Who Killed JonBenet ? [Archive] - Page 5 - Crime Library Message Boards

Devotion

10-07-2006, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by humanpolygraph
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Athena
[B]Continued:

4)The fact that the detective noticed that when the body was brought up by John that Patsy stayed in the other room and didnt come to see her daughter and let out a strange wail...and then sat in there by herself (John and Patsy stayed apart most of the time this was going on instead of holding one another comforting one another) which is very odd behavior.

Odd behavior by whose standards? I have no idea what I would do under the circumstances. This is conjecture.

YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT YOUR DEAD DAUGHTER HAS JUST BEEN BROUGHT UP THE STAIRS AND YOU WOULD SIT IN THE OTHER ROOM INSTEAD OF COMING OVER TO SEE IF SHE IS ACTUALLY DEAD AND TO BE WITH HER IN HER FINAL HOURS? VERY STRANGE....

5)The Ramseys have refused to cooperate with police...and refused to take lie detectors, and refused to be interviewed, and called attorney s right after the police got there, and hid under a veil of attorneys the entire time to make sure they didnt have to go to a police interview alone.

The Ramseys did take lie detector tests and passed. The very first one that was taken was inconclusive. They were advised by attorneys and were within their legal rights.
ID LIKE TO SEE THAT EVIDENCE, I KNOW THEY HIRED A POLYGRAPHER WHO SAID THEY PASSED, BUT THAT WAS SOMEONE THEY PAID ALOT OF MONEY TOO, WHY DIDNT THEY LET THE FBI POLYGRAPH THEN WHEN ASKED? THE FBI WASNT OUT TO GET THEM SO THEY CLAIMED...ALSO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THEY WERE IN THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS SOUNDS LIKE BS TO ME, LEGAL SMEAGLE, WHEN YOU ARE INNOCENT YOU RUN TO GET A POLYGRAPH TO PROOVE IT!

6)The fact that John R. called a hardware store a few days?weeks? later and asked the clerk specific questions, the clerk remembered him and said that he was asking about receipts, especially if items showed up itemized (meaning the duct tape he bought that he bought there would have showed up on the receipt and could possibly be linked with the same one that was on JB's mouth!) Det. Steve Thomas tried to get the phone logs and specifically this info about he hardware store into evidence but was not allowed because of something the Ramseys lawyers said that kept the judge from granting a subpoena.(cant spell it)

Not true. Some guy by the name of James Rapp impersonated John Ramsey. He was arrested and served jail time for making that call to the hardware store. The receipts were not itemized and many items can cost $2.29 and $1.99 in a hardware store.

TRUE BUT HE WAS TRYING TO PROVE THE RAMSEYS DID IT TO LOL, YOU ARE FORGETTING TO MENTION THAT THOSE ITEMS LISTED ON PATSYS CREDIT CARD, OR JOHNS, WERE ITEMS IN THE SAME SECTION AS THE DUCT TAPE AND CORD, AND THE SAME PRICE, A LITTLE TOO COINCIDENTAL IF YOU ASK ME!

7)JB was dressed in size 12 underwear that were huggge on her, Patsy claims she was put to bed in the same clothes they found her in, why would patsy put a size 12 underwear on her daughter with the "wednesday" logo on it when she was extremely maticulous about dressing her (anyone who wants to see what they would look like on a girl JB;s size should go to the forumsforjustice.org and look at the post that discusses this and you would know that she wouldnt have dressed JB in this way. The truth is she didnt dress her, John did, because while Patsy was busy writting the rediculous randsom note JR was preparing the staging of the body, that would explain the garrott that he tied (being that he was in the Navy he knew how to tie knots like that.

JBR was very capable of dressing herself as most six year olds are. There was no reason why Patsy or John had to know what underwear she had on.

THAT REPLY MAKES NO SENSE, YOUR SAYING THAT JBR DRESSED HERSELF THAT NIGHT IN SIZE 12 UNDIES (KEEPIGN IN MIND THAT SHE WAS ASLEEP THE ENTIRE TIME AFTER THEY GOT HOME ACCORDING TO PATSY) (OH AND PLEASE GO TO TEH SITE CALLED FORUMSFORJUSTICE.ORG AND LOOK AT WHAT THOSE PANTIES WOULD LOOK LIKE ON THAT LITTLE BODY, IT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND!) AFTER SHE CAME HOME? BECAUSE DETECTIVES ALREADY FOUND THE SOILED CLOTHES THAT HAD URINE ON THEM AND KNEW THAT THOSE UNDIES SHE HAD ON WERE NEW...FROM AN OPPENED PACKAGE HANGING OUT THE DRAWER, WITHTHE WEDNESDAY UNDIES MISSING....KEEP IN MIND THE WHITE S SAW HER UNDIES AND KNEW THOSE WERE NOT THE UNDIES SHE HAD ON WHEN SHE DIED!!! (BUT OH YEAH YOU THINK THE WHITES DID IT ROTFFF!) SO YOUR ARE BASICALLY SAYING HERE THAT PATSY LIED AND JONBENET DRESSED HERSELF IN SIZE 12 UNDIES WHEN THEY ARRIVED HOME????? EXPLAIN THIS ONE TO ME?

8) Burke Ramsey is heard in the 911 tape (this is proven to be true) although Patsy and John claim that he was asleep the entire time (they prob said this to keep him from being questioned about this) I read the interview with Burke and everything he said sounded like he was trying to cover for his parents, especially the last statement which was something like "we all have secrets, that s why we cant tell anybody, then they would not be a secret anymore".

False. Don’t even know how to respond to this. You are a Psych major (YES I AM WITH HIGH HONORS THANK YOU VERY MUCH DEAREST) do you really believe a boy questioned for two hours without speaking to his parents first (HE DID SPEAK TO HIS PARENTS FIRST) and without their knowledge could really keep a secret about the death of his sister? He had a total of 3-4 interviews for several hours each – I don’t know a 9 year old that is not tough or street-smart that would not slip and say something to authorities. His response about a “secret” was an answer to a question asking him if he knew what a secret was.
DONT KNWO WHERE YOU GOT YOUR INFORMATION FROM BUT I READ THAT HE WAS NOT EVEN INTERVIEWED TILL WEEKS LATER, AFTER HIS PARENTS HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO MAKE UP STORIES TO TELL HIM..AND ALSO MAYBE HE DIDNT KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON, MAYBE HE ONLY KNEW WHEN HE WOKE UP THAT THERE WAS COMMOTION AND RUNNING AROUND AND THUS HIS STATEMENT ON THE 911 TAPE "WHATS GOING ON?" IS REALLY ACCURATE BECAUSE HE REALLY DIDNT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. EASY. AND YOUR TELLIGN ME THAT HE WAS NOT AWAKE AND THAT WAS NOT BURKE ON THE 911 TAPE, THEY HAVE ALREADY PROVEN THAT HE WAS, WHILE YOUR INNOCENT PATSY SAYS THAT HE WAS SLEEPING.

Speaking of the 911 tape, Patsy did not hang up the phone when she thought she did, and she is heard saying "help me jesus, please help me" but i know that could have been interpreted differently, but Im sure she meant get her out of the mess she was in!

Again speculation. There is no proof that those are facts. Again repeated stories – without confirmation.
THEY ARE FACTS, THEY ARE ON THE ENHANCED 911 TAPE....
:shrug:IMO: Item # 4, is really an eye opener...What Mother would NOT run to her baby, when shes just been found, to see if see's OK or just to hold her close???????jmo

Mimi428

10-07-2006, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by LetFreedomRing
Hi Anyone?

I'm still pretty much a newbie here on CTVBs and the red note at top says most forums are closed...does that mean we shouldn't post?

Also, does anyone know why the Trenton Ducket threads have disappeared? I haven't been able to read to catch up in about 2 weeks, and it seems all the peeps are gone. I don't have any facts to post, but I really enjoy reading all the input.

Sorry I know it is off topic

Thank you

Go look at the main page of the CTV boards - look to the left of the board name & notice the ones that have a little icon that looks like a lock. Those are the forums that are closed for the holiday weekend.

If this forum was locked, we would not be able to post here.

Don't know what to tell you about Trenton Ducket, but I'll go look & see if I can find out where it went.

Mimi428

10-07-2006, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by LetFreedomRing

Also, does anyone know why the Trenton Ducket threads have disappeared? I haven't been able to read to catch up in about 2 weeks, and it seems all the peeps are gone. I don't have any facts to post, but I really enjoy reading all the input.

Sorry I know it is off topic

Thank you

Trenton Ducket was moved to the Crime Library Message Boards section (which is the same section this board is in). Link here...

http://boards.courttv.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=315

WallyCleaver

10-07-2006, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

1. Wally, Linda Arndt, who was present at the autopsy, says the cord had been wrapped around twice.

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID70/31.html

Her head, the depth of that ligature around her neck. It was so deep that twice that cord had been wrapped around her neck and the - it looked like it was only one loose time around.

2. Photos supporting Linda Arndt's statement on GMA:

(a) photo 5 shows the outer layer of cord at autopsy

(b) photo 6 shows the inner layer of cord at autopsy

3. Photo 5 shows chafing at the right side of the neck that does not appear on the left side. The same photo shows a red triangular mark on left front of the throat.

4. The autopsy report says that the cord had been tied with a double knot at the posterior of the neck, leaving two tails of cord. One of 4" and the other of 17". At the end of the 17" tail was tied a wooden stick.

5. I believe that JonBenet was lying face down during the garrotting. The cord was wrapped twice around her throat from behind, leaving two tails, one of 4" on the left and the other of 17" on the right. The 17" tail has the handle attached at its end. At this point, because the cord has been wrapped around twice, the 4" tail on the left becomes irrelevant and can be dropped until it is time for the final knotting. The bottom layer "seats" the cord. The perp stands at right angles to JonBenet and by her neck. He braces against her left front throat with the toe of his boot (leaving a mark) to add strength to his pull, as well as to prevent her from turning with the cord (she weighs only 45 lbs.). He pulls the handle to tighten the cord. As the cord tightens, it naturally rises on her neck. We can follow its path by the chafing on the right side of the neck, which takes the brunt of the tightening. When he is satisfied that the cord is as tight as he can make it, the perp picks up the 4" tail and knots the cord with a double knot at the back of the neck. While passing the stick under the 4" tail during the knotting process, he tangles JonBenet's hair in it.

6. Wally, I don't see anything sexual in this, unless it is that the sheer cruelty of it satisfied the perp in some way. I think this was a device made and used for strangling a child.

MOO

Not probable, IMO.

I do see some reason for your conjecture, and it isn't impossible. IMO it is less probable than the single wrap theory. This is why I think so -

Picture 5 shows me a cord with the gold chain under it. There could be another wrap of cord underneath, but I can't see it. I will say that the cord in pic 5 is clean and white, and in 6 it is dirty and darker in color, as if it had been exposed to dirt or blood. But I don't see why choking her would cause discoloration.

I disagree with your point number 5. warpping twice as you suggest, he wouldn't be able to get the garrotte very tight. The "seating" you speak of would work, but only up to a point. I don't think friction alone would allow tightening to that extent. Knotting after tightening would have been a clumsy inefficient way of doing the job. Simply placing the hand over the knot and pulling would have been the best way. Each pull would have made the loop tighter, and the knot wouldn't allow it to loosen. The killer could have pulled, then rested, pulled some more, rested, pulled some more..... each pull would have tightened, but it never would loosen up.

I could believe that that long tail was pulled, with hand on the knot, then the excess (the 17" tail) wrapped around again, but that wouldn't have produced any effect, it would just be for show. It was the knot keeping things tight.

I do like your attempt to explain the chaffing and the triangular mark. But I don't think he could have gotten it that tight by the method you describe, and tying the knot after tightening just leaves me shaking my head as I contemplate trying to do it that way.

I'm no knot expert, but 4 years in the navy and 5 in the Coast Guard have taught me a little about knots, and tying it off after tightening just strikes me as backwards. I'd make the knot first, then pull with everything I had.

I don't see anything sexual in it either. It was Lou Smit who saw something sexual in it. Basically your theory runs counter to LS'. You're swaying it wasn't a paedophile. I agree.

