with. IMO

I've often thought that too. He may have figured the cops would pack up and go for donuts once the ransom call didn't come. Then he'd have time to dispose of the body. By 1pm he realized they weren't ever going to leave. Just musing here, not stating it as a fact. IMO.

Ames

10-15-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I've often thought that too. He may have figured the cops would pack up and go for donuts once the ransom call didn't come. Then he'd have time to dispose of the body. By 1pm he realized they weren't ever going to leave. Just musing here, not stating it as a fact. IMO.

HA HA...yeah, he probably figured that they would take a doughnut break, and then he could dispose of her body. I am not stating that as a fact either, but...my guess is...that is probably what happened. Why else would he try and keep Fleet and the Policeman from finding JB's body? I don't think that he had any intention of ANYONE "finding" her body, including himself...at first. I think its like you said...he got tired of waiting for the cops to leave...and so he HAD to "find" her. IMO

sweetcharlotte

10-15-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Ames
"Most people focus on the fact that Det. Arndt was wrong for having non-police search the house, resulting in destruction of the crime scene when Ramsey pulled the tape from JonBenet's mouth and then carried her upstairs. First, this "wine room" is the same room where, earlier in the day, Ramsey reportedly told a policeman the door had been painted shut. There have also been published reports to the effect that Fleet White has said Ramsey tried to discourage him from looking in that room. Thomas reports in his book that White did look into the wine room but did not see JonBenet's body because it was too dark inside and he didn't know that the two light switches were outside the room. "

This is from crimemagazine.com
It says that JR told a policeman that the door had been painted shut...AND that he had tried to discourage Fleet White from looking in there.

This account said "Ramsey reportedly told a policeman the door had been painted shut."

"Reportedly" being the key word here.

JMO

Ames

10-15-2006, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

This account said "Ramsey reportedly told a policeman the door had been painted shut."

"Reportedly" being the key word here.

JMO

How do you explain him trying to keep FLEET from entering the room, too?

sweetcharlotte

10-15-2006, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Ames

How do you explain him trying to keep FLEET from entering the room, too?

Ames, I've never read of him trying to keep Fleet away from that room. I have read that both Fleet and John went to the basement earlier in the day but at separate times. Fleet says he went down around 6:30 a.m., John didn't go down until around 9:30 a.m. Then they went down together when Ardnt asked them to look around. JMO

Also, people keep asking why John didn't tell the police about the open window. If Fleet went down at 6:30 a.m. - as he said - why didn't he tell the police about the open window?

JMO - and all that.

Mimi428

10-15-2006, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

Excellent point,. And if JR was not the person who put here there, he would assume it was still painted shut as it had been the last time he had knowledge of it.

Does it not occur to anyone that John was conveniently forgetting that the room JB was found in was the same room the Christmas trees were stored in? In order for it to have been painted shut - that would have had to have occurred AFTER all the Christmas trees were taken out of it.

OTOH, perhaps he had reason to think his wife had gone all OCD with painting again - like she did when the Atlanta living room had to be painted 5 different times in one week. Who knows?

Anyway - if we are going to embrace the idea that John thought the door was painted shut...why the heck would that be the first location he would choose when sent to go & look around by Arndt?

sweetcharlotte

10-15-2006, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

This account said "Ramsey reportedly told a policeman the door had been painted shut."

"Reportedly" being the key word here.

JMO

Ames - I meant to add that is the only account I have ever read of John telling the police the door had been painted shut. I read in both PM/PT and Death of Innocence that the door was "latched" and that is why the policeman who looked in the basement didn't look in the wine cellar.

JMO

WallyCleaver

10-15-2006, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Anyway - if we are going to embrace the idea that John thought the door was painted shut...why the heck would that be the first location he would choose when sent to go & look around by Arndt?

That is the key question, and once again an IDI theory fails the "making the smallest bit of sense" test.

sweetcharlotte

10-15-2006, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

That is the key question, and once again an IDI theory fails the "making the smallest bit of sense" test.

This IDI doesn't think that John told the police the door was painted shut. When would he have done that? The first policeman on the scene who looked in the basement did so about 6:30 a.m. and said the reason he didn't look in that room was because the door was latched.....and stated that it really bothered him because if he had looked maybe JonBenet would still have been alive. (Of course, we know JonBenet was probably deceased at the time.)

Anyway, wouldn't it have seemed terribly strange if John had gone running up to the police and said "Oh, BTW, don't look in that room in the corner. The door is painted shut"??? (And, I've never read anywhere that John went with the police to look around the basement that morning.)

JMO

Athena

10-15-2006, 05:40 PM

Ames, TWW and Mimi -- you guys have gotten carried away with the misinformation posted just in the last couple of responses I see on this last page.

I for one would really appreciate you posting links to what you state as facts. I take the time to research what I post as facts (and so do many other IDIs) with links to the credible sources they come from and would expect the same from the RDIs. I've posted before and said that the RDIs do not provide credible links when stating things as facts. This has really got to stop. Hate me all you want but we can have the thread shut down just because of this. Providing links stating facts are the rules of this board.

When did JR tell French that he painted the door shut and that is why French did not open it?

When did JR try to stop Fleet from searching ANY part of the house?

Show me a credible link where it says JR went straight to the wine cellar when he entered the basement upon Arndt's request?

TIA

Athena

10-15-2006, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

That is the key question, and once again an IDI theory fails the "making the smallest bit of sense" test.

You can't make sense at all when you repeatedly have to respond to misinformation!! How can you even have a discussion based on these erroneous posts? Opinions and conjecture are one thing but things stated as facts that are false are another. I refuse to even respond to the posts above because the RDIs that posted have posted untruths or prove me wrong!

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 05:52 PM

IDI question:

After Patsy spent so much time and went to so much trouble breaking paintbrushes, cutting cord, strangling her daughter, violating her, writing a 3 page ransom note, and successfully hiding some pieces of evidence, while returning others to their proper place, why didn't she change her clothes? Wool. In winter. There were fragments from the breaking of the paintbrush found on the basement floor. How could Patsy be sure she didn't have EVEN ONE (which would have convicted her) microscopic piece attached to her clothes? What about fibers from the cord? Dirt/dust from the basement? Fibers from the white blanket? Why wouldn't she change her clothes? Why would she be that reckless?

sweetcharlotte

10-15-2006, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snip>

OTOH, perhaps he had reason to think his wife had gone all OCD with painting again - like she did when the Atlanta living room had to be painted 5 different times in one week. Who knows?

<snip>

Just an observation - OCD is not one of the seven deadly sins.

JMO

WallyCleaver

10-15-2006, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
IDI question:

After Patsy spent so much time and went to so much trouble breaking paintbrushes, cutting cord, strangling her daughter, violating her, writing a 3 page ransom note, and successfully hiding some pieces of evidence, while returning others to their proper place, why didn't she change her clothes? Wool. In winter. There were fragments from the breaking of the paintbrush found on the basement floor. How could Patsy be sure she didn't have EVEN ONE (which would have convicted her) microscopic piece attached to her clothes? What about fibers from the cord? Dirt/dust from the basement? Fibers from the white blanket? Why wouldn't she change her clothes? Why would she be that reckless?

My guess is that the perpetrator - whether Ramsey or intruder- wasn't thinking about fiber evidence at all. Most people aren't crime buffs who spend their spare time looking at sites about unsolved murders and forensics discussions. Most people know little or nothing of fiber transfer. I doubt the perp was thinking about keeping fibers off anything, or getting fibers onto something.

harz

10-15-2006, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
IDI question:

After Patsy spent so much time and went to so much trouble breaking paintbrushes, cutting cord, strangling her daughter, violating her, writing a 3 page ransom note, and successfully hiding some pieces of evidence, while returning others to their proper place, why didn't she change her clothes? Wool. In winter. There were fragments from the breaking of the paintbrush found on the basement floor. How could Patsy be sure she didn't have EVEN ONE (which would have convicted her) microscopic piece attached to her clothes? What about fibers from the cord? Dirt/dust from the basement? Fibers from the white blanket? Why wouldn't she change her clothes? Why would she be that reckless?

Don't forget about John Ramsey! I believe she had help. JR took shower that morning, wash away heavy dirty works he did while Patsy did handy things like writing note and probably handled the stick. After JB was found, Patsy threw herself on JB's body to explain away what was on her clothes. JMO

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 06:08 PM

How many splinters did Patsy have? How many swollen fingers? How many broken nails?

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by harz

Don't forget about John Ramsey! I believe she had help. JR took shower that morning, wash away heavy dirty works he did while Patsy did handy things like writing note and probably handled the stick. After JB was found, Patsy threw herself on JB's body to explain away what was on her clothes. JMO

But, harz, that was a different blanket than the one in the basement. And what would you say if she hadn't thrown herself on the body of her child?

harz

10-15-2006, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
How many splinters did Patsy have? How many swollen fingers? How many broken nails?

Or JR, if I was BPD, I would have collect what were under their nails right away at arrival. IMO

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

My guess is that the perpetrator - whether Ramsey or intruder- wasn't thinking about fiber evidence at all. Most people aren't crime buffs who spend their spare time looking at sites about unsolved murders and forensics discussions. Most people know little or nothing of fiber transfer. I doubt the perp was thinking about keeping fibers off anything, or getting fibers onto something.

Wool in winter. She would have been covered. Every woman, perp and non-perp alike, would have known this instinctively. Carrying a child wrapped in a blanket. Or just the blanket, itself. Crawling around in the basement. And who would leave a jacket on during all of this, anyway?

harz

10-15-2006, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

But, harz, that was a different blanket than the one in the basement. And what would you say if she hadn't thrown herself on the body of her child?

I don't have details about the other blanket, as I have no clue what did BPD found or didn't find the details on it. I don't know what to say if she didn't threw herself on JB, because it did happen. :shrug: JMO

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by harz

I don't have details about the other blanket, as I have no clue what did BPD found or didn't find the details on it. I don't know what to say if she didn't threw herself on JB, because it did happen. :shrug: JMO

Harz, if they had found ONE PIECE of evidence from the crime scene on Patsy's clothing or on her hands or under her fingernails, she would have been arrested immediately. Why did she take the chance?

LadyFisher

10-15-2006, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Wool in winter. She would have been covered. Every woman, perp and non-perp alike, would have known this instinctively. Carrying a child wrapped in a blanket. Or just the blanket, itself. Crawling around in the basement. And who would leave a jacket on during all of this, anyway? Your previous posts and this one are brilliant, MissO! I was reading on another site about the possible animal hair that was found on JB, and it wasn't traced to anything or anyone in the Ramsey home...so it couldn't have been off a paint brush since Patsy had more than one...what do you think it could be....could the perp have had a fleeced lined coat, or could he have had animal hairs on his jacket from his own pet at home? What's your thoughts and you other IDIs thoughts on this?

harz

10-15-2006, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Harz, if they had found ONE PIECE of evidence from the crime scene on Patsy's clothing or on her hands or under her fingernails, she would have been arrested immediately.

Not necessary, if a fiber from that other blanket found on Patsy’s clothes, it could still be innocent secondary transfer. Maybe while JR hugged Patsy after he found JB. So if there wasn’t any fiber on Patsy from crime scene, it might mean she never went down to basement, which JR did. Patsy still probably was involved anyway. She didn’t need to go down to basement for writing ransom note or garroting. Remember you said couple weeks ago that some fibers from cord were found in JB’s room; Patsy was in JB’s room before bedtime and after she found the note, basically she was walking on crime scene, and still may be no evidences of her. Both basement and JB’s room, including routes in between were crime scenes, not just basement. Did BPD collected what was under Patsy's nails that day? What about JR too? JMO

harz

10-15-2006, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Wool in winter. She would have been covered. Every woman, perp and non-perp alike, would have known this instinctively. Carrying a child wrapped in a blanket. Or just the blanket, itself. Crawling around in the basement. And who would leave a jacket on during all of this, anyway?

Was that blanket in wine cellar made of wool? I didn't know that, it looked like cotton to me in picture. It gets more confusing when JR found JB with that blanket covered her, then he ran upstairs to get a different blanket, came back down to basement to pick her up, carry her upstairs with new blanket, leaving other blanket alone. Then Patsy threw herself on JB, would some wool from that blanket in wine cellar get on JB, then to Patsy? IMO

Edit; Patsy might didn't wear her jacket all night, she might took it off after or during staging, then put it back on before BPD arrived. JMO

sweetcharlotte

10-15-2006, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Your previous posts and this one are brilliant, MissO! I was reading on another site about the possible animal hair that was found on JB, and it wasn't traced to anything or anyone in the Ramsey home...so it couldn't have been off a paint brush since Patsy had more than one...what do you think it could be....could the perp have had a fleeced lined coat, or could he have had animal hairs on his jacket from his own pet at home? What's your thoughts and you other IDIs thoughts on this?

In Carnes' ruling against the Chris Wolf case she stated that animal hairs were found on the duct tape and on JonBenet's hands. (Can't get link to "cut & paste" for some reason.)

I think it is very possible that the intruder brought those hairs with him/her.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Your previous posts and this one are brilliant, MissO! I was reading on another site about the possible animal hair that was found on JB, and it wasn't traced to anything or anyone in the Ramsey home...so it couldn't have been off a paint brush since Patsy had more than one...what do you think it could be....could the perp have had a fleeced lined coat, or could he have had animal hairs on his jacket from his own pet at home? What's your thoughts and you other IDIs thoughts on this?

Thank you, LadyFisher, but I am stealing a lot from you, Athena, John Douglas, and others. :D

http://www.ntgi.net/ICCF&D/specfab.htm#beaver

Beaver
Characteristics: Mostly found in Europe and America. Soft, silky, shiny, lending itself to textile use.
Uses: Fur coats, trimming fur and fabric garments.

thewhitewitch1

10-15-2006, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Thank you, LadyFisher, but I am stealing a lot from you, Athena, John Douglas, and others. :D

http://www.ntgi.net/ICCF&D/specfab.htm#beaver

Beaver
Characteristics: Mostly found in Europe and America. Soft, silky, shiny, lending itself to textile use.
Uses: Fur coats, trimming fur and fabric garments.

I'm not IDI, sorry but how do you know that the paintbrushes weren't tested as a source for the animal hair?
Not many people know that some paintbrushes are made from beaver hair. I didn't know until I looked it up. Couldn't it be possible that the "bumbling" BPD never even considered this?

thewhitewitch1

10-15-2006, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
How many splinters did Patsy have? How many swollen fingers? How many broken nails?

MissO....who said the paintbrush was broken by hand? It could easily have been broken many other ways.

I don't have a problem with Patsy throwing herself on JB so much as I have a problem with her dramatic "Jesus raised Lazerus from the dead, please raise my baby" or words to that effect. Who on earth would utter such a phrase? Someone who practiced in their mind exactly what to say at such a time. IMO

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I'm not IDI, sorry but how do you know that the paintbrushes weren't tested as a source for the animal hair?
Not many people know that some paintbrushes are made from beaver hair. I didn't know until I looked it up. Couldn't it be possible that the "bumbling" BPD never even considered this?

This is the only answer I have, WW1:

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail03.asp?ID=25

Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. Carnes wrote that nothing in the Ramsey home was found matching the hair.

Other dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet’s hands that matched nothing in the Ramsey home, Carnes wrote.

sweetcharlotte

10-15-2006, 07:44 PM

It would seem they could have tested the hairs on JonBenet against the brushes in Patsy's paint tray, but I've never read anything about that being done. JMO

Which brings to mind a question - they said the paintbrush was broken into 3 pieces. Which piece was missing?

harz

10-15-2006, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

MissO....who said the paintbrush was broken by hand? It could easily have been broken many other ways.