WallyCleaver

10-07-2006, 03:34 PM

MissOtis-

I just tried an expirement. I wrapped some string around my leg, in the manner that you propose the cord was wrapped around the neck.

I tried several times and couldn't get it to "seat". I'm not using a slippery or shiney type of string. just basic plain string with no type of coating on it. The "seat" doesn't really work. I'm going around the leg at mid-calf, where it's fleshy. It just pulls right off.

That's not to say it's impossible. Diferences in the string, or in exactly how the top layer contacts the bottom layer may make it possible for the seating to work.

I also tried it around my four fingers. I got it to seat twice, out of 7 tries. After it seated, I couldn't make it much tighter. I could pull harder and it would dig in, but the loops wouldn't get smaller.

Friction, at the point where the two layers cross is what keeps it together. You're correct that once it has seated, all the force stays on one side, but it doesn't slide, it just digs in.

Your theory is clever, perhaps possible, but not very probable - IMO.

MissOtisRegrets

10-07-2006, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Not probable, IMO.

I do see some reason for your conjecture, and it isn't impossible. IMO it is less probable than the single wrap theory. This is why I think so -

Picture 5 shows me a cord with the gold chain under it. There could be another wrap of cord underneath, but I can't see it. I will say that the cord in pic 5 is clean and white, and in 6 it is dirty and darker in color, as if it had been exposed to dirt or blood. But I don't see why choking her would cause discoloration.

I disagree with your point number 5. warpping twice as you suggest, he wouldn't be able to get the garrotte very tight. The "seating" you speak of would work, but only up to a point. I don't think friction alone would allow tightening to that extent. Knotting after tightening would have been a clumsy inefficient way of doing the job. Simply placing the hand over the knot and pulling would have been the best way. Each pull would have made the loop tighter, and the knot wouldn't allow it to loosen. The killer could have pulled, then rested, pulled some more, rested, pulled some more..... each pull would have tightened, but it never would loosen up.

I could believe that that long tail was pulled, with hand on the knot, then the excess (the 17" tail) wrapped around again, but that wouldn't have produced any effect, it would just be for show. It was the knot keeping things tight.

I do like your attempt to explain the chaffing and the triangular mark. But I don't think he could have gotten it that tight by the method you describe, and tying the knot after tightening just leaves me shaking my head as I contemplate trying to do it that way.

I'm no knot expert, but 4 years in the navy and 5 in the Coast Guard have taught me a little about knots, and tying it off after tightening just strikes me as backwards. I'd make the knot first, then pull with everything I had.

I don't see anything sexual in it either. It was Lou Smit who saw something sexual in it. Basically your theory runs counter to LS'. You're swaying it wasn't a paedophile. I agree.

Wally, I'll give you the knot, but I'm keeping the two wraps. :D (a) because Linda Arndt said it was wrapped around twice, and (b) if you look at photo 6 in the link I forgot to post earlier but will post now and stare at it for about 30 seconds with your nose on the monitor, the white cord appears in the furrow. It is the walls of the furrow that are swollen and red.

http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/photos2.htm

WallyCleaver

10-07-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Wally, I'll give you the knot, but I'm keeping the two wraps. :D (a) because Linda Arndt said it was wrapped around twice, and (b) if you look at photo 6 in the link I forgot to post earlier but will post now and stare at it for about 30 seconds with your nose on the monitor, the white cord appears in the furrow. It is the walls of the furrow that are swollen and red.

http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/photos2.htm

OK, that hurt my eyes, and now I have to clean my monitor screen, but I still don't see that there was necessarily another wrap underneath.

MissOtisRegrets

10-07-2006, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
MissOtis-

I just tried an expirement. I wrapped some string around my leg, in the manner that you propose the cord was wrapped around the neck.

I tried several times and couldn't get it to "seat". I'm not using a slippery or shiney type of string. just basic plain string with no type of coating on it. The "seat" doesn't really work. I'm going around the leg at mid-calf, where it's fleshy. It just pulls right off.

That's not to say it's impossible. Diferences in the string, or in exactly how the top layer contacts the bottom layer may make it possible for the seating to work.

I also tried it around my four fingers. I got it to seat twice, out of 7 tries. After it seated, I couldn't make it much tighter. I could pull harder and it would dig in, but the loops wouldn't get smaller.

Friction, at the point where the two layers cross is what keeps it together. You're correct that once it has seated, all the force stays on one side, but it doesn't slide, it just digs in.

Your theory is clever, perhaps possible, but not very probable - IMO.

I used my bare foot, Wally. I stuck it up on the desk (flexed) and wrapped a string around it twice. I had a tail of the string in each hand. I pulled on the string in my right hand. Feeling no resistance in the string in the left, I let it go. I pulled on the right, until it was really tight and hurting.

WallyCleaver

10-07-2006, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

I used my bare foot, Wally. I stuck it up on the desk (flexed) and wrapped a string around it twice. I had a tail of the string in each hand. I pulled on the string in my right hand. Feeling no resistance in the string in the left, I let it go. I pulled on the right, until it was really tight and hurting.

So you held on to the 4" tail? Ok, that would work.

Could you make the loops get smaller? I couldn't.
Did you try putting the kont in, after you pulled the string tight? Kinda clumsy isn't it?

Now try this - make a loop with a knot, slip it over your foot and pull, holding the knot against your foot. Tell me which method works best to "srangle".

Ames

10-07-2006, 04:06 PM

I know that I have read this somewhere, but forgot where it was. Does anyone know when John Ramsey said, that he saw the van that was parked outside his house? Was it parked outside on the 25th?

MissOtisRegrets

10-07-2006, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

So you held on to the 4" tail? Ok, that would work.

Could you make the loops get smaller? I couldn't.
Did you try putting the kont in, after you pulled the string tight? Kinda clumsy isn't it?

Now try this - make a loop with a knot, slip it over your foot and pull, holding the knot against your foot. Tell me which method works best to "srangle".

No. I said I let go of the 4" tail when I didn't feel it was being pulled along with the piece that was around my foot. The piece of string around my foot was tightening in reaction to my pulling the 17" tail but the 4" tail was not being effected by it at all. I could let go of it without it's going anywhere. And I did and continued to pull with the right and tighten the string around my foot, until common sense told me to stop.

The most efficient way to do this imo would be by wrapping the cord around twice, pulling the 17" tail through a knot made on the 4" tail ( :D ) and pulling the handle. Then, finally, "doubling" that knot, after the cord has been tightened.

I will not give up the "twice wrapped around". (a) Linda Arndt was there and saw it, and (b) there is a photo of it that I believe may have been released accidentally, after the "twice wrapped around" had been redacted from the autopsy report that was given to the public.

WallyCleaver

10-07-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

No. I said I let go of the 4" tail when I didn't feel it was being pulled along with the piece that was around my foot. The piece of string around my foot was tightening in reaction to my pulling the 17" tail but the 4" tail was not being effected by it at all. I could let go of it without it's going anywhere. And I did and continued to pull with the right and tighten the string around my foot, until common sense told me to stop.

The most efficient way to do this imo would be by wrapping the cord around twice, pulling the 17" tail through a knot made on the 4" tail ( :D ) and pulling the handle. Then, finally, "doubling" that knot, after the cord has been tightened.

I will not give up the "twice wrapped around". (a) Linda Arndt was there and saw it, and (b) there is a photo of it that I believe may have been released accidentally, after the "twice wrapped around" had been redacted from the autopsy report that was given to the public.

No, I meant you held the 4"piece getting started. I know you can let go of it as soon as the two layers bind on each other. I found it tended to pull off, though I got it to seat a couple times.

The way you describe wouldn't be as efficient as simply tying a knot that won't slip, then pulling. Your way is simply more work. Plus you can't make it as tight that way.

If there was a double wrap, it was just the 17" tail wrapped again - quite uselessly.

The pic of the garrotte at The Smoking Gun shows only one loop held by the knot.

rashomon

10-07-2006, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

But that garrotte was fashioned and used by a sociopath imo, WW1, and, while panic may turn one into an idiot, it does not turn one into a sociopath. That garrotte was constructed with a cool head imo.
I agree with the first part of your post: the garrote was fashioned by a sociopath: imo this was Patsy Ramsey who did not want to turn herself in to the police because she thought she had killed her daughter with the head bash.

And even sociopaths can get into a panic when they want to save their hide. And a sociopath not knowing a thing about ligatures and garrotes will end up with such a poor contraption like in the JB case. The whole ligature/garrote scene just screams staging.
No Ramsey advocate for example has been able to explain why an intruder would have put duct tape on the dead child's mouth.

Ames

10-07-2006, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

<snipped>

No Ramsey advocate for example has been able to explain why an intruder would have put duct tape on the dead child's mouth.

Doesn't make much sense to me either. It wasn't even sticky (from what I have read, it was probably stuck to something else, before being placed on her mouth). Forensic experts have said that there wasn't even lip prints on it, which would have been present, if placed on her mouth, while she was alive. Why put non sticky tape on a dead (or unconscious) child in the first place? Why put ANY tape on the mouth, and then loosely bind the hands. If she had of been conscious, she could have just reached up and removed it, or since it wasn't sticky, pushed it away with her tongue....that same thing could have happened, if she had of been UNconscious...and then regained consciousness. The only scenerio left, is that it was placed on there after she was dead. ...but WHY would an "intruder" do that? (The tape and the loosely bound wrists are only two of the reasons that I am a RDI believer). IMO

rashomon

10-07-2006, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Forensic experts have said that there wasn't even lip prints on it, which would have been present, if placed on her mouth, while she was alive. Why put non sticky tape on a dead (or unconscious) child in the first place? Why put ANY tape on the mouth, and then loosely bind the hands. If she had of been conscious, she could have just reached up and removed it, or since it wasn't sticky, pushed it away with her tongue....that same thing could have happened, if she had of been UNconscious...and then regained consciousness. The only scenerio left, is that it was placed on there after she was dead. ...but WHY would an "intruder" do that? (The tape and the loosely bound wrists are only two of the reasons that I am a RDI believer). IMO
A perfect lip impression was found on the duct tape, which led investigators to the conclusion that the tape was put on an inert and non-resisting body, for if JB had still been alive and conscious one would never have gotten such a pefect lip impression on the tape.

Ames

10-07-2006, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

A perfect lip impression was found on the duct tape, which led investigators to the conclusion that the tape was put on an inert and non-resisting body, for if JB had still been alive and conscious one would never have gotten such a pefect lip impression on the tape.

I thought that just the opposite was true...from what I read. What you are saying makes a whole lot more sense, though. IMO

Devotion

10-07-2006, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
How about Don Paugh sitting on loaded guns when the argument between FW and JR went down in Atlanta? Why the heck would he have to go get a gun and put it under the couch cushion? He actually thought he was going to have to use it to shoot Fleet White? Why, because FW was telling JR that his immediate lawyering up and hiding from police wasn't helping anyone find the "real" killer?

Personally, I think FW was well within the bounds of friendship to tell his closest friend JR that his behavior was looking suspicious - and at the same time, I think FW was becoming increasingly suspicious of the Rs as well.

Fleet White and his family were cleared, yes cleared, by police. They had nothing to do with JonBenet's murder. The Whites have worked harder to serve justice to JonBenet than her own parents have. They have requested a special prosecutor be brought in, knowing the DA's office is corrupt and is shielding the Ramseys, as they have done from the get-go.

Would a guilty man really go that far?
:beer: IMO; He wants justice for little JonB......jmo

Ames

10-07-2006, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
How about Don Paugh sitting on loaded guns when the argument between FW and JR went down in Atlanta? Why the heck would he have to go get a gun and put it under the couch cushion? He actually thought he was going to have to use it to shoot Fleet White? Why, because FW was telling JR that his immediate lawyering up and hiding from police wasn't helping anyone find the "real" killer?

Personally, I think FW was well within the bounds of friendship to tell his closest friend JR that his behavior was looking suspicious - and at the same time, I think FW was becoming increasingly suspicious of the Rs as well.

Fleet White and his family were cleared, yes cleared, by police. They had nothing to do with JonBenet's murder. The Whites have worked harder to serve justice to JonBenet than her own parents have. They have requested a special prosecutor be brought in, knowing the DA's office is corrupt and is shielding the Ramseys, as they have done from the get-go.

Would a guilty man really go that far?