I don't have a problem with Patsy throwing herself on JB so much as I have a problem with her dramatic "Jesus raised Lazerus from the dead, please raise my baby" or words to that effect. Who on earth would utter such a phrase? Someone who practiced in their mind exactly what to say at such a time. IMO

I had been wondering why one stick broken into 3 pieces? One broken piece missing used to poke into JB's vagina, second broken piece to use as garrote, and third piece left in paint tray. So how did the whole stick have broken into three pieces at the first place? Perhaps, in my theory, the stick got broken in 1/3 when it was used for poking JB’s vagina, then they broke other piece of 2/3 to use it for garrote, and left third broken piece back in tray because they got or plan to get rid of the first piece making it look like an intruder had it. So why not 2 whole paintbrush sticks, one for poking JB’s vagina and another for garroting? It would not work because BPD would have no idea how many paintbrush sticks exactly that Patsy had. So the same stick, with 1/3 of it missing, created a proof for BPD, since it was no were to be found, in order to blame supposedly intruder who took it with him. IMO

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 08:14 PM

Looking for paintbrush photo I found this. Third photo down in right column. Photo of right hand. Looks like discoloration on hand near wrist. I wonder if she was suspended at one point and the cord was in this position. Would explain why arms over head and why cord not tight in current position. Would, also, explain third loop.

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

MOO

harz

10-15-2006, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Looking for paintbrush photo I found this. Third photo down in right column. Photo of right hand. Looks like discoloration on hand near wrist. I wonder if she was suspended at one point and the cord was in this position. Would explain why arms over head and why cord not tight in current position. Also explains third loop.

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

MOO

This one?
http://crimeshots.com/0jonbenetring.jpeg
I don't know if that discoloration was caused by cord, did she had bracelet? Would bracelet cause that if someone grabbed on her wrist and dragged her? IMO

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 08:25 PM

WallyCleaver

10-15-2006, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

This is the only answer I have, WW1:

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail03.asp?ID=25

Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. Carnes wrote that nothing in the Ramsey home was found matching the hair.

Other dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet’s hands that matched nothing in the Ramsey home, Carnes wrote.

I recall seeing somewhere (sorry no link - probably on a talk board so not certain it's factual) that PR had a pair of fur lined boots that were taken from the home when her sister gathered up various and sundry unnecessary belongings.

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
what do you think it could be....could the perp have had a fleeced lined coat, or could he have had animal hairs on his jacket from his own pet at home? What's your thoughts and you other IDIs thoughts on this?

The hair was found only on her hands and on the tape that was on her mouth. It was thought to be beaver, which is used for trim and lining. I imagine you could make a stuffed animal out of it. What if she knew her killer? He woke her up and gave her a stuffed animal for Christmas. (And, of course, some pineapple.) She would have held it and kissed it. Just a thought.

thewhitewitch1

10-15-2006, 08:39 PM

Could it be that the paint brush was meant to be broken in half but broke into thirds accidentally? I can see this if someone stepped on it to break it. The missing piece (if there is one) could have easily been carried out in P's purse or hers or Johns pockets. IMO
I think JBs hands were over her head because that is the way she was placed when she died. There is evidence (scrapes on her legs) that indicated she was dragged.
Did the killer carry the stuffed toy in his kidnapping kit too? Sorry...had to go there. :D

LindaA

10-15-2006, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Then why, when Linda Arendt sent him and FW to search for clues to JB's disappearance, would he have tried that door "knowing" it was painted shut. ?
<Maybe it somehow looked different from the last time he had seen it. Maybe he figured he might as well give it a try as they were told to look everywhere.

LindaA

10-15-2006, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by harz

Don't forget about John Ramsey! I believe she had help. JR took shower that morning, wash away heavy dirty works he did while Patsy did handy things like writing note and probably handled the stick. After JB was found, Patsy threw herself on JB's body to explain away what was on her clothes. JMO
So Johnis guilty because he took a shower and Patsy is guilty because she did not. I see. That's quite logical.

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 08:45 PM

If he was wearing a hooded parka lined with beaver fur and she clawed at his face (male dna under fingernails), maybe she got some fur on her hands.

http://www.thecoatsource.com/womens/long_hair.htm

Beaver: Luxurious to the touch and incredibly warm. Long-hair or "unplucked" beaver is used in everything from classic coats to hooded parkas. A smart choice, beaver will stand the test of time and the elements -- beautifully.

Athena

10-15-2006, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I believe that TWW is mistaken about the policeman trying to open it. Because I read that JR had told them that it was painted shut, and wouldn't open...and so they never did even TRY to open it, because of that comment. Guess they figured that there would be no need to search, if the door wouldn't even open. IMO

Not true. French read the ransom note and IMMEDIATELY did a search of the house. He did not open the door and regrets to this day that he did not.

First page of Chapter 1 PMPT and here's a little blurb from Newsweek in 1998:

The Door the Cops Never Opened

P1
July 13, 1998 issue - It was the first mistake in a day of many. In the early morning of the day after Christmas 1996, Boulder, Colo., police officer Rick French responded to a frantic 911 call from a woman claiming her daughter had been kidnapped. It was just before 6 a.m. and still dark when he arrived at the Tudor home of John and Patsy Ramsey. French read the ransom note and later conducted a quick search of the house. In the basement, he came to a door secured with a wooden latch. According to police reports obtained by NEWSWEEK, he paused for a moment in front of the door—but walked away.

P2
In the police report French filed about the events that morning, he says he didn't open the door to the basement room because he was looking for exits the kidnapper might have used. He noticed the latch was on the wrong side for a door leading out of the house. So he kept moving.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14394982/site/newsweek/

thewhitewitch1

10-15-2006, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Ames

The policeman NEVER tried to open the door, because John had told him that it had been painted shut, and he felt that there wasn't any reason to try it. Okay, if JR said that because "he assumed it was still painted shut as it had been the last time he had knowledge of it", why did he ALSO try and discourage Fleet from entering that room?? Can't you see...he told the policeman that, to keep him OUT OF THAT ROOM. IMO

How could it be painted shut if the housekeeper and family members had been in there recently taking Christmas decorations out and hidden presents?? Obviously JR knew that the door was NOT painted shut...so, dear IDI's...why would he tell a policeman that it was?

Athena

10-15-2006, 08:55 PM

p7 PMPT (1st page of Chapter1)

Earlier, Rick French, the first police officer to respond to the mother's 911 call, had immediately searched the house for the child.

p21 PMPT

When Rick French, the first officer on the scene after Patsy's reporting of a kidnapping, later saw the spot where the body had been found, he remembered his search of the house in the early morning. In the first few minutes, French seeing where he stood that the door was latched, had thought there was no need to open it. Now he was baffled by his own decision.

The thought devastated him.

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 08:56 PM

I like the idea that the perp was wearing a hooded parka. That would answer a question brought up the other day on this board: if there was an intruder, why wasn't any of his hair found?

Athena

10-15-2006, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I like the idea that the perp was wearing a hooded parka. That would answer a question brought up the other day on this board: if there was an intruder, why wasn't any of his hair found?

Valid point and by the same token, Patsy had some length to her hair -- why wasn't any of her hair found if she were the perp?

harz

10-15-2006, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

So Johnis guilty because he took a shower and Patsy is guilty because she did not. I see. That's quite logical.

John had two reasons to take shower that morning, one he usually does shower in the mornings, second he was in basement where dust/dirt were as he might had been busy carry JB caused sweating.

What Patsy's excuses were, her shower was broken, so how did she clean herself on 24th, 23rd, 22nd, 21st, oh yeah what about the 20th too, or days before that? And why she didn't shower at the night of 25th so she ready for Michigan trip in the morning? Why did she decided to wait until the morning of 26th not to molest another bathroom with a shower that works in order to skip it? Dont ask me how illogical it is, I am not Patsy :) JMO

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
If he was wearing a hooded parka lined with beaver fur and she clawed at his face (male dna under fingernails), maybe she got some fur on her hands.

http://www.thecoatsource.com/womens/long_hair.htm

Beaver: Luxurious to the touch and incredibly warm. Long-hair or "unplucked" beaver is used in everything from classic coats to hooded parkas. A smart choice, beaver will stand the test of time and the elements -- beautifully.