Excellent point! "Would a guilty man really go that far?" No, he wouldn't....IMO

LadyFisher

10-07-2006, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Respectfully, I must disagree with your analysis.

I see no evidence of a movie fanatic. I see some often quoted (more often misquoted) movie lines that most people would have heard, even w/o seeing the movies.

I don't see why the Rs wouldn't have time to watch movies. Many people watch movies at home. We're talking about a handful of movies, made over a period of years. I don't see any reason why they couldn't have watched them.

Your conclusion that the Rs wouldn't have found such movies entertaining baffles me too. Are the Rs on record as to the types of movies they enjoy? Did they specifically state they didn't like certain types of movies? My mom is in her mid 70s. She's a Gene Hackman fan. Gene Hackman often does films in which there is a military/paramilitary/police/FBI/secret agent theme. She wouldn't watch if Gene Hackman wasn't in it, but you just never know what someone finds entertaining.

I fail to see how you've determined that the perp is a young man.

How did you conclude he's an employee or the son of an employee?

You don't beleive there was any intention of getting any money - please explain then why the author of the RN spent so much time on details of the ransom. That doesn't make sense to me.

You say the murder and RN doesn't point you towards the Rs at all. But the body in the basement points away from a genuine kidnapping, and the note seems fake to everyone except perhaps lou smit, who hasn't bothered to explain why a peadophile would leave a RN. Good evening, Wally....I am only speculating in my posts as everyone else...but I do see the movie quotes in the RN....Why I don't think the Ramseys would be that familiar with them is...I was trying to put myself in Patsy's place...I don't care for many of those type movies..and personally can't stand Clint Eastwood..lol..please don't hop on me over that one...my hubby and son love him...but Patsy had young children..I can see her watching family oriented shows with them....JR didn't get to where he was in his business by being an idle man..I think he was very busy and probably didn't watch a lot of movies...but as I said that is my opinion....I do see the movie references in the RN..and I believe the perp related to the bad guys in those movies, not the good guys...why else would he remember the lines from the villains? I do think he was younger...I can see a younger man having time on his hands and even fantasizing about movie characters....I think he had a mission and that was to hurt JR...imo either he or a family member was hurt by JR (or so he thought)...I think he was unstable mentally, a sociopath..and he was getting his revenge...I have bounced back and forth with the RN...most of the time a RN is exactly what it is, a RN...but in this case I'm beginning to believe it wasn't...for the simple reason he wrote it after he entered their home, I believe while he was awaiting their arrival...he couldn't help himself and decided to write a note, as I said he is NUTS...he wanted to show his scorn for John...he rambled on and on..imo if it had been legit...he would have cut to the chase...just told JR he had his daughter, requested the money, and give his other instructions....this is just my opinion, Wally and as I've said before my opinons are subject to change!

MissOtisRegrets

10-07-2006, 10:35 PM

I don't believe it was anyone connected with John in business, because no one actually in business would mispell the word. The word "business" could have been mispelled as a cover, and, then, a similar word, "possession", cleverly mispelled almost immediately. But, no other word in the entire three page note is mispelled, so I think the chances are that the misspellings of both "business" and "possession" were not deliberate and that, therefore, whoever wrote the ransom note was not nor ever had been in business.

LadyFisher

10-07-2006, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I don't believe it was anyone connected with John in business, because no one actually in business would mispell the word. The word "business" could have been mispelled as a cover, and, then, a similar word, "possession", cleverly mispelled almost immediately. But, no other word in the entire three page note is mispelled, so I think the chances are that the misspellings of both "business" and "possession" were not deliberate and that, therefore, whoever wrote the ransom note was not nor ever had been in business. Good observations, MissO......It had to be someone with a vendetta against John, imho....I'm not certain why the perp had so much hatred for him that he wanted to kill his daughter....we aren't talking about a normal person though....to me that RN screams who the real killer is...if only BPD would have thoroughly investigated everyone closely connected to the family..somehow he knew they would be gone for quite some time Chrismas evening, he knew about the $118,000..that's why I keep wondering about the housekeeper's family, or the babysitters' friends or boyfriends...but I keep coming back to a business associates son :confused: I do believe there is someone out there that knew there was a possibility that it was someone the were related to or knew, but maybe just wouldn't/couldn't believe they were capable of this....I wish we had all the answers! imho

MissOtisRegrets

10-07-2006, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good observations, MissO......It had to be someone with a vendetta against John, imho....I'm not certain why the perp had so much hatred for him that he wanted to kill his daughter....we aren't talking about a normal person though....to me that RN screams who the real killer is...if only BPD would have thoroughly investigated everyone closely connected to the family..somehow he knew they would be gone for quite some time Chrismas evening, he knew about the $118,000..that's why I keep wondering about the housekeeper's family, or the babysitters' friends or boyfriends...but I keep coming back to a business associates son :confused: I do believe there is someone out there that knew there was a possibility that it was someone the were related to or knew, but maybe just wouldn't/couldn't believe they were capable of this....I wish we had all the answers! imho

LadyFisher, I would like to thank you for the recommendation of the John Douglas book. I read the chapter on JonBenet's murder today (i.e. first) and really found it interesting.

I am all over the place with this. This afternoon I thought it was revenge and the body meant to be left in the basement. Tonight I think it was a kidnapping gone wrong committed by someone with a connection (maybe an indirect one) to John. I can't decide whether I think the personal tone ("they don't like you") in the ransom note is genuine or bluster to intimidate. I get the impression that whoever wrote that note is trying to puff himself up throughout. Amateur.

LadyFisher

10-07-2006, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by docg

Jameson doesn't hang out HERE. She hangs out at her own website, which was what I was pointing to. Everyone who sees things her way loves to discuss the case with her and vice versa. Oh yes, the Great Pumpkin will definitely appear before us with a signed confession and the Ramseys will be absolved. Gee, that actually happened didn't it. Only his DNA didn't match so too bad, had to throw him back. Let him molest some other kid. Sheesh, when will they ever get it?

The fact is Jameson has refused to look at evidence that might point to a Ramsey, just flat refused. So don't buy her story about being tenacious against them, that's a bluff.

Yes, I do think John is cold blooded. And yes I think he is capable of keeping secrets for a long time. He cheated on his wife for two years, remember? It doesn't take a sociopath to keep secrets. It takes a sociopath to molest and then kill his own daughter. So, yes, he is a sociopath, for sure. How do you know what he's displayed and hasn't displayed? Have you met him? Linda Arndt did -- and she counted the bullets in her gun. No, I don't know JR nor have I met him! Ardnt said she consciously counted 18 bullets, yet there was only 7 people in the house beside herself...she saw murder in his eyes? :confused: What sort of evidence is this? Why didn't she write something about this in her report? Even her former fellow officers found this to be odd...she had to be under terrible stress...the body was found after the house had presumably been searched...she was there alone.....imho

LadyFisher

10-07-2006, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

LadyFisher, I would like to thank you for the recommendation of the John Douglas book. I read the chapter on JonBenet's murder today (i.e. first) and really found it interesting.

I am all over the place with this. This afternoon I thought it was revenge and the body meant to be left in the basement. Tonight I think it was a kidnapping gone wrong committed by someone with a connection (maybe an indirect one) to John. I can't decide whether I think the personal tone ("they don't like you") in the ransom note is genuine or bluster to intimidate. I get the impression that whoever wrote that note is trying to puff himself up throughout. Amateur. I'm glad you liked the book....you also need to read the Death of Innocence by John and Patsy...I agree with a lot of what Douglas has to say....but, imo this perps intention was to murder JB...I just think the ransom note was a hoax, but a real giveaway of the killer's personality at the same time....imo he had a lot to say that he kept bottled up inside..and grew more angry as he lingered in their home waiting...this murder was intentional imo...and only a monster could have committed it! :seeya:

MissOtisRegrets

10-08-2006, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I'm glad you liked the book....you also need to read the Death of Innocence by John and Patsy...I agree with a lot of what Douglas has to say....but, imo this perps intention was to murder JB...I just think the ransom note was a hoax, but a real giveaway of the killer's personality at the same time....imo he had a lot to say that he kept bottled up inside..and grew more angry as he lingered in their home waiting...this murder was intentional imo...and only a monster could have committed it! :seeya:

Sitting and stewing led to the note. It could well be.

I really liked what I read in the Douglas book. I plan to read the rest of it. I was going to wait until I finished the book I am in the middle of ("Phi, The Divine Proportion"), but that is a large hardback and I have been asked to babysit a sick family member tomorrow (BP 80/40) all day and evening and am already bringing a coffee pot, coffee, a dog, and a dog bowl! A paperback will be better.

:seeya:

MissO

LadyFisher

10-08-2006, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Sitting and stewing led to the note. It could well be.

I really liked what I read in the Douglas book. I plan to read the rest of it. I was going to wait until I finished the book I am in the middle of ("Phi, The Divine Proportion"), but that is a large hardback and I have been asked to babysit a sick family member tomorrow (BP 80/40) all day and evening and am already bringing a coffee pot, coffee, a dog and dog bowl! A paperback will be better.

:seeya:

MissO Have a great night, MissO and everyone else, too! :seeya:

Ames

10-08-2006, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by docg

<snipped>
Have you met him? Linda Arndt did -- and she counted the bullets in her gun.

Whoa...now that last sentence there, is profound, and speaks volumes. IMO

MyrDawn

10-08-2006, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Athena

I'm quite surprised myself at that. I can't believe either side would not allow room for error. This is a complex and intricate case -- and too many questions for either side IMO to be so positive about either theory. :shrug:

It really surprises me, too, that so many won't even consider anything that might lead to another conclusion, although that's the main reason I wanted to do a poll. Too see how many people were so set in their theory they aren't at all open to any other possibility, considering the known evidence doesn't prove either theory 100%.

But, it does give me a bit of insight into why Steve Thomas might have acted the way he did. If he couldn't accept even the slightest possiblity that he might be wrong, why would he even consider any evidence that might point away from them?

MOO

WallyCleaver

10-08-2006, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good evening, Wally....I am only speculating in my posts as everyone else...but I do see the movie quotes in the RN....Why I don't think the Ramseys would be that familiar with them is...I was trying to put myself in Patsy's place...I don't care for many of those type movies..and personally can't stand Clint Eastwood..lol..please don't hop on me over that one...my hubby and son love him...but Patsy had young children..I can see her watching family oriented shows with them....JR didn't get to where he was in his business by being an idle man..I think he was very busy and probably didn't watch a lot of movies...but as I said that is my opinion....I do see the movie references in the RN..and I believe the perp related to the bad guys in those movies, not the good guys...why else would he remember the lines from the villains? I do think he was younger...I can see a younger man having time on his hands and even fantasizing about movie characters....I think he had a mission and that was to hurt JR...imo either he or a family member was hurt by JR (or so he thought)...I think he was unstable mentally, a sociopath..and he was getting his revenge...I have bounced back and forth with the RN...most of the time a RN is exactly what it is, a RN...but in this case I'm beginning to believe it wasn't...for the simple reason he wrote it after he entered their home, I believe while he was awaiting their arrival...he couldn't help himself and decided to write a note, as I said he is NUTS...he wanted to show his scorn for John...he rambled on and on..imo if it had been legit...he would have cut to the chase...just told JR he had his daughter, requested the money, and give his other instructions....this is just my opinion, Wally and as I've said before my opinons are subject to change!

I don't like Clint Eastwood either. Can't stand him. But I still know some lines from some of his films. They're in the air.

The villians' lines are usually more catchy, that's why they're remembered.

When you start to think the RN isn't really an RN, you're on the right track - it's not. Now if you could see the implausibility of a revenge killer you'd be well on your way to RDI :-)

We're all just speculating. I always enjoy your thought on the case, even if I rarely agree with you.

WallyCleaver

10-08-2006, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good observations, MissO......It had to be someone with a vendetta against John, imho....I'm not certain why the perp had so much hatred for him that he wanted to kill his daughter....we aren't talking about a normal person though....to me that RN screams who the real killer is...if only BPD would have thoroughly investigated everyone closely connected to the family..

They did, as far as I know. I mean the talked to family members. What else should the cops have done? They found out where Andrew was that night, and the daughter from the prior marriage - can't recall her name just now. The talked to the housekeeper. There was no evidence that any of these people were involved.

... somehow he knew they would be gone for quite some time Chrismas evening, he knew about the $118,000..that's why I keep wondering about the housekeeper's family, or the babysitters' friends or boyfriends...

Anybody but the Ramseys, eh? The babysitter's freinds? C'mon.

Why would the housekeeper be so stupid as to use 118k, knowing she was one of the few people who knew the amount of his bonus?

.... but I keep coming back to a business associates son :confused: I do believe there is someone out there that knew there was a possibility that it was someone the were related to or knew, but maybe just wouldn't/couldn't believe they were capable of this....I wish we had all the answers! imho

Chris Wolf's girlfriend? They tried that one.

MyrDawn

10-08-2006, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Whoa...now that last sentence there, is profound, and speaks volumes. IMO

It sure does! It shows she made up her mind even before JonBenet's body was found, or there was any evidence who kidnapped or murdered JonBenet. Steve Thomas Jr.

Makes one wonder why she didn't keep a close eye on him and actually sent him to search the house!

MOO

coastallady

10-08-2006, 09:42 AM

Did they ever come up with the exact time of Jon Benet's death? I have always wondered if Jon Benet was not asleep when they arrived home. Both kids sitting at the kitchen table eating pineapple and Jon Benet angers Burke in some way. He hits her in the head with the flashlight or some other object. He then gets mom who has not had time to get out of the outfit that she wore that evening. I believe I have read she had the same clothes on when the police arrived. At this point Patsy realizes that her little girl is dead and she has lost one child and wants to protect the only one she has left. She gets John and they have hours to stage the crime scene to make it appear that an intuder was responable. MOO

WallyCleaver

10-08-2006, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by coastallady
Did they ever come up with the exact time of Jon Benet's death? I have always wondered if Jon Benet was not asleep when they arrived home. Both kids sitting at the kitchen table eating pineapple and Jon Benet angers Burke in some way. He hits her in the head with the flashlight or some other object. He then gets mom who has not had time to get out of the outfit that she wore that evening. I believe I have read she had the same clothes on when the police arrived. At this point Patsy realizes that her little girl is dead and she has lost one child and wants to protect the only one she has left. She gets John and they have hours to stage the crime scene to make it appear that an intuder was responable. MOO

Except that Burke wouldn't have been going to prison. A murder chage was impossible due to his age. I don't know about a manslaughter charge.

I don't see this as a coverup for something Burke did. He was too young to be in serious trouble, and they didn't live in TX.

LadyFisher

10-08-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Devotion

:shrug:IMO: Item # 4, is really an eye opener...What Mother would NOT run to her baby, when shes just been found, to see if see's OK or just to hold her close???????jmo There are conflicting statements concerning that, Devotion....John said she practically pushed folks out of the way trying to get to JB.....so it depends on who you choose to believe.....................and to Ames and Myr...Ardnt didn't see whatever she saw in John's eyes UNTIL she told him she was dead....what did she expect him to look like, or what would any of you expect him to look like? :confused

LadyFisher

10-08-2006, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Anybody but the Ramseys, eh? The babysitter's freinds? C'mon.

Why would the housekeeper be so stupid as to use 118k, knowing she was one of the few people who knew the amount of his bonus?

Chris Wolf's girlfriend? They tried that one. I don't suspect the housekeeper, but I do suspect it could possibly have been someone connected to her imho...Nobody coerced Wolf's girlfriend into contacting the police and when they didn't seem to take her seriously she contacted the Ramseys...where was he the night of the murder? Why wouldn't he submit to writing samples? Did he ever give a DNA sample? There is a killer out there and I don't think it is a Ramsey! jmho..........no, the fact that I kinda believe the ransom note is a hoax, doesn't make me believe it was a Ramsey.....reread that note carefully..who do you think wrote that note, Wally......and don't tell me that you agree with Doc that JR wrote it first on his computer, we all know that his PCs would have been one of the first things checked, or should have been, this note was written by a crazy person that knew that Ramseys IMHO

WallyCleaver

10-08-2006, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I don't suspect the housekeeper, but I do suspect it could possibly have been someone connected to her imho...Nobody coerced Wolf's girlfriend into contacting the police and when they didn't seem to take her seriously she contacted the Ramseys...where was he the night of the murder? Why wouldn't he submit to writing samples? Did he ever give a DNA sample? There is a killer out there and I don't think it is a Ramsey! jmho..........no, the fact that I kinda believe the ransom note is a hoax, doesn't make me believe it was a Ramsey.....reread that note carefully..who do you think wrote that note, Wally......and don't tell me that you agree with Doc that JR wrote it first on his computer, we all know that his PCs would have been one of the first things checked, or should have been, this note was written by a crazy person that knew that Ramseys IMHO

I don't know if Wolf ever gave a DNA sample. The police don't need his permission to get that. His girlfriend contacted police and I think they looked into it, just as they looked at thousands of tips. They probably quickly determined he couldn't be placed near the scene or had some other reason to quickly dismiss him.

I see no problem at all with docg's theory. Sure the police would have checked his computer - and he wouldn't have left anything for them to find. He knew more about computers than any member of the BPD. He probably knew more than all the BPD put together.

I've read the note carefully. I think it was written by one of the Rs as an element of staging. It just doens't ring true either as a RN, or a Revenge Note.

Mishell1383

10-08-2006, 09:48 PM

Opinions on John Andrew? I always questioned somethign about him.. I'm guessing they obviously ruled him out, just wondering RDI'S and IDI's opinons.. He is technically a Ramsey and an intruder right?

Athena

10-08-2006, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Mishell1383
Opinions on John Andrew? I always questioned somethign about him.. I'm guessing they obviously ruled him out, just wondering RDI'S and IDI's opinons.. He is technically a Ramsey and an intruder right?

John Andrew was in GA at the time of the murder; confirmed and verified by BPD.

I do wonder why his blanket was in that suitcase with his sperm on it and a Dr. Seuss book??? plus the fibers from that blanket were found on JBR's body. I wonder where the suitcase was originally kept prior to it being in the basement?

Athena

10-08-2006, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
There are conflicting statements concerning that, Devotion....John said she practically pushed folks out of the way trying to get to JB.....so it depends on who you choose to believe.....................and to Ames and Myr...Ardnt didn't see whatever she saw in John's eyes UNTIL she told him she was dead....what did she expect him to look like, or what would any of you expect him to look like? :confused

Patsy heard John scream. She had to be thinking the worst and may have hesitated (denial) until she actually saw JBR's in front of the tree.

Re: Arndt and her counting her bullets: I believe Arndt was totally overwhelmed and was stressed out and probably wasn't thinking straight either. jmo

Mishell1383

10-08-2006, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Athena

John Andrew was in GA at the time of the murder; confirmed and verified by BPD.

I do wonder why his blanket was in that suitcase with his sperm on it and a Dr. Seuss book??? plus the fibers from that blanket were found on JBR's body. I wonder where the suitcase was originally kept prior to it being in the basement?

Thats exactly my thoughts.. That suitcase and the contents of it does not make sense to me... Wasn't he also older.. Like 20's old? Why would he have a book and a blanket like that anyway? With sperm on it too?

Athena

10-08-2006, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I don't know if Wolf ever gave a DNA sample. The police don't need his permission to get that. His girlfriend contacted police and I think they looked into it, just as they looked at thousands of tips. They probably quickly determined he couldn't be placed near the scene or had some other reason to quickly dismiss him.

I see no problem at all with docg's theory. Sure the police would have checked his computer - and he wouldn't have left anything for them to find. He knew more about computers than any member of the BPD. He probably knew more than all the BPD put together.

I've read the note carefully. I think it was written by one of the Rs as an element of staging. It just doens't ring true either as a RN, or a Revenge Note.

They did take JR's hard drive and I can assure you that no matter how much one knows about PCs - the hard drive can be recovered and it wouldn't have been the BPD doing that it would have been someone in forensics. What you think you are "deleting" is not really deleted from the hard drive at all. It is only deleted from your files.

Also Chris Wolf, Bill McReynolds and Fleet White were NEVER removed from the suspect list by the DAs. Chris Wolf wasn't home that night and I've never seen anything about an alibi for him. Where was he? Why was he so dirty when he came home? Why didn't they take the evidence that Dilson took to them and have it analyzed?? BPD wasn't interested period. He wasn't a Ramsey.

They all should have been re-tested when that DNA was isolated as well. Wolf did give a handwriting sample and was NOT excluded by the handwriting experts either.

I find it also funny that you question why Linda Hoffman-Pugh or someone associated with her would be so stupid to use the $118K amount but you believe a Ramsey would be that stupid?

MissOtisRegrets

10-08-2006, 11:32 PM

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail03.asp?ID=26

thewhitewitch1

10-09-2006, 12:47 AM

So what are the Ramseys investigative team doing about these suspects? Not much, it would seem. :(

thewhitewitch1

10-09-2006, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Except that Burke wouldn't have been going to prison. A murder chage was impossible due to his age. I don't know about a manslaughter charge.

I don't see this as a coverup for something Burke did. He was too young to be in serious trouble, and they didn't live in TX.

He may have been too young to go to prison but imagine the impact it would have on his familys perfect image.
But I don't think Burke did it.

chatwuann

10-09-2006, 01:22 AM

I voted an intruder killed JonBenet. No other theory is possible because that is what I believe. I believe this intruder was someone out for revenge and decided to kill JonBenet to get back at John Ramsey. The RN was a personal note for John Ramsey and is full of hatred for him.And as for the body left in the house I think the intruder left it there because he or she wanted John Ramsey to find it there and feel guilt because he couldn't save JonBenet. The $118,000 was to tell John who he was. John Ramseys knows who the intruder is he just doesn't realise it.

JMO

lucky13

10-09-2006, 06:02 PM

chatwuann, Please go to the thread that is intended for IDI theories & post your entire theory from beginning to end. Please don't leave anything out. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm serious. I am truly interested in a good IDI theory from beginning to end, & it sounds like you've got one!

lucky13

10-09-2006, 06:42 PM

I can't get past someone saying that they can't see John & Patsy watching many movies like the ones whose lines were used in the RN. Did you read the '97 interview with Patsy? She states that John often rented videos, usually the kind that she didn't like.(you were right about her) But John watched them. They had 3 movie posters hanging down in the basement train room(another leaning against the wall). Would you buy movie posters if you weren't a movie fan? And over 150 video tapes were removed as evidence. I don't know what was on them because the list didn't say. I know it could be anything, but thats a lot of video tapes.
I certainly don't think that the RN was first written on a PC though. It may have been restarted several times on the notepad. I think it was written hastily after the murder by someone who was desperate & not thinking totally clear. It's too rambling & unnecessary. It took a while to pen that thing.
It doesn't make sense to me that anyone would think that the words business & possession were misspelled because the writer was just that stupid, yet he managed to correctly spell attache, & even insert the little 'thingy' over the letter E. And he correctly spelled 'exhausting' & 'adequate', & had the mind set to use the phrase 'and hence'. IMO, it's obvious that the writer intended on misspelling words throughout the note to throw the suspicion off of himself, but he is just so smart, that he forgot & just naturally spelled everything else correctly, in the rush that he was in.
And by the way, not many people use the phrase, 'and hence'. The AND is not necessary. It is usually only worded using the single word, 'hence'. But lo & behold, Patsy also used 'AND hence' in her family Christmas letter. Hmmm..... MOO

Athena

10-09-2006, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by chatwuann
I voted an intruder killed JonBenet. No other theory is possible because that is what I believe. I believe this intruder was someone out for revenge and decided to kill JonBenet to get back at John Ramsey. The RN was a personal note for John Ramsey and is full of hatred for him.And as for the body left in the house I think the intruder left it there because he or she wanted John Ramsey to find it there and feel guilt because he couldn't save JonBenet. The $118,000 was to tell John who he was. John Ramseys knows who the intruder is he just doesn't realise it.