And then he pulled her hands away from his face, transferring some of the beaver hair onto his hands, zapped her with the stun gun, knocking her out, and then put the duct tape over her mouth, transferring a hair to the tape.

Answer to the RDI question, "Oh yeah! :rolleyes: Well, then, why didn't she scream, while she was clawing at him?" Because she had a pillow over her face. Once she lost consciousness from the stun gun, he removed it and put it at the foot of the bed.

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Valid point and by the same token, Patsy had some length to her hair -- why wasn't any of her hair found if she were the perp?

Hmmmmmmmm.

harz

10-15-2006, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

And then he pulled her hands away from his face, transferring some of the beaver hair onto his hands, zapped her with the stun gun, knocking her out, and then put the duct tape over her mouth, transferring a hair to the tape.

Answer to the RDI question, "Oh yeah! :rolleyes: Well, then, why didn't she scream, while she was clawing at him?" Because she had a pillow over her face. Once she lost consciousness from the stun gun, he removed it and put it at the foot of the bed.

Do you remember where excatly the marks were? They were on JB's back and right side of face near her ear. How could she got stunned in back while clawing at him? It seems to me she was stunned in the same matter as garrote from behind. Why not stun her on her chest? JMO

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by harz

Do you remember where excatly the marks were? They were on JB's back and right side of face near her ear. How could she got stunned in back while clawing at him? It seems to me she was stunned in the same matter as garrote from behind. Why not stun her on her chest? JMO

I don't know, harz. I was just trying to get the animal hair onto JB's hands and the duct tape without it being anyplace else. But, if, when he approached the bed, she woke up and he forced the pillow over her face to prevent her from screaming, she clawed blindly at him and he grabbed her wrists and put them both in his right hand, at the same time forcing the pillow down on her face with his right hand, he could have zapped her right cheek with the stun gun in his left hand. Then, when she passed out, put the pillow at the foot of the bed.

MaryD

10-15-2006, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

And then he pulled her hands away from his face, transferring some of the beaver hair onto his hands, zapped her with the stun gun, knocking her out, and then put the duct tape over her mouth, transferring a hair to the tape.

Answer to the RDI question, "Oh yeah! :rolleyes: Well, then, why didn't she scream, while she was clawing at him?" Because she had a pillow over her face. Once she lost consciousness from the stun gun, he removed it and put it at the foot of the bed.

One problemo, the tape was put over her mouth after she was already dead based on the forensic info. Also, when did he give her the pinapple? And, last but not least it was pretty moist outside that night so I would think some dirt from his shoes would be somewhere in that house, no?

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by harz

This one?
http://crimeshots.com/0jonbenetring.jpeg
I don't know if that discoloration was caused by cord, did she had bracelet? Would bracelet cause that if someone grabbed on her wrist and dragged her? IMO

John Walsh on LKL

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/04/lkl.00.html

She allowed the father and his friend to search the house. So he cuts down JonBenet, who is hanging down there. He compromised the crime scene, whether he had anything to do with it or he had nothing to do with it, he cut down his daughter in the crime scene with the DNA.

thewhitewitch1

10-15-2006, 10:34 PM

The search warrant on Dec 26 clearly states that John Fernie went into the basement with FR and FW.
http://www.acandyrose.com/12261996warrant03.gif

Why does JR not include John Fernie in his version?

DOI (HB) Page 21:

"Morning drifts into afternoon, and still no phone call. The frustration of waiting for the kidnapper to contact us becomes unbearable. Finally, Detective Linda Arndt asks me to take one person, go through the entire house, and look for anything unusual or out of place."

"I want to do anything I can to help, so I agree. I don't stop to think that we should not be allowed to roam around the house with a police officer present - much less search the entire house by ourselves. After all, it's my home. I live here. And I assume a police detective knows how to professional handle this kind of situation."
"Fleet White is standing next to me, so I ask him to go with me. Fleet is my friend and a father himself. Fleet can help."

How and why is John Fernie left out of virtually every discussion of that event?
I have a lot of questions regarding John Fernie now, the more that I read about him. I am not suggesting that he killed JB, but maybe JR confided something to him. What with the door was open...no - it was locked, how JF read the note that was upside down through the door and now the lack of mentioning that he also went into the basement when JB was found...all make for some pretty weird stuff. If JR killed JB, could JF have someone been in on it? Or, as I feel pretty strongly that Burke was involved; did JR confide what really happened to him?
I have also read that John Fernie drove Fleet and Burke to the Whites house, stopping to pick up his own kids on the way but most accounts make it sound like Fleet took Burke by himself.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by MaryD

One problemo, the tape was put over her mouth after she was already dead based on the forensic info. Also, when did he give her the pinapple? And, last but not least it was pretty moist outside that night so I would think some dirt from his shoes would be somewhere in that house, no?

Was she dead or merely unconscious, when the tape was put on?

I can't answer your other two questions, Mary.

harz

10-15-2006, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

John Walsh on LKL

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/04/lkl.00.html

She allowed the father and his friend to search the house. So he cuts down JonBenet, who is hanging down there. He compromised the crime scene, whether he had anything to do with it or he had nothing to do with it, he cut down his daughter in the crime scene with the DNA.

Interesting, so what did he cut down his daughter with? How did he cut the cord? with Burke's Swiss knife that they had be so denial about? JMO

Louisadelmar

10-15-2006, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by harz

Interesting, so what did he cut down his daughter with? How did he cut the cord? with Burke's Swiss knife that they had be so denial about? JMO

I think Walsh simply misspoke. Maybe he had this case tangled with another in his mind. If she'd been hanging for even half an hour it would have been obvious.

Ames

10-15-2006, 11:30 PM

kayyak

10-15-2006, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

Burke was only nine years old. Do you think he could have kept from letting out some secrets from that night?

Since JonBenet was usually in the limelight; I think that the Ramsey's trained Burke to not tell ANYTHING that was happening in the family.

You know what I mean. "Don't tell anything that goes on in the family because it will be in the papers and blown out of proportion kind of thing."

It would be easy for Burke to just not say anything to implicate himself or his parents. He was already trained to keep "quiet".

harz

10-15-2006, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

I think Walsh simply misspoke. Maybe he had this case tangled with another in his mind. If she'd been hanging for even half an hour it would have been obvious.

I agree, I was surprised about it after we know that JR found JB laying on floor in wine cellar. Never seen or read anything about JB being hanged before. Yeah simply misspoken. IMO

Ames

10-15-2006, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

How could it be painted shut if the housekeeper and family members had been in there recently taking Christmas decorations out and hidden presents?? Obviously JR knew that the door was NOT painted shut...so, dear IDI's...why would he tell a policeman that it was?

TWW...the IDI people are saying that I need to post a link to that info., problem with that...is that I DID. In the article it stated..."It was reported that John Ramsey had told a policeman that the door had been painted shut". To all of you IDI folks...I am not the one lying here. WHY would a POLICEMAN report that JOHN RAMSEY said that, when he didn't?? The reason that he told the policeman that, was to keep him from finding JB's body. IMO

Ames

10-16-2006, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Athena
Ames, TWW and Mimi -- you guys have gotten carried away with the misinformation posted just in the last couple of responses I see on this last page.

I for one would really appreciate you posting links to what you state as facts. I take the time to research what I post as facts (and so do many other IDIs) with links to the credible sources they come from and would expect the same from the RDIs. I've posted before and said that the RDIs do not provide credible links when stating things as facts. This has really got to stop. Hate me all you want but we can have the thread shut down just because of this. Providing links stating facts are the rules of this board.

When did JR tell French that he painted the door shut and that is why French did not open it?

When did JR try to stop Fleet from searching ANY part of the house?

Show me a credible link where it says JR went straight to the wine cellar when he entered the basement upon Arndt's request?

TIA

http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

MissOtisRegrets

10-16-2006, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

I think Walsh simply misspoke. Maybe he had this case tangled with another in his mind. If she'd been hanging for even half an hour it would have been obvious.

Thanks, Louisa. And thanks for that link with the Linda Arndt deposition. Wow. She made a will out of fear John Ramsey was going to murder her. And thought Sgt. Wickman and Eller capable of it, too. :chicken:

thewhitewitch1

10-16-2006, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Athena
Ames, TWW and Mimi -- you guys have gotten carried away with the misinformation posted just in the last couple of responses I see on this last page.

I for one would really appreciate you posting links to what you state as facts. I take the time to research what I post as facts (and so do many other IDIs) with links to the credible sources they come from and would expect the same from the RDIs. I've posted before and said that the RDIs do not provide credible links when stating things as facts. This has really got to stop. Hate me all you want but we can have the thread shut down just because of this. Providing links stating facts are the rules of this board.

I usually do provide links so don't accuse me of not doing so. I do provide credible links and so do the others you mentioned.
I am sorry that I didn't provide one about the door being painted shut, as I had just remembered it and forgot where I had seen the information.
I research everything very thoroughly, thank you very much and I do not provide links to crap like rag mags.
There are many times IDIs don't provide links either. I'd say we're about equal.

Eagle1

10-16-2006, 06:09 AM

Several years ago at some other forums, and I don't remember if also at this one, we discussed the male houseguests from California belonging to a Kali Cult.

Does anyone remember the details?

Someone at WS says one of the guests was watching "Nick of Time", and that Kali is goodess of death and of time, quite a coincidence. There were lots of cults in Boulder. I don't know if this was a Video or on TV.

bullmoose

10-16-2006, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Eagle1 Didn't the term thug come from the term thugees, the devotees of Kali? I believe that they were notorious in India up into the !800's for their brutal murders of innocent people by strangulation. The murder victims, generally lulled into a sense of security by the thugees before their murders, which were considered to be offerings, sacrifices to Kali. The British authorities strongly discouraged the cult by hanging those found responsible for the murders.
Several years ago at some other forums, and I don't remember if also at this one, we discussed the male houseguests from California belonging to a Kali Cult.

Does anyone remember the details?

Someone at WS says one of the guests was watching "Nick of Time", and that Kali is goodess of death and of time, quite a coincidence. There were lots of cults in Boulder. I don't know if this was a Video or on TV.

MyrDawn

10-16-2006, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

So Johnis guilty because he took a shower and Patsy is guilty because she did not. I see. That's quite logical.

:lol:

That's exactly what I was thinking!

LadyFisher

10-16-2006, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

This is the only answer I have, WW1:

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail03.asp?ID=25

Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. Carnes wrote that nothing in the Ramsey home was found matching the hair.

Other dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet’s hands that matched nothing in the Ramsey home, Carnes wrote. Thanks, MissO....I'm only speculating here, but the perp probably didn't buy his clothes at Walmart....maybe I am on the right track thinking it was a former business associates son! For you IDIs that have read JD's book.......do you all remember him telling John he probably had the perp as a guest more than once in his home? Is it possible he was at the party before Christmas? Just wondering outloud! :seeya:

LadyFisher

10-16-2006, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Thanks, Louisa. And thanks for that link with the Linda Arndt deposition. Wow. She made a will out of fear John Ramsey was going to murder her. And thought Sgt. Wickman and Eller capable of it, too. :chicken: Wow, I haven't had a chance to read that yet...gotta skedattle over to that link and read it!

Ames

10-16-2006, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Originally posted by Athena
Ames, TWW and Mimi -- you guys have gotten carried away with the misinformation posted just in the last couple of responses I see on this last page.

I for one would really appreciate you posting links to what you state as facts. I take the time to research what I post as facts (and so do many other IDIs) with links to the credible sources they come from and would expect the same from the RDIs. I've posted before and said that the RDIs do not provide credible links when stating things as facts. This has really got to stop. Hate me all you want but we can have the thread shut down just because of this. Providing links stating facts are the rules of this board.

I usually do provide links so don't accuse me of not doing so. I do provide credible links and so do the others you mentioned.
I am sorry that I didn't provide one about the door being painted shut, as I had just remembered it and forgot where I had seen the information.
I research everything very thoroughly, thank you very much and I do not provide links to crap like rag mags.
There are many times IDIs don't provide links either. I'd say we're about equal.

Have you ever noticed that the IDI say to provide a credible source....but when you do, its never good enough? I think I understand now....what they REALLY mean by credible link, is one that agrees with their IDI theory. IMO

Ames

10-16-2006, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

:lol:

That's exactly what I was thinking!

This quote is directed to LindaA...not you MyrDawn....I posted in the wrong place....sorry about that.

Quit putting words into my mouth...I never EVER said that Patsy not taking a shower made her guilty....its ONE OF MANY THINGS that make her look guilty, because I think that she never made it to bed that night. IMO

Athena

10-16-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Have you ever noticed that the IDI say to provide a credible source....but when you do, its never good enough? I think I understand now....what they REALLY mean by credible link, is one that agrees with their IDI theory. IMO

LOL Crime Magazine is not a reliable source. If these are the kinds of things you are reading to get your information now I understand why there is so much misinformation. All of those articles in there have quoted earlier reports that were erroneously leaked to the tabloids. I consider credible sources legal documents such as search warrants, transcripts, interviews, depositions and the one book that is non-biased which is PMPT.

Just reading this article indicates that they are feeding off rumor. Note the keywords "reportedly". The quote from the search warrant is accurate but also note that it does NOT say JR went directly to the "wine cellar" but to the basement.

From your link:
http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

First, this "wine room" is the same room where, earlier in the day, Ramsey reportedly told a policeman the door had been painted shut. There have also been published reports to the effect that Fleet White has said Ramsey tried to discourage him from looking in that room.

From search warrant: John Ramsey immediately went to the basement of the house, followed by Fleet White and John Fernie. Within a few minutes, Fleet came running upstairs, grabbed the telephone in the back office located on the first floor, and yelled for someone to call for an ambulance.

jmo

The truth about Officer French and the wine cellar door:

p7 PMPT (1st page of Chapter1)

Earlier, Rick French, the first police officer to respond to the mother's 911 call, had immediately searched the house for the child.

p21 PMPT

When Rick French, the first officer on the scene after Patsy's reporting of a kidnapping, later saw the spot where the body had been found, he remembered his search of the house in the early morning. In the first few minutes, French seeing where he stood that the door was latched, had thought there was no need to open it. Now he was baffled by his own decision.

The thought devastated him.

thewhitewitch1

10-17-2006, 12:42 AM

Athena...that is probably where I read that the door was painted shut too. I have to agree that a magazine is not a good source for reliable information. I don't even trust PM/PT. I rely on the transcripts, interviews (LE or TV interviews w/Ramseys) and DOI for my info. I was not positive about the "painted shut" door because I couldn't remember the source so thanks for clearing that up.

Athena

10-17-2006, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Athena...that is probably where I read that the door was painted shut too. I have to agree that a magazine is not a good source for reliable information. I don't even trust PM/PT. I rely on the transcripts, interviews (LE or TV interviews w/Ramseys) and DOI for my info. I was not positive about the "painted shut" door because I couldn't remember the source so thanks for clearing that up.

I hear you. Found a couple of minor things tht appear inaccurate but for the most part much of what is stated in PMPT has been corroborated.

I'm still looking for anything on John Fernie and still can't find anything that says he went into the basement although it does say that in the search warrant. I wonder if he maybe followed and just kind of stayed on the landing or something? Now that is really bugging me out. The only thing I can think of is wasn't he involved with the pick up of the money? Maybe that's where is was. Am going to read the pages on him in PMPT - see what I can find as I just do not remember. :confused:

LindaA

10-17-2006, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Ames

This quote is directed to LindaA...not you MyrDawn....I posted in the wrong place....sorry about that.

Quit putting words into my mouth...I never EVER said that Patsy not taking a shower made her guilty....its ONE OF MANY THINGS that make her look guilty, because I think that she never made it to bed that night. IMO

Ames, this song is not about you. I was speaking to Harz about the shower business.

nuisanceposter

10-17-2006, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Athena...that is probably where I read that the door was painted shut too. I have to agree that a magazine is not a good source for reliable information. I don't even trust PM/PT. I rely on the transcripts, interviews (LE or TV interviews w/Ramseys) and DOI for my info. I was not positive about the "painted shut" door because I couldn't remember the source so thanks for clearing that up.