JMO

I totally agree with you about the note. IMO the "note" was not a ransom note. It was a message and if the BPD had questioned the Ramseys without having a preconceived decision that they had committed this crime, perhaps they could have even pulled it out of John's subconscious. The killer has been sitting back all of these years reveling in his/her glee that this was pulled off and watched John lose his assets and his status in the community as well as in the industry. I firmly believe that it was someone who knew John, hated John, maybe who was even slighted at one time thus the mention of the $118 deferred compensation and harbored ill-feelings. Whoever it was planned this murder and like some people say Christmas can bring out the best and worst in people and Christmas brought out the worst in this killer. The RN is not for ransom note but a revenge note - a message of revenge. jmho

thewhitewitch1

10-09-2006, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I totally agree with you about the note. IMO the "note" was not a ransom note. It was a message and if the BPD had questioned the Ramseys without having a preconceived decision that they had committed this crime, perhaps they could have even pulled it out of John's subconscious. The killer has been sitting back all of these years reveling in his/her glee that this was pulled off and watched John lose his assets and his status in the community as well as in the industry. I firmly believe that it was someone who knew John, hated John, maybe who was even slighted at one time thus the mention of the $118 deferred compensation and harbored ill-feelings. Whoever it was planned this murder and like some people say Christmas can bring out the best and worst in people and Christmas brought out the worst in this killer. The RN is not for ransom note but a revenge note - a message of revenge. jmho

I just don't believe any of that revenge stuff. Someone out for revenge isn't going to know that the police would focus on the family and that all of this would happen. If they were that nuts and spiteful, they'd want to be involved with the Ramseys so they could witness the fruits of their labor. I can't see them sitting back in glee after all of these years without bragging to someone about what they did. It just wouldn't work that way. IMO

Athena

10-09-2006, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Athena
Dang -- apparently Keith Andrews, a British Criminologist wrote an article about a theory that he believed Fleet White killed JBR. But search after search I could only find this one paragraph and each site I found it - it leads to dead links. Even on his own site he has removed everything he wrote about the JBR case.

KEITH ANDREWS--Criminologist:
"I have analysed the 'ransom note' left at the Ramsey's home by the killer, and noted several strong matches regarding grammar, phrasing and style between the note and the wording of Fleet White's letter of January 16, 1998 to the Daily Camera. The phrase: 'At this time' immediately caught my eye. The phrase 'At this time' starts the third sentence of the ransom note: 'At this time we have your daughter in our possession.' I do not believe Fleet White acted alone. I am certain that his wife Priscilla aided and abetted him."

http://www.geocities.com/sleuthandrews/americana.html

There has to be a reason why all of White's interviews are sealed. And I wonder if that is why Keith Andrews removed his analysis from his website:

12 Q. Was there anybody else besides her
13 who submitted handwriting?
14 MR. WOOD: I told you about the
15 Fleet White package that I received.
16 MR. KANE: Yes. That is right.
17 Fleet White.
18 MR. LEVIN: If I can interrupt
19 for just a second, that's based on
20 linguistics, though, if I understood you?
21 MR. WOOD: To tell you the truth,
22 I haven't, other than to recognize what it
23 was, I did not try to study it. So I
24 wouldn't -- my impression was initially it
25 was linguistics, but it might be, it might
0073
1 reference handwriting.
2 MR. KANE: Was that a handwritten
3 note or something of Fleet or --
4 MR. WOOD: No. It's about an
5 inch and a half thick report.
6 MR. KANE: Okay. But it's not
7 handwritten, I was talking about handwriting
8 here, was that in here?
9 MR. WOOD: That is what I was
10 telling Bruce. I didn't study it other than
11 to recognize that it was someone sending me
12 an analysis of Fleet White's writings. And
13 whether it is limited to linguistics or
14 whether it goes into the handwriting issue, I
15 wouldn't state on the record without being
16 certain, but I will get that to you all and
17 you will know exactly what it is.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-John-Interview-Complete.htm

LadyFisher

10-09-2006, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by lucky13
I can't get past someone saying that they can't see John & Patsy watching many movies like the ones whose lines were used in the RN. Did you read the '97 interview with Patsy? She states that John often rented videos, usually the kind that she didn't like.(you were right about her) But John watched them. They had 3 movie posters hanging down in the basement train room(another leaning against the wall). Would you buy movie posters if you weren't a movie fan? And over 150 video tapes were removed as evidence. I don't know what was on them because the list didn't say. I know it could be anything, but thats a lot of video tapes.
I certainly don't think that the RN was first written on a PC though. It may have been restarted several times on the notepad. I think it was written hastily after the murder by someone who was desperate & not thinking totally clear. It's too rambling & unnecessary. It took a while to pen that thing.
It doesn't make sense to me that anyone would think that the words business & possession were misspelled because the writer was just that stupid, yet he managed to correctly spell attache, & even insert the little 'thingy' over the letter E. And he correctly spelled 'exhausting' & 'adequate', & had the mind set to use the phrase 'and hence'. IMO, it's obvious that the writer intended on misspelling words throughout the note to throw the suspicion off of himself, but he is just so smart, that he forgot & just naturally spelled everything else correctly, in the rush that he was in.
And by the way, not many people use the phrase, 'and hence'. The AND is not necessary. It is usually only worded using the single word, 'hence'. But lo & behold, Patsy also used 'AND hence' in her family Christmas letter. Hmmm..... MOO You do know why they confiscated those movies....they were trying to find some with the same lines used in the ransom note....they must not have found them! :confused: There is another fabrication about this case I would like to clarify...it was reported that John had the book "Mindhunter" in his home, too...but that was false, he never had the book.......where is your theory on that thread, Lucky? :seeya:

edna mode

10-09-2006, 11:11 PM

Fleet White has never been officially cleared in the murder of Jonbenet. Devotion, please indicate your source for such a statement.

He continues to be a suspect.

Athena

10-09-2006, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
You do know why they confiscated those movies....they were trying to find some with the same lines used in the ransom note....they must not have found them! :confused: There is another fabrication about this case I would like to clarify...it was reported that John had the book "Mindhunter" in his home, too...but that was false, he never had the book.......where is your theory on that thread, Lucky? :seeya:

Well LadyFisher -- Looks like the book that JR had on his nightstand was one about dying and associated with his older daughter's death:

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/1...ew-Complete.htm

Athena

10-09-2006, 11:14 PM

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
JFK

LadyFisher

10-09-2006, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I just don't believe any of that revenge stuff. Someone out for revenge isn't going to know that the police would focus on the family and that all of this would happen. If they were that nuts and spiteful, they'd want to be involved with the Ramseys so they could witness the fruits of their labor. I can't see them sitting back in glee after all of these years without bragging to someone about what they did. It just wouldn't work that way. IMO I don't necessarily think that the perp knew that the Ramseys would be blamed for this....but when they were...I'm sure he felt like he was the smartest creature on earth...I think he followed every aspect of the case...I do believe as Althena that it was a revenge murder! imho :seeya:

Athena

10-09-2006, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Excellent point! "Would a guilty man really go that far?" No, he wouldn't....IMO

Really?

It's a case of "The man doth protest too much, methinks"

edna mode

10-09-2006, 11:31 PM

If you read White's letters closely it's easy to notice his words are rarely about Jonbenet...but, they are about himself.

One of the most telling choices White made in my opinion was not taking legal action against Nancy Krebs. He whined and complained he was wronged yet he never even attempted to meet her in a courtroom to clear his name. Instead he chose to use intimidation and sneaky legal tactics by using criminal libel as his route to "truth". He knew damn well criminal libel would not clear his name. It's been ruled unconstitutional in many states and is NO WAY to clear your name of such dark charges.

You gotta ask yourself why? Sure, his apologists love to give all kinds of excuses. But, put yourself in his shoes...if someone made false sexual abuse charges about you and your family that were NOT true wouldn't you go directly after that person to clear your name?

White is hiding his past and the dark past of his family...

LadyFisher

10-09-2006, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Really?

It's a case of "The man doth protest too much, methinks" You know, Althena....I remember reading something in DOI about the Whites.......when they were in Atlanta...they actually got all bent out of shape because the friends of the Ramseys they were staying with had a maid....what the heck....who cares.....it was almost as if they resented the wealth of some of these people...if you are a true friend of someone imho you don't really care what or how much they have! Their actions were strange...but the actions of so many people in this case was strange! imho :seeya:

LadyFisher

10-09-2006, 11:40 PM

edna mode

10-10-2006, 12:02 AM

I also think the Ramsey's were more than gracious in terms of what they said about White. Not until years later in their book did they begin to share their concerns.

I personally believe he began his campaign against the Ramsey's from the very first day after the murder. He quickly worked to convince the impressionable and inexperienced BPD that the Ramsey's were guilty. He and Priscilla work as a team, even today to try to find out what's happening in the case. They are pros at intimidation.

Mimi428

10-10-2006, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Athena
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
JFK

Very pertinent to this case, imo - thanks for reminding us.

Frankly (& no slam against you or the IDIs) - I honestly think that holding onto mythical beliefs about magical intruders is a heck of a lot more comforting to some folks than the dealing with the heartbreaking reality that parents harm their children.

People who place a high value on appearance - or 'style over substance', if you will, when faced with the ugly proposition of having their facades crumble in public - the ones they have worked overtime to maintain - can & do act in desperate & irrational ways. I have never seen either of the Ramsey parents speak or write anything which indicates that they placed as high a value on the life of their child as they did on "keeping up appearances".

MOO

Athena

10-10-2006, 01:19 AM

Mythical beliefs? Where is the hard evidence that points to the Ramseys? There were over 4,000 pieces of fiber found at the crime scene that COULD NOT be linked to the Ramseys. So where do you think these unknown fibers, hair, blood and DNA came from?

No offense Mimi but it seems it is you who place style over substance. Your posts indicate that you are a hater. Maybe you don't even realize it and I've hesitated at pointing it out. But your posts IMO have more to do with the lifestyle of Patsy than it has to do with you thinking she had something to do with JBR's death. You talk about how many Christmas trees she put up in her house, you talk about why Patsy made JBRs costumes better than anyone elses (or your words I believe - overdone). Above you talk about 'keeping up appearances". To top it off, you accuse the IDIs of being “enamored” with the Ramseys that appears to me that is why you believe we think an intruder committed this horrific crime. I am still waiting for your theory other than Patsy "overdoes" everything. jmho

O, beware, my lord, of jealousy! It is the green-eyed monster, which doth mock the meat it feeds on."

~William Shakespeare

Athena

10-10-2006, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by edna mode
If you read White's letters closely it's easy to notice his words are rarely about Jonbenet...but, they are about himself.

One of the most telling choices White made in my opinion was not taking legal action against Nancy Krebs. He whined and complained he was wronged yet he never even attempted to meet her in a courtroom to clear his name. Instead he chose to use intimidation and sneaky legal tactics by using criminal libel as his route to "truth". He knew damn well criminal libel would not clear his name. It's been ruled unconstitutional in many states and is NO WAY to clear your name of such dark charges.

You gotta ask yourself why? Sure, his apologists love to give all kinds of excuses. But, put yourself in his shoes...if someone made false sexual abuse charges about you and your family that were NOT true wouldn't you go directly after that person to clear your name?

White is hiding his past and the dark past of his family...

I so agree with you Edna. His case was even assigned to a DA from another county because we all know he didn't trust the Boulder's Staff. He even let the appeal lapse.

From an article in the Boulder Daily Camera,

"Last August, the Whites asked Boulder police to investigate the Daily Camera regarding a Feb. 25, 2000, story about a California woman who said she was abused in a manner similar to the way JonBenét Ramsey died in Dec. 26, 1996. The Whites were close friends of the Ramseys, and Fleet White Jr. was with John Ramsey when he discovered his 6-year-old daughter's beaten and strangled body in the family's basement. The California woman said she knew the Ramseys through the White family."

"The Whites' case was assigned to the Pueblo district attorney because of a conflict of interest with the Boulder district attorney. But in October, Bailin ended the investigation, saying she did so at the Whites' request. They denied asking that the matter be dropped."

**********************************

On May 14, 2001, the state filed a motion to dismiss in the Fleet White criminal libel appeal. Fleet White had until May 24th to issue a response and no response was ever received by the court, and the case was dismissed on June 5, 2001.

http://www.acandyrose.com/08032000fleetwhite.htm

White refuses to talk to reporters. And several people in law enforcement and the media have wondered aloud why a man obsessed with punishing news outlets for publicizing his name keeps himself in the spotlight.

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail03.asp?ID=28

thewhitewitch1

10-10-2006, 01:53 AM

Please take the time to read this...everyone. Don't discount it just because some of it has quotes from Thomas and his book. The author believes that this was not a murder and will explain why. It is what I believe happened too. Maybe if you IDI's understand this theory that it was not a murder, you may begin to understand how the Ramseys could have been involved.
It is long but well worth the time it takes to read.
The fiber evidence is a fact. You can not just explain it away. The Hi-Tech boots belonged to Burke. That is a fact. Anyway....please read:

http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

Athena

10-10-2006, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Please take the time to read this...everyone. Don't discount it just because some of it has quotes from Thomas and his book. The author believes that this was not a murder and will explain why. It is what I believe happened too. Maybe if you IDI's understand this theory that it was not a murder, you may begin to understand how the Ramseys could have been involved.
It is long but well worth the time it takes to read.
The fiber evidence is a fact. You can not just explain it away. The Hi-Tech boots belonged to Burke. That is a fact. Anyway....please read:

http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

I've read that many times before. You are right about fibers however there were over 4,000 fibers found - none of which could be linked to the Ramseys. You can't take a couple of fibers and say ah ha and dismiss the rest to make it fit your theory.

The prints of the Hi-Tech boots DID NOT belong to Burke. They were the wrong size. They know the size of those boot prints but have not released it to the public. All you need do is read why Helgoth's boot prints were not a match -- they also were the wrong size. A boy of 9's shoes would probably be about 3 1/2 - 4. Far different from a full grown men's size boots.

edna mode

10-10-2006, 02:29 AM

Athena, I believe White was far more interested in obtaining sensitive documents through his legal efforts than finding any kind of justice for himself. If you read the transcripts closely and notice his questions they are VERY revealing as to his motives.

He wanted whatever LE had on him...he got alot but not ALL...

A White Knight? Nah...Sly like a fox? You betcha....

WallyCleaver

10-10-2006, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Athena

They did take JR's hard drive and I can assure you that no matter how much one knows about PCs - the hard drive can be recovered and it wouldn't have been the BPD doing that it would have been someone in forensics. What you think you are "deleting" is not really deleted from the hard drive at all. It is only deleted from your files.

[/QUOTE}

I'm told by my sone who's a computer science major that people in the know can erase the hard drive. I wouldn't be able to do it, but then I'm hardly a computer expert.

[QUOTE]

Also Chris Wolf, Bill McReynolds and Fleet White were NEVER removed from the suspect list by the DAs. Chris Wolf wasn't home that night and I've never seen anything about an alibi for him. Where was he? Why was he so dirty when he came home? Why didn't they take the evidence that Dilson took to them and have it analyzed?? BPD wasn't interested period. He wasn't a Ramsey.

They all should have been re-tested when that DNA was isolated as well. Wolf did give a handwriting sample and was NOT excluded by the handwriting experts either.

If you want to believe the police deliberately ignored suspects that's up to you. If they bothered with a handwritting sample from Wolfe, they must know enough about him that they know they can't arrest him.

I find it also funny that you question why Linda Hoffman-Pugh or someone associated with her would be so stupid to use the $118K amount but you believe a Ramsey would be that stupid?

I think this has been addressed dozens of times now. It's stupid for an intruder, but not for the Ramseys, as it can be interpreted as pointing to someone with knowledge of JR's bonus.

I find it amusing that you think the R's are too smart for this, despite having a reason to do it, but the hypothetical intruder is dumb enough to do it, despite having a reason not to.

sweetcharlotte

10-10-2006, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by edna mode
Athena, I believe White was far more interested in obtaining sensitive documents through his legal efforts than finding any kind of justice for himself. If you read the transcripts closely and notice his questions they are VERY revealing as to his motives.

He wanted whatever LE had on him...he got alot but not ALL...

A White Knight? Nah...Sly like a fox? You betcha....

What else can you tell us about Fleet (and Priscilla)?

thewhitewitch1

10-10-2006, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Athena

I've read that many times before. You are right about fibers however there were over 4,000 fibers found - none of which could be linked to the Ramseys. You can't take a couple of fibers and say ah ha and dismiss the rest to make it fit your theory.

The prints of the Hi-Tech boots DID NOT belong to Burke. They were the wrong size. They know the size of those boot prints but have not released it to the public. All you need do is read why Helgoth's boot prints were not a match -- they also were the wrong size. A boy of 9's shoes would probably be about 3 1/2 - 4. Far different from a full grown men's size boots.

How many other fibers were found in the paint caddy and entwined in the cord around JBs neck? How many other fibers were in her pubic area and on the tape? If there were any, who did they belong to? That is all that really matters. IMO.
Also, I have not looked into it but that article states that a friend of Burkes testified to the Grand Jury that Burke did own a pair of Hi-Tech boots. If only a partial print was found, how could the size be determined?

rashomon

10-10-2006, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I've read that many times before. You are right about fibers however there were over 4,000 fibers found - none of which could be linked to the Ramseys. You can't take a couple of fibers and say ah ha and dismiss the rest to make it fit your theory.

Every household has lots of unsourced fibers, but that is not the point. It is the sourced fibers who are important here.
And if sourced fibers have been found in incriminating locations at the crime scene, that's another story.
The fiber evidence is very damaging: fibers in the wrappings of the garrote handle, on the sticky side of the duct tape and in the paint tray - all belonging to the jacket Patsy Ramsey had been wearing on that fatal night.
And fibers from John's shirt were found in the crotch area of JB's underwear.

nuisanceposter

10-10-2006, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

Every household has lots of unsourced fibers, but that is not the point. It is the sourced fibers who are important here.
And if sourced fibers have been found in incriminating locations at the crime scene, that's another story.
The fiber evidence is very damaging: fibers in the wrappings of the garrote handle, on the sticky side of the duct tape and in the paint tray - all belonging to the jacket Patsy Ramsey had been wearing on that fatal night.
And fibers from John's shirt were found in the crotch area of JB's underwear.

Absolutely, those particular fibers found in those particular locations is a dead tip off as to who was involved in the murder and staging! There is no innocent explanation for those fibers to be found in those specific places - they didn't just float through the air and end up on JonBenet as she was being killed and the scene staged.

Both John and Patsy said they had not worn those clothes in the basement that day, Patsy saying she had never painted in that jacket. These were dress clothes, not every day wear (in Patsy's case seasonal.)

If those fibers found in the crime scene and on the body were sourced to anyone other than a Ramsey, you IDIs would have that person on trial so fast it would make my head spin - so why can't the same be said of a Ramsey?

Be honest, the fibers of the clothing they wore that evening and no one else's being found area clear indication that they were likely involved - more so than the fibers from other people that weren't found there at all.

Add that to all of the contradicting stories the Rs have told, with the pineapple, with the RN Patsy was never excluded as author of, plus the way the Rs didn't feel the need to respect the threats in the RN whatsoever, in combination to the evidence of possible prior abuse, not to mention zero forensic evidence of an intruder, and there's no way anyone other than a Ramsey killed JonBenet.

Athena

10-10-2006, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

How many other fibers were found in the paint caddy and entwined in the cord around JBs neck? How many other fibers were in her pubic area and on the tape? If there were any, who did they belong to? That is all that really matters. IMO.
Also, I have not looked into it but that article states that a friend of Burkes testified to the Grand Jury that Burke did own a pair of Hi-Tech boots. If only a partial print was found, how could the size be determined?

What about the brown fibers that were found in her vaginal area that appeared to come from gloves? None that the Ramseys owned or how about the blue fibers that came from a cloth that she was wiped down with but the cloth was never found either or what caused those blue fibers to be there. You cannot dismiss them.

Re: the boot. Here's a test for you - take a child's boot, sneaker whatever has treads -- Note that the width and the length of those treads will be varied due to the size -- including the manufacturer's logo. Try it!

It is easier to explain why the occupants of a house's fibers could be found far more than fibers that CANNOT be identified. jmho

nuisanceposter

10-10-2006, 02:59 PM

Are you aware of the huge list of items Pam Paugh took when she raided the Ramsey house, supposedly for funeral clothes and a few mementos? Enough to load down a police cruiser's backseat and trunk - bag after bag and box after box. How we be sure that the items providing the brown and blue fibers weren't taken out then by Pam Paugh?

There's no way to source the age of the bootprint. It could have been made by any number of workers the Rs hired through the years to renovate. There's still no forensic evidence of an intruder - no prints, no hair, no fibers...but the fibers from the clothes both Rs wore that night are on the body and in the crime scene.

2 + 2 = 5, apparently.

bullmoose

10-10-2006, 03:03 PM

To Rashoman: During questioning by the BPD, it was asked of JR how could fibers from his shirt be in Jonbenet's genital area. This is police technique to confuse a suspect by asking false questions; JR's lawyer said lets see the evidance that any such fibers were found in her genital area before I allow JR to answer. The BPD dropped the question because they had no such evidence. Quoting as fact that such fibers were found when it isn't so damages your credibility, IMO

thewhitewitch1

10-10-2006, 03:14 PM

The more I think about it, the more I believe that Burke may have been the one to cause the "accidental" blow to JB's head.
Perhaps the "prior sexual abuse" was not abuse at all, but Burke "experimenting" with sex with JB. It is not unusual for siblings to do this. Maybe he was caught in her room doing this. Maybe he hurt her and when she tried to make him stop, he hit her on the head to wuiet her so the parents wouldn't hear and catch him. If you are fooling around with your little sister in the dark, a flashlight would certainly come in handy.
After he hit her on the head is where mom and dad would come in. I'm sure they thought she was dead or dying and staged the cover up so that they wouldn't lose Burke. Even if there was no danger of losing him, imagine what everyone would think knowing that Burke killed his own sister or brain damaged her for life; accident or not.
Maybe Burke didn't know the extent of her injury and was sent to his room afterwards and did not have a clue what went on afterwards. I am sure he was not involved in the staging. The less he knew, the less he would have to lie about.
Burke has been oddly silent about all of this through the years. The Ramseys say he never asked what happened and they never discuss it. In light of what I believe happened, why would they ever discuss it?
As for the pineapple, I think that the kids had a snack before they went to bed. Maybe they were allowed to play in JBs room after the parents went to bed or maybe Burke sneaked in afterwards.
As far as the silk scarf goes (that I still think is significant), when the staging began, perhaps John used it first because a silk scarf does not seem as violent or harsh as a cord or garrotte. The garrotte was constructed afterwards to fit the terrorist/kidnapper theme.
As far as letting Burke go back to school where he could "spill the beans"....if the "beans" were of his doing, why would he ever even want to say a word? You don't go around telling your friends that you bashed your little sisters head in while you were playing feely mealy with her.
The Ramseys have protected Burke well throughout all of this. They lied that he slept through that morning; they sent him out of the house as soon as possible and they were sure to tell him what he was supposed to say. Any little kid that has hurt another kid; especially his little sister, is not going to admit it to anyone in authority. He knew it was wrong and he knew he could get in big trouble. If you don't believe a child can lie that well, you didn't know me when I was his age. ;)
I am really starting to believe that Burke is the one who began this entire tradgedy. I have never thought the Ramseys were cold blooded killers of their own child and this theory really makes sense to me.
I know you IDI's are going to pick it apart because you will not believe Burke was involved. I do not believe John molested JB. I think it was innocent kid experimentation stuff that went really wrong. Does anyone else find this to be a valid theory?

thewhitewitch1

10-10-2006, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Athena

What about the brown fibers that were found in her vaginal area that appeared to come from gloves? None that the Ramseys owned or how about the blue fibers that came from a cloth that she was wiped down with but the cloth was never found either or what caused those blue fibers to be there. You cannot dismiss them.

Re: the boot. Here's a test for you - take a child's boot, sneaker whatever has treads -- Note that the width and the length of those treads will be varied due to the size -- including the manufacturer's logo. Try it!