I would consider PM/PT to be more likely to be a reliable source of factual information than DOI. DOI is really good for insight into how the Rs themselves thought and felt, and why they did what they did, but they've contradicted themselves in interviews and come up with a good amount of total lack of recall and vague if any memory over key issues that I don't think their book can be trusted to relay solid proven factual information about their daughter's murder investigation. They have reason to obscure facts, and take advantage of the opportunity. IMO.

thewhitewitch1

10-17-2006, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I would consider PM/PT to be more likely to be a reliable source of factual information than DOI. DOI is really good for insight into how the Rs themselves thought and felt, and why they did what they did, but they've contradicted themselves in interviews and come up with a good amount of total lack of recall and vague if any memory over key issues that I don't think their book can be trusted to relay solid proven factual information about their daughter's murder investigation. They have reason to obscure facts, and take advantage of the opportunity. IMO.

I know nuisanceposter but I compare DOI to the interviews and other official transcripts. I know how they have inconsistancies in their stories but I take DOI at face value because they had time to think before it went to print...and then go back to their interviews and that is exactly what makes me feel they are guilty...because of the ever-changing stories...no matter how small the inconsistancies are.
I will still finish reading PM/PT though.

Ames

10-18-2006, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by LindaA

Ames, this song is not about you. I was speaking to Harz about the shower business.

Gotcha...I was just responding, because I agreed with Harz.

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Athena

MsOtis - There are also conflicting reports of when she could have eaten the pineapple -- if it was in fact pineapple. Experts have said she could have eaten it as early as dinner at the Whites and others say 1-2 hours???? Take your pick. :shrug:

Your fight or flight response to fear slows down your digestive tract.

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed
"According to the specialists, her head injury had likely come first. The injury to the head was fully developed, which meant that her heart had beaten for some time after the blow. Also, the bruise to her brain did not immediately shut down all activity in JB's body. The specialists estimated that ten to forty-five minutes might have elapsed between the blow to her head and the cessation of JB's vital function...."

(Page 558, PM/PT)

They theorized that more bleeding and swelling did not occur because the strangulation interruped the flow of blood to her brain.

Some pathologists, of course, believe the head injury came last, but the general consensus is that it came first.

There must be evidence then that is not in the autopsy report because there is no swelling and very little blood. the injury to her brain was more like shaking would cause than a blow like her skull had IMOO.

shill

10-22-2006, 05:46 AM

The Ramseys Did it.
It was an accident, but they where afraid no one would believe it was an accident. So they staged this whole elaberate kidnapping so they could plea insanity in court to escape a prison sentence.
And to prove to the DA and Jurors that they really are crazy, they stuffed the body in their own wine cellar instead of getting rid of it.

nuisanceposter

10-22-2006, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by FurthurBB

There must be evidence then that is not in the autopsy report because there is no swelling and very little blood. the injury to her brain was more like shaking would cause than a blow like her skull had IMOO.

Narrowed sulci and flattened gyri is from her brain swelling. The head wound was fully developed with three areas of pooled blood (one of them covering almost the entire hemisphere), proving her heart was beating when she was hit on the head and it continued to beat at least ten minutes after she was hit on the head.

thewhitewitch1

10-23-2006, 02:36 AM

Barbra Walters interview:

JOHN RAMSEY That's a very strange… that nightgown should not have been there. It's it's a clue of some type. We don't know what. Look, we know several very positive facts about this killer we believe. It's a male. (PAUSE) It's a pedophile that looks at young… female children much differently than you and I do. They look at 'em with sexual uh eyes. I thought about it every day for 3 years. I've talked to experts. I've talked to experienced homicide detectives. (LONG PAUSE) It's the best profile we can come up with.

BARBARA WALTERS So, could there have been an intruder? Coming up, a mysterious shoe print, a palm print, DNA material — and we'll show you the curious marks on the little girl's body — evidence that raised intriguing questions about who killed JonBenet. If not the Ramseys… then who?

BARBARA WALTERS, ABCNEWS
In 1998, the top two detectives on the Ramsey case quit in protest. Police detective Steve Thomas said he left because he felt the Ramseys should have been arrested. The chief investigator for the DA's office resigned because he felt the investigation unfairly focused on the parents. His name is Lou Smith.

BARBARA WALTERS (V/O) Lou Smit is probably the most experienced homicide detective in Colorado. He was brought into the Ramsey case by the District Attorney after the DA's office lost confidence in the Boulder Police Department. Smit developed his own theory of the case that widened the gap with the police department: he became convinced that a stun gun, like this one, was used on JonBenet. A stun gun delivers an electric shock that incapacitates the victim. Smit noticed marks, reproduced in this sketch, on the autopsy photographs of JonBenet's body. The autopsy report referred to them simply as "abrasions," but they reminded Smit of a previous stun gun case. There were two sets of marks on JonBenet's body, and when Smit calibrated their measurements, he felt they matched up with this popular stun gun model, the Air Taser.

BARBARA WALTERS He felt the Stun gun was used and that's what kept JonBenet quiet. But there is no proof of that.

JOHN RAMSEY Well I have not heard any expert disagree with that theory first of all.

BARBARA WALTERS [OVERLAP] Well some of, some of the Police do not think there was a Stun gun.

JOHN RAMSEY Well I don't consider the Boulder Police experts in homicides. That's one of the problems we've been dealing with.

PATSY RAMSEY The Police don't like that theory because it doesn't match up with the parents did it. If the parents wanted to bring their child to a basement quietly they wouldn't have to use a Stun gun. They would just say, come on, we're gonna go to the basement… for a surprise or something. You know that doesn't fit their theory that John or I were involved.

BARBARA WALTERS Why wasn't the body exhumed?

JOHN RAMSEY (PAUSE) Don't know why the Police didn't consider that. Uh we were asked… when this theory first surfaced about a Stun gun that if the body were exhumed… it could be proved conclusively but it had to be done fairly quickly. This was… within months of when we'd just buried JonBenet. And I, as her father, could not bring myself to do that. I had laid my child to rest. She was at peace. And that was a that decision I couldn't make.

BARBARA WALTERS Even though it might have cleared you?

JOHN RAMSEY It wasn't… that was not the priority. The priority was my child was at rest.

First....why would John say that the nightgown "should not be there"? WHY should it not be there? What would compell him to make such a statement?
Secondly, I find the Ramseys priorities disturbing. They didn't want to be formally questioned because their priority was to bury their daughter. They didn't want to exhume her body because it was their priority that she was at rest. At what point did it become their priority to find the murderer of their child? Logic dictates that you start looking and co-operating the moment the crime occurs while evidence is still fresh. You don't wait for months to start helping the police when the killer is probably long gone. I suppose it wouldn't be such a priority if there actually was no killer/intruder to be found. IMO

bullmoose

10-23-2006, 04:12 AM

Think about it ww1: When Smit came up with the strong idea that a stun gun was used on Jonbenet from the marks seen during the autopsy; the BPD cops on the case made no effort to have the body exhumed to check the tissue; why, because it didn't fit their theory that the Ramseys did it. If they had been following the evidence to see where it took them ,they could have gotten an exhumation order easily enough. It was not the Ramseys' responsibility to prove the use of a taser by digging up their daughter, it was the BPD's responsibility to check out Smit's theory. But they didn't; so its not the fault of the grief-stricken parents who didn't want to disturb their murdered child's rest; it is instead the fault of the tunnel-visioned Keystone Kops that didn't want to chance disproving their RDI investigation. IMHO

shill

10-23-2006, 06:28 AM

Why would you need a stun gun to incapacitate a 45lb 6yr old girl with her mouth taped shut?

It's bad enough they popped her skull out of her head and took pictures of it, but to dig her body up after months, for evidence that at the most might imply the presence of an intruder, is asking to much.

Besides, RDI people would just say the Ramseys used a stun gun on JB to make it look like an intruder did it.

bullmoose

10-23-2006, 07:00 AM

you might use a stun gun on a sleeping child to insure her being unconcious while moving her down from her bedroom, maybe using apillow to muffle the sound; then apply the black duct tape to keep her from crying out if she came around. I myself think that the BPD or the DA's office should have ordered an exhumation to check the possible taser marks while they could. A stun gun would shock nearly the life out of 45 pound girl, more than one shock might leave her probably helpless for some time, long enough to garrotte her in the fashion that she was. Who , but a monster could be so heartless?

thewhitewitch1

10-23-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
you might use a stun gun on a sleeping child to insure her being unconcious while moving her down from her bedroom, maybe using apillow to muffle the sound; then apply the black duct tape to keep her from crying out if she came around. I myself think that the BPD or the DA's office should have ordered an exhumation to check the possible taser marks while they could. A stun gun would shock nearly the life out of 45 pound girl, more than one shock might leave her probably helpless for some time, long enough to garrotte her in the fashion that she was. Who , but a monster could be so heartless?

I think they should have ordered for her body to be exhumed too but my bet is that the Ramseys would fight it. I guess they knew by then what money and "The Ramsey Team" were capable of.
I understand that it would be difficult emotionally to have your child exhumed, but if doing so was going to help catch a murderer, you would think that the Ramseys would have allowed it. As I said before, it's not like they were or had to be present for it. They believed "that she was in a better place"....so the "better place" is in a hole in the ground? As Christians, surely they believed that her soul had moved on and what was in her grave was just a shell. This is what Christians are supposed to believe. I am not buying the "disturbing her peace" excuse. Sorry.

On another note....would an IDI please comment on why JR would say that "the barbie nightgown shouldn't be there"? It sounds like a freudian slip to me. To say "we don't understand the significance of her nightgown being there" or words to that effect is understandable but to state that it shouldn't have been there was almost like admitting you were there and you couldn't understand how it got there because you didn't PUT it there. IMO

Louisadelmar

10-23-2006, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

[...]
On another note....would an IDI please comment on why JR would say that "the barbie nightgown shouldn't be there"? It sounds like a freudian slip to me. To say "we don't understand the significance of her nightgown being there" or words to that effect is understandable but to state that it shouldn't have been there was almost like admitting you were there and you couldn't understand how it got there because you didn't PUT it there. IMO

I looked for barbie in the John interviews I have (1997, 1998 2000, 2001 and Wolf) and couldn't find your quote. Do you know what interview that came from? Thanks.

WallyCleaver

10-23-2006, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by shill
Why would you need a stun gun to incapacitate a 45lb 6yr old girl with her mouth taped shut?

It's bad enough they popped her skull out of her head and took pictures of it, but to dig her body up after months, for evidence that at the most might imply the presence of an intruder, is asking to much.

Besides, RDI people would just say the Ramseys used a stun gun on JB to make it look like an intruder did it.

Evidence of a stun gun would seem to give more than a mere implication of an intruder. If the R's were really serious about finding this killer why would exhumation be too much?

Louisadelmar

10-23-2006, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Evidence of a stun gun would seem to give more than a mere implication of an intruder. If the R's were really serious about finding this killer why would exhumation be too much?

Personally I would have exhumed her since it would have strengthened the case for my innocence. Schiller suggests that is why BPD cancelled the exhumation at the 11th hour. I'm not sure it would have been particularly helpful in finding the killer.

gotta go...

Athena

10-23-2006, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

Personally I would have exhumed her since it would have strengthened the case for my innocence. Schiller suggests that is why BPD cancelled the exhumation at the 11th hour. I'm not sure it would have been particularly helpful in finding the killer.

gotta go...

I understand what you are saying Wally; but in all fairness to the Ramseys they were not just exhuming just a "body" but their little girl who had been laid to rest and I believe that if it really could have assisted in catching the killer perhaps they would have but so what if the abrasions were caused by a stun gun or not -- I don't think it proves anything either way unless it would have been a stun gun then had to be registered. Even that might have not made a difference as you wouldn't know how many times and between whom that stun gun could have exhanged hands (no different than a gun that shoots bullets).

The BPD could have obtained a court order if they believed it would have really assisted the investigation but as Louisa says Schiller states in his book the BPD cancelled it; probably determined it wouldn't make a difference. jmo

Anyway - verbage re: expert's opinions on stun gun. Note Deters' opinion re: exhumation of the body.

"When they had gathered sufficient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wickman met with the coroner, John Meyer. After reviewing the photos and this new information, Meyer concluded that the injuries on JonBenet's face and back were, in fact, consistent with those produced by a stun gun who had been directly involved with a murder that involved a stun gun.

Ainsworth met with Dr. Robert Deters a pathologist on the case of a 13 month old girl from Larimer County who had been murdered in 1988. Deters examined the photos of JBR and agreed that the marks were consistent with a stun gun injury but he did not think the body had to be exhumed. [/B]Deters believed that nothing more could be learned by examing the skin tissue.[/B]"

Source: PMPT p431

shill

10-23-2006, 06:30 PM

On another note....would an IDI please comment on why JR would say that "the barbie nightgown shouldn't be there"?

JB's body shouldn't be there either.
That Barbie nightgown was suppose to be in JB's room, like JB should have been, and shouldn't have been there.

If one of us posting here wrote: "The Barbie nightgown shouldn't be there", we wouldn't seem suspicious at all.

You will see what you want to see when your eyes are closed.

WallyCleaver

10-23-2006, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I understand what you are saying Wally; but in all fairness to the Ramseys they were not just exhuming just a "body" but their little girl who had been laid to rest and I believe that if it really could have assisted in catching the killer perhaps they would have but so what if the abrasions were caused by a stun gun or not -- I don't think it proves anything either way unless it would have been a stun gun then had to be registered. Even that might have not made a difference as you wouldn't know how many times and between whom that stun gun could have exhanged hands (no different than a gun that shoots bullets).

The BPD could have obtained a court order if they believed it would have really assisted the investigation but as Louisa says Schiller states in his book the BPD cancelled it; probably determined it wouldn't make a difference. jmo

Anyway - verbage re: expert's opinions on stun gun. Note Deters' opinion re: exhumation of the body.

"When they had gathered sufficient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wickman met with the coroner, John Meyer. After reviewing the photos and this new information, Meyer concluded that the injuries on JonBenet's face and back were, in fact, consistent with those produced by a stun gun who had been directly involved with a murder that involved a stun gun.

Ainsworth met with Dr. Robert Deters a pathologist on the case of a 13 month old girl from Larimer County who had been murdered in 1988. Deters examined the photos of JBR and agreed that the marks were consistent with a stun gun injury but he did not think the body had to be exhumed. Deters believed that nothing more could be learned by examing the skin tissue.[/B]"

Source: PMPT p431 [/B]

Just to be clear, Athena, the quote at the top of your post is from Louisadelmar.

IMO, if the Rs really cared about catching the killer, they'd have exhumed just to prove the marks could be stun gun marks.

I agree the police probably didn't think it would prove much, or else they'd have gone ahead with it.

thewhitewitch1

10-23-2006, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by shill
On another note....would an IDI please comment on why JR would say that "the barbie nightgown shouldn't be there"?

JB's body shouldn't be there either.
That Barbie nightgown was suppose to be in JB's room, like JB should have been, and shouldn't have been there.

If one of us posting here wrote: "The Barbie nightgown shouldn't be there", we wouldn't seem suspicious at all.

You will see what you want to see when your eyes are closed.

I think you need to add an IMO there, Shill.
No crap her body wasn't supposed to be there but he didn't say that. He didn't say that the blanket wasn't supposed to be there either. He was talking about the murder scene when he said that the blanket wasn't supposed to be there.
I found the comment very strange.
We are discussing a murder in this forum. Don't try to assume what I think or that my "eyes are closed". Some might say the same of you. I am allowed to comment and ask questions, even though my view may differ from yours on who the murderer is. Your comments serve no purpose for a discussion in a forum. IMO

thewhitewitch1

10-23-2006, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

I looked for barbie in the John interviews I have (1997, 1998 2000, 2001 and Wolf) and couldn't find your quote. Do you know what interview that came from? Thanks.