It is easier to explain why the occupants of a house's fibers could be found far more than fibers that CANNOT be identified. jmho

As far as I know, neither of the Ramseys were body searched that day. If gloves were worn or a washcloth used, they could easily have been smuggled out of the house by one of the Ramseys. IMO
And it is not easier to explain why occupants of the house's fibers could be found in the paint caddy or entwined in the garrotte or stuck to the back of a piece of tape if one or both parents claim that they had not been near those items.
As for the boot....it would depend on how big Burkes feet were, wouldn't it? Some kids have big feet.

edna mode

10-10-2006, 03:19 PM

Not sure what else to share. I recently read an excerpt from the early Vanity Fair article on the case. I must say I fully agree with the following statement from Pam Griffin:

"This man has a dark side," she told me over the phone. Pressed to explain how Fleet White could have possibly killed JonBenet, she said, "I don't think Fleet White with his two hands murdered that child. I just think he knows something."

nuisanceposter

10-10-2006, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To Rashoman: During questioning by the BPD, it was asked of JR how could fibers from his shirt be in Jonbenet's genital area. This is police technique to confuse a suspect by asking false questions; JR's lawyer said lets see the evidance that any such fibers were found in her genital area before I allow JR to answer. The BPD dropped the question because they had no such evidence. Quoting as fact that such fibers were found when it isn't so damages your credibility, IMO

Well, you don't hand evidence over to the prime suspects, nor are the police required to tell suspects details about the evidence that may may used to convict them.

That wasn't a police officer interviewing JR, it was Levin, an attorney, who was bound legally to tell the truth. He would not have been allowed to fabricate evidence just to trick the Ramseys, and that is not what happened here.

You want to talk about credibility? The Ramseys, who contradict themselves again and again while under the influence of prescription drugs are the ones whose credibility should be in question. Patsy can barely anything in interviews, unless it has nothing to do with the murder or investigation - then she can go into great detail.

bullmoose

10-10-2006, 03:24 PM

To nuisanceposter: wasn't the boot print in a clod of dirt? The broken window was broken from the outside,since no glass fragments were ever found outside the window, yet the floor was free of any appreciable amout of glass, so it had been thoroughly cleaned up prior to the discovery of Jonbenet.[months before?] I fail to see how you would come to the conclusion that the adult-size print could be from anybody in several years of traffic when the area was obviously cleaned[=swept up or vacuumed] not long before. IMO

nuisanceposter

10-10-2006, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Well, you don't hand evidence over to the prime suspects, nor are the police required to tell suspects details about the evidence that may may used to convict them.

That wasn't a police officer interviewing JR, it was Levin, an attorney, who was bound legally to tell the truth. He would not have been allowed to fabricate evidence just to trick the Ramseys, and that is not what happened here.

You want to talk about credibility? The Ramseys, who contradict themselves again and again while under the influence of prescription drugs are the ones whose credibility should be in question. Patsy can barely anything in interviews, unless it has nothing to do with the murder or investigation - then she can go into great detail.

Sorry, Rashomon, I should have waited til you replied first. In my zeal to answer, I missed the part indicating the question was addressed to you.

nuisanceposter

10-10-2006, 03:28 PM

I guess I can't delete?

LindaA

10-10-2006, 03:28 PM

Actually, TWW!, your theory makes a lot of sense and explains a lot of things. However, the garrotte bothers me. I've never felt the Ramsey's would know how to construct and use such an item -- and it was actually used. Just as the pineapple has always led me to doubt the Ramseys' innocence, the garotte has laways led me to doubt their guilt.

One question: howmuch force woud it take to deliver such a blow to the heaad of a child? Could a 9 year old do that? It might be possible, but then again, it might not.

LadyFisher

10-10-2006, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by edna mode
Not sure what else to share. I recently read an excerpt from the early Vanity Fair article on the case. I must say I fully agree with the following statement from Pam Griffin:

"This man has a dark side," she told me over the phone. Pressed to explain how Fleet White could have possibly killed JonBenet, she said, "I don't think Fleet White with his two hands murdered that child. I just think he knows something." I do think that the Whites are a strange bunch....but even stranger imo are the McReynolds family...I was reading some on jameson's board....I don't think the MacReynolds family were ever taken off of the suspect list, and imo for good reasons! :seeya:

nuisanceposter

10-10-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To nuisanceposter: wasn't the boot print in a clod of dirt? The broken window was broken from the outside,since no glass fragments were ever found outside the window, yet the floor was free of any appreciable amout of glass, so it had been thoroughly cleaned up prior to the discovery of Jonbenet.[months before?] I fail to see how you would come to the conclusion that the adult-size print could be from anybody in several years of traffic when the area was obviously cleaned[=swept up or vacuumed] not long before. IMO

And I fail to see how you can conclude that partial print came from an intruder who murdered JonBenet when there is no forensic evidence of an intruder in that house at all but fiber evidence of Ramsey involvement in the crime scene and on the body.

So when was that area swept or vacuumed up? Did you know LHP has no recollection of helping Patsy clean up the glass like Patsy said she did?

thewhitewitch1

10-10-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
Actually, TWW!, your theory makes a lot of sense and explains a lot of things. However, the garrotte bothers me. I've never felt the Ramsey's would know how to construct and use such an item -- and it was actually used. Just as the pineapple has always led me to doubt the Ramseys' innocence, the garotte has laways led me to doubt their guilt.

One question: howmuch force woud it take to deliver such a blow to the heaad of a child? Could a 9 year old do that? It might be possible, but then again, it might not.

Of course it is possible for a 9 year old to deliver such a blow. Why would it not be possible? As stated in the article I posted recently somewhere, a child would not know how much force is too much to just "shut somebody up" without the intention of actually hurting them badly. Burke played in little league...I'm sure he had some muscle.
If the silk scarf was used first and then later reconsidered (if it could have been traced back to the Ramseys), JB would have already been dead so the garrotte could not harm her further. There has been much debate on the professionalism of that garrotte and its use. If you consider these things, it should all become more plausable. IMO
You also have to consider that fibers from Patsys jacket WERE in that paint caddy, entwined in the garrotte and on the back of the tape. It cannot be denied that she was near these things. There can be no other explaination.

bullmoose

10-10-2006, 04:23 PM

Some have said that the window was broken as part of the Rameys' plot to blame an intruder; but no glass was found outside the window or all over the floor if it was broken from outside. This, to me seems to indicate it wasn't a new break, inasmuch as it had been cleaned up by someone prior to the day in question. I do not conclude that an intruder necessarily made the footprint; I don't know whose footprint it was. Neither do the BPD or anyone else. But no evidence of the cleaned up glass was found in the house by Boulder's Finest so it was probably a while since it happened. As for the lawyer not being able to fabricate evidence, isn't that why he dropped the question? There was no such evidence, obviously. IMO

Athena

10-10-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I do think that the Whites are a strange bunch....but even stranger imo are the McReynolds family...I was reading some on jameson's board....I don't think the MacReynolds family were ever taken off of the suspect list, and imo for good reasons! :seeya:

Fleet White, Chris Wolf nor the McReynolds were removed from the suspect list. Thomas is the one that said White was cleared. In Thomas' depo it comes out that Beckner still considered White a suspect as well as Wolf and McReynolds.

LadyFisher

10-10-2006, 04:39 PM

bullmoose

10-10-2006, 04:43 PM

Is it just me or do others find it strange that Twisting Thomas seems to have a hand in whenever the waters of this case are muddied? If the BPD had not shown such tunnelvision from the very start and had invited in the offered help from agencies that actually knew what they were doing, maybe the case would have been resolved.

bullmoose

10-10-2006, 04:48 PM

:beer: To ladyfisher: I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly:beer:

WallyCleaver

10-10-2006, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
Some have said that the window was broken as part of the Rameys' plot to blame an intruder; but no glass was found outside the window or all over the floor if it was broken from outside. This, to me seems to indicate it wasn't a new break, inasmuch as it had been cleaned up by someone prior to the day in question. I do not conclude that an intruder necessarily made the footprint; I don't know whose footprint it was. Neither do the BPD or anyone else. But no evidence of the cleaned up glass was found in the house by Boulder's Finest so it was probably a while since it happened. As for the lawyer not being able to fabricate evidence, isn't that why he dropped the question? There was no such evidence, obviously. IMO

wasn't there one small piece of glass found? I thought I read that somewhere.

Anyway, generally, that's a good point. Had the R's broken the window that night, as part ofa coverup, it would look better to leave glass lying around.

lucky13

10-10-2006, 06:08 PM

whitewitch, YES, your Burke theory makes a lot of sense.
Do you know the whole story of what happened when Burke previously hit JB in the head with the golf club? How did it happen & why, & how hard was she hit? Just curious-always have been.

Ames

10-10-2006, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I just don't believe any of that revenge stuff. Someone out for revenge isn't going to know that the police would focus on the family and that all of this would happen. If they were that nuts and spiteful, they'd want to be involved with the Ramseys so they could witness the fruits of their labor. I can't see them sitting back in glee after all of these years without bragging to someone about what they did. It just wouldn't work that way. IMO

I agree, certainly they would have bragged to someone about it. And if a person hated JR to the point of killing JB for "revenge"....then why not kill Burke too, or instead? He was John's favorite, JB was Patsy's. Why not kill John? Why kill his daugther, if they hated him THAT MUCH! It makes absolutely NO sense at all.

sweetcharlotte

10-10-2006, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
Is it just me or do others find it strange that Twisting Thomas seems to have a hand in whenever the waters of this case are muddied? If the BPD had not shown such tunnelvision from the very start and had invited in the offered help from agencies that actually knew what they were doing, maybe the case would have been resolved.

Exactly!

Ames

10-10-2006, 06:39 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ames
[B]

I agree, certainly they would have bragged to someone about it. And if a person hated JR to the point of killing JB for "revenge"....then why not kill Burke too, or instead? He was John's favorite, JB was Patsy's. Why not kill John? Why kill his daugther, if they hated him THAT MUCH! It makes absolutely NO sense at all. If a person has it in them to kill another person, and they hate someone....why not kill the person that they hate so much? I cannot imagine someone saying..."Man, you know...I REALLY hate that John Ramsey. Gee, what can I do to get revenge on him? HMMMMM....kill his favorite child, Burke? NO, that's not a good idea. Kill John? Nahhhhh....I don't like that idea either. HEY...I KNOW...I will kill Jonbenet, she is Patsy's favorite, but...heck, I will kill her anyway, and then I will write a three page ransom letter just to throw everybody off." Think about it...if someone hated him THAT much....enough to kill...WHY NOT kill JOHN? IMO

Ames

10-10-2006, 06:40 PM

SORRY about posting part of this twice...my computer is acting all screwy....

sweetcharlotte

10-10-2006, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

wasn't there one small piece of glass found? I thought I read that somewhere.

Anyway, generally, that's a good point. Had the R's broken the window that night, as part ofa coverup, it would look better to leave glass lying around.

According to "Perfect Murder/Perfect Town", Fleet White saw a piece of glass under the window that morning, picked it up, and laid it in the window sill. From "The Cases That Haunt Us" John & Fleet saw "slivers of glass on the floor."

harz

10-10-2006, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I agree, certainly they would have bragged to someone about it. And if a person hated JR to the point of killing JB for "revenge"....then why not kill Burke too, or instead? He was John's favorite, JB was Patsy's. Why not kill John? Why kill his daugther, if they hated him THAT MUCH! It makes absolutely NO sense at all.

I agree, I don't see any revenge in ransom note, and not even one could predict at how on what had already occurred after JB's death. Ramseys just went overboard at staging; the ransom note was one of their mistakes if they want the crime scene to be flawless. IMO

thewhitewitch1

10-10-2006, 08:47 PM

thewhitewitch1

10-10-2006, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by edna mode
Not sure what else to share. I recently read an excerpt from the early Vanity Fair article on the case. I must say I fully agree with the following statement from Pam Griffin:

"This man has a dark side," she told me over the phone. Pressed to explain how Fleet White could have possibly killed JonBenet, she said, "I don't think Fleet White with his two hands murdered that child. I just think he knows something."