Here you go, Louisa:

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03172000ramseyonbarbarawalters.htm

Athena

10-23-2006, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

<snip>

On another note....would an IDI please comment on why JR would say that "the barbie nightgown shouldn't be there"? It sounds like a freudian slip to me. To say "we don't understand the significance of her nightgown being there" or words to that effect is understandable but to state that it shouldn't have been there was almost like admitting you were there and you couldn't understand how it got there because you didn't PUT it there. IMO

I don't think it would have to be an IDI to try to explain what he meant :) but ....anyway I just read the article you posted the link to on the next page. From what I gather him saying "the Barbie nightgown" shouldn't be there means that it just looked out of place. It doesn't seem to "fit the crime". He says he feels it is some kind of clue but doesn't know what.

In one of his interviews he says it does not look like JBRs nightgown but one that came off of a large Barbie Doll.

Read it again.

thewhitewitch1

10-23-2006, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I don't think it would have to be an IDI to try to explain what he meant :) but ....anyway I just read the article you posted the link to on the next page. From what I gather him saying "the Barbie nightgown" shouldn't be there means that it just looked out of place. It doesn't seem to "fit the crime". He says he feels it is some kind of clue but doesn't know what.

In one of his interviews he says it does not look like JBRs nightgown but one that came off of a large Barbie Doll.

Read it again.

Athena, I know that the nightgown was thought to have come off the large Barbie doll.
I guess we interprut what he meant by that comment differently. I just don't understand how he could judge that it "did not fit the crime". What did "fit the crime"? Of course he thinks it's a clue. I think it's a clue too. I think it's a clue that the nightgown was stuck to the blanket and that's why "it shouldn't be there". Is he suggesting that the killer put it there on purpose? Why? I fail to see how it could be a clue from the killer. If the nightgown was stuck to the blanket by static, it could indicate that it came from the dryer (and I think it was) and there is no way an intruder is going to go rooting through the dryer in search of a blanket that he could not even know would be there. IMO
I base my thoughts on the fact that the blanket looked like it had never been on the bed...or was taken very carefully off the bed and then the bed was partly remade (comforter turned down). I base this on Patsy stating that the blanket was an "oversized" twin blanket and the housekeeper saying that the blanket was kept tucked in and that the comforter would have to come off to get the blanket off or it would pull the comforter off with it.
Also, the housekeeper said that she had changed the sheets on Monday and that the sheets in the crime scene pictures were not the same sheets that she put on so the bed must have been changed between Monday and Wednesday. Patsy emphatically denied JB wet the bed on Christmas Eve because she was wearing the same pink pajamas Christmas morning. That means that if she had wet the bed at all, it had to have been the night of the 26th. Patsy had stated that if JB was not woken up to use the bathroom some time in the night, the chances were good that she would probably wet the bed. She was put to bed without using the bathroom. I think there was enough time for the sheets to have been changed and washed, as well as the blanket. The washed sheets could just have easily been folded and put away and no one would be the wiser (except the housekeeper!). IMO

Athena

10-23-2006, 09:31 PM

TWW: You believe he was guilty so you could read all of the other points into that one statement.

I was merely interpreting the statement he made in the context that he made it. :shrug:

You are correct when you say we interpret what we read differently. I have said to you before it's almost like we are reading different articles, statements, whatever and I'm really not so sure it has anything to do with being RDI, IDI. It is how we comprehend what we are reading. I just don't interpret the way you did and I really don't understand how you came up with your interpretation; your post:

"It sounds like a freudian slip to me. To say "we don't understand the significance of her nightgown being there" or words to that effect is understandable but to state that it shouldn't have been there was almost like admitting you were there and you couldn't understand how it got there because you didn't PUT it there. IMO"

thewhitewitch1

10-23-2006, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Athena
TWW: You believe he was guilty so you could read all of the other points into that one statement.

I was merely interpreting the statement he made in the context that he made it. :shrug:

You are correct when you say we interpret what we read differently. I have said to you before it's almost like we are reading different articles, statements, whatever and I'm really not so sure it has anything to do with being RDI, IDI. It is how we comprehend what we are reading. I just don't interpret the way you did and I really don't understand how you came up with your interpretation; your post:

"It sounds like a freudian slip to me. To say "we don't understand the significance of her nightgown being there" or words to that effect is understandable but to state that it shouldn't have been there was almost like admitting you were there and you couldn't understand how it got there because you didn't PUT it there. IMO"

I guess I don't know how to explain it any better. I read the statement and it raised a red flag. Since you are IDI, it would not raise a flag with you. You have no suspicions about the Ramseys and I do so you are not going to question anything they say. IMO

Athena

10-23-2006, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I guess I don't know how to explain it any better. I read the statement and it raised a red flag. Since you are IDI, it would not raise a flag with you. You have no suspicions about the Ramseys and I do so you are not going to question anything they say. IMO

There was nothing that threw up a red flag to me. He basically said the Barbie nightgown looked out of place; he believes the killer left it there deliberately. Why would that throw up a red flag? Again -- we are interpreting what he said in this case very differently.

Not sure you know this -- but I can assure you at one time I was all RDI until I started doing a tremendous amount of research which contradicted most of what I was led to believe. I went from RDI, to on the fence to IDI but that has happened over a 10 year period.

The one thing that was proven to me in this case is that gut feelings can be totally wrong.

Brings to mind a quote from The Sentinel that Keifer Sutherland portraying an FBI Agent said:

Gut feelings; once you have them the only evidence you see is the evidence that reinforces your gut feeling; just human nature.

thewhitewitch1

10-24-2006, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by Athena

There was nothing that threw up a red flag to me. He basically said the Barbie nightgown looked out of place; he believes the killer left it there deliberately. Why would that throw up a red flag? Again -- we are interpreting what he said in this case very differently.

Not sure you know this -- but I can assure you at one time I was all RDI until I started doing a tremendous amount of research which contradicted most of what I was led to believe. I went from RDI, to on the fence to IDI but that has happened over a 10 year period.

The one thing that was proven to me in this case is that gut feelings can be totally wrong.

Brings to mind a quote from The Sentinel that Keifer Sutherland portraying an FBI Agent said:

Gut feelings; once you have them the only evidence you see is the evidence that reinforces your gut feeling; just human nature.

Athena...I admit I do have a "gut feeling" and have had since day one but I do try to keep a semi-open mind and, at times, have even had doubt about the Ramseys guilt. It seems, though, the more I read and research, the less I believe that the Ramseys weren't involved in some way.
Also, it is not basically what JR said about the nightgown that bothered me...it's what he said exactly. "That should not be there" is quite a bit different from "that looks odd or out of place". "That should not be there" is stated as if it were a fact. IMO
It appears as though I may never know if my "gut feeling" is right or wrong. :( All I know is that it has never failed me before.

shill

10-24-2006, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I think you need to add an IMO there, Shill.
No crap her body wasn't supposed to be there but he didn't say that. He didn't say that the blanket wasn't supposed to be there either. He was talking about the murder scene when he said that the blanket wasn't supposed to be there.
I found the comment very strange.
We are discussing a murder in this forum. Don't try to assume what I think or that my "eyes are closed". Some might say the same of you. I am allowed to comment and ask questions, even though my view may differ from yours on who the murderer is. Your comments serve no purpose for a discussion in a forum. IMO You asked a question and I answered it. Obviously that's not what you wanted to here.
Maybe I should have said IMO anyone who knew about that wine cellar would have said what John said, "that shouldn't have been there".
IMO Everyone who knows about this case thinks, "it shouldn't have been there",
and have tried to explain it's presence there.
Bottom line is, IMO every single person who has heard or read about this case and knows about the Barbie gown, thinks the Barbie Gown "shouldn't have been there"

Some how your open mind has a problem with John thinking it.