I'm sure he knows something too. That the Ramseys were involved in the murder. IMO

sweetcharlotte

10-10-2006, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I'm sure he knows something too. That the Ramseys were involved in the murder. IMO

I also think he knows who was involved in the murder and it wasn't the Ramseys. MOO

thewhitewitch1

10-10-2006, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I also think he knows who was involved in the murder and it wasn't the Ramseys. MOO

But what evidence is there that he was involved? What physical evidence? What would his motive be?
What reason would he have to write a ransom note? Do you really think he would risk his freedom to sneak into the Ramsey home and spend all that time there doing those things when he could have been caught at any time?
You IDI people think the "intruder" got into the house while the Ramseys were at the Whites party and wrote the note then. Not possible for it to happen that way if Fleet did it.
It's ridiculous to believe that he played any part in this. It just shows desperation for you IDI's to believe that someone...no...anyone did it except the Ramseys; even when there is nothing to support such a theory against some of the people you are accusing. IMO

harz

10-10-2006, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

The entire cord was used. The duct tape came off of something and was reused so there was no roll of tape to be found. There is no conclusive proof that a stun gun was even used. The pubic hair could have some from anywhere or anyone. One hair does not an intruder make.
But again...this has been said over and over. You IDIs aren't listening and keep presenting the same "evidence" over and over. We have offered explainations for them but you chose to ignore it. Give us something we can't explain.

I thought public hair was Patsy's. I believe the cord was Patsy's and was included with her craft stuffs. The duct tape was obviously not intruder's because a black duct tape was taped over JB's mouth, and silver duct tape was taped around the blanket covering JB. So why would intruder bring 2 different duct tapes, black and silver? Every households usually have duct tapes, none of rolls were found must mean John got rid of them in several ways if there were duct tape rolls. If there was stun gun, then it still point at Ramseys, John had a video tape in spanish about stun gun in his office. He couldn't speak or read spanish, so he did not knew that video tape was about the stun gun that he would have got rid of it quickly enough. IMO

thewhitewitch1

10-10-2006, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by harz

I thought public hair was Patsy's. I believe the cord was Patsy's and was included with her craft stuffs. The duct tape was obviously not intruder's because a black duct tape was taped over JB's mouth, and silver duct tape was taped around the blanket covering JB. So why would intruder bring 2 different duct tapes, black and silver? Every households usually have duct tapes, none of rolls were found must mean John got rid of them in several ways if there were duct tape rolls. If there was stun gun, then it still point at Ramseys, John had a video tape in spanish about stun gun in his office. He couldn't speak or read spanish, so he did not knew that video tape was about the stun gun that he would have got rid of it quickly enough. IMO

Where did you hear that silver duct tape was around the blanket?

harz

10-10-2006, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

But what evidence is there that he was involved? What physical evidence? What would his motive be?
What reason would he have to write a ransom note? Do you really think he would risk his freedom to sneak into the Ramsey home and spend all that time there doing those things when he could have been caught at any time?
You IDI people think the "intruder" got into the house while the Ramseys were at the Whites party and wrote the note then. Not possible for it to happen that way if Fleet did it.
It's ridiculous to believe that he played any part in this. It just shows desperation for you IDI's to believe that someone...no...anyone did it except the Ramseys; even when there is nothing to support such a theory against some of the people you are accusing. IMO

:beer: I agree. I am surprise no one haven't accused Grinch who stole the Christmas after several IDIs who already accused Santa Claus. That reminds me about Dr. Seuss book was found in Andrew suitcase with his semen on his blanket. A book about Grinch who stole the Christmas was also Dr. Seuss’; perhaps one of Ramseys got some peculiar ideas from it if one of them was suffering some kind of mental illness. What a bizarre coincides since it was Christmas time. Which one of Ramsey was playing as Grinch? IMO

harz

10-10-2006, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Where did you hear that silver duct tape was around the blanket?

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene2.html

look at blanket in wine cellar, it small picture but if you blow it up to get better picture, you will still see duct tape that is color silver. perhaps there bigger & better picture at other sites, I hope this one is good enough.

thewhitewitch1

10-10-2006, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by harz

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene2.html

look at blanket in wine cellar, it small picture but if you blow it up to get better picture, you will still see duct tape that is color silver. perhaps there bigger & better picture at other sites, I hope this one is good enough.

This is where I am confused. JR says that the tape he removed from JB's mouth was black. I believe that the tape shown on the blanket was the same tape removed from her mouth except that it isn't black. Fleet White was supposed to have picked up the tape removed from her mouth and placed it on the blanket. But then again, I recall reading something with John stating that there was tape on her legs. He only said it once and I thought it was something said in error but now I am beginning to wonder. :shrug:

WallyCleaver

10-10-2006, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I agree, Bull! I see evidence that there is missing duct tape, cord, and stun gun, an unexplained pubic hair that doesn't match the Ramseys, a shoe print that hasn't been identified with the Ramseys...there's imho a lot of evidence of an intruder! imho :seeya:

I don't know how many times we are destined to talk about this.

There is absolutely no evidence of any missing cord. Really, how many times does it have to be said? ARe IDIs willfully obtuse? What are you expecting to find, a huge spool from which the cord was cut?

Cord is sold in lengths. The length could be cut from a spool at the hardware store, or it could be sold pre-packaged. There is no reason at all to think there is any missing cord. That's just a nonsense position taken by IDIs. Time to give it up. Time also to pass it on to Athena, MissOtis, and other IDIs that keep repeating this nonsense.

Missing roll of tape - yes, that's possible. It is reasonable to ask where the tape came from, and if it were taken that night from a roll of tape, where's the remaining roll?

It's also reasonable to say that since it's only a small piece of tape, it could already have been on something - the back of a picture, or holding a string on one of JB's American Girl dolls, for example.

You IDIs really should consider that if the tape were removed from some other object in the house, this could well explain the fibers consistant with PR's jacket being on the tape.

A stun gun? We'll never know. Possible. However the rep from the Taser company said no. In fairness, his motive may have been to negate bad publicity for his company. The coroner said abrasions. He agreed it could be a stun gun, but he said abrassions first. Simply no way of knowing.

The pubic hair could be from an intruder, or from a workman who'd been in the house, or from one of John Andrew's frineds spending the night, or from someone at the party on the 23rd, .... Too many possibilities to say it was an intruder - but certainly it is possible.

Shoe print? The police wore HI-Tec, so did Burke. Is there any way to know the size? I've heard the logo is the same size regardless of shoe size. Was it fresh? Is here any way to tell?

harz

10-10-2006, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

This is where I am confused. JR says that the tape he removed from JB's mouth was black. I believe that the tape shown on the blanket was the same tape removed from her mouth except that it isn't black. Fleet White was supposed to have picked up the tape removed from her mouth and placed it on the blanket. But then again, I recall reading something with John stating that there was tape on her legs. He only said it once and I thought it was something said in error but now I am beginning to wonder. :shrug:

I remember reading somwhere about the tape that covered JB's mouth was black too. I wonder if JR is color blinded or LE isn't telling us much of this details? I didn't know about either JR or Fleet put tape on blanket came from JB's mouth. I also didn't know there was duct tape tied around JB's legs. I have to wonder if Fleet was gag ordered by judge not to reveal to public on what did he witnessed and JR won't say the specific details for only in his benefits. IMO

LindaA

10-10-2006, 11:46 PM

Frankly, I fiind it offensive the way some RDIs here refer to IDIs. I think the discussion would be far more helpful if they would refrain from using terms like "obtuse" and the like. As a fence sitter, I feel that people who need to resort to rudeness weaken their case.

MissOtisRegrets

10-10-2006, 11:53 PM

harz

10-10-2006, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
Frankly, I fiind it offensive the way some RDIs here refer to IDIs. I think the discussion would be far more helpful if they would refrain from using terms like "obtuse" and the like. As a fence sitter, I feel that people who need to resort to rudeness weaken their case.

which one of the posts were you talking about?

LadyFisher

10-11-2006, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by harz

I thought public hair was Patsy's. I believe the cord was Patsy's and was included with her craft stuffs. The duct tape was obviously not intruder's because a black duct tape was taped over JB's mouth, and silver duct tape was taped around the blanket covering JB. So why would intruder bring 2 different duct tapes, black and silver? Every households usually have duct tapes, none of rolls were found must mean John got rid of them in several ways if there were duct tape rolls. If there was stun gun, then it still point at Ramseys, John had a video tape in spanish about stun gun in his office. He couldn't speak or read spanish, so he did not knew that video tape was about the stun gun that he would have got rid of it quickly enough. IMO No, that pubic hair was not Patsys, and yes, she actually had to give a sample of hers! It did not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family! :seeya:

edna mode

10-11-2006, 12:40 AM

The old man up and died on JBR's birthday,

http://tinyurl.com/qfjmd

LadyFisher

10-11-2006, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I don't know how many times we are destined to talk about this.

There is absolutely no evidence of any missing cord. Really, how many times does it have to be said? ARe IDIs willfully obtuse? What are you expecting to find, a huge spool from which the cord was cut?

Cord is sold in lengths. The length could be cut from a spool at the hardware store, or it could be sold pre-packaged. There is no reason at all to think there is any missing cord. That's just a nonsense position taken by IDIs. Time to give it up. Time also to pass it on to Athena, MissOtis, and other IDIs that keep repeating this nonsense.

Missing roll of tape - yes, that's possible. It is reasonable to ask where the tape came from, and if it were taken that night from a roll of tape, where's the remaining roll?

It's also reasonable to say that since it's only a small piece of tape, it could already have been on something - the back of a picture, or holding a string on one of JB's American Girl dolls, for example.

You IDIs really should consider that if the tape were removed from some other object in the house, this could well explain the fibers consistant with PR's jacket being on the tape.

A stun gun? We'll never know. Possible. However the rep from the Taser company said no. In fairness, his motive may have been to negate bad publicity for his company. The coroner said abrasions. He agreed it could be a stun gun, but he said abrassions first. Simply no way of knowing.

The pubic hair could be from an intruder, or from a workman who'd been in the house, or from one of John Andrew's frineds spending the night, or from someone at the party on the 23rd, .... Too many possibilities to say it was an intruder - but certainly it is possible.

Shoe print? The police wore HI-Tec, so did Burke. Is there any way to know the size? I've heard the logo is the same size regardless of shoe size. Was it fresh? Is here any way to tell? :lol: Oops, it seems I get you all riled up! Wally, we keep repeating it, because it is important.....there is a roll of duct tape missing, cord, stun gun, someone is missing a pubic hair (that has not been identified), to my knowledge the shoe print has not been connected to anyone in the Ramsey home, wasn't it an approx size 10 in mens, Burke didn't wear a size 10 when he was 9....and I forgot to add the latex gloves....remember that one.............Wally, I thought you were a classier act and didn't have to call us obtuse, I thought you really were interested in our theories? Was I wrong? :confused:

Mimi428

10-11-2006, 12:44 AM

harz

10-11-2006, 01:47 AM

harz

10-11-2006, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
No, that pubic hair was not Patsys, and yes, she actually had to give a sample of hers! It did not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family! :seeya:

Oh ok, at first, I learned the public hair belongs to an anonymous, then I learned it came from Patsy's armpit, then later I learned it came from Patsy's personal area (if you know where I meant), then now you are telling me it belong to unidentified person again? :shrug: The confusion is frustrating me since many websites haven't been updated, that they are outdated or no longer in services after some new informations came on news recently. :(

WallyCleaver

10-11-2006, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
:lol: Oops, it seems I get you all riled up! Wally, we keep repeating it, because it is important.....there is a roll of duct tape missing, cord, stun gun, someone is missing a pubic hair (that has not been identified), to my knowledge the shoe print has not been connected to anyone in the Ramsey home, wasn't it an approx size 10 in mens, Burke didn't wear a size 10 when he was 9....and I forgot to add the latex gloves....remember that one.............Wally, I thought you were a classier act and didn't have to call us obtuse, I thought you really were interested in our theories? Was I wrong? :confused:

Hi Lady Fisher. I appologize for implying you are obtuse. You're not, and I enjoy your posts.

Yes, I do get riled up about the cord. There is simply no reason at all to think there is any missing cord. The killer could have brought it with him, or it could have been in the house (like most everything else used) but there just isn't any reason to think there is another 100' of cord that ought to be found.

I don't blame anyone for bringing up evidence repeatedly. I do get annoyed when I think they know better. Most of you IDIs know very well by now there is no valid reason to say some cord is missing.

Could there be some more? Yes. Need there be, no.

LindaA

10-11-2006, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

Consider the words of Upton Sinclair, who said...

“If is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”

I think you have your answer on how many times all the false claims regarding rope, stun guns, shoes, hairs & fibers are going to be raised.

Now I am being obtuse. I didn't think any IDIs on this board were being paid to think that way, so there must be a meaning here I'm just not getting.

rashomon

10-11-2006, 07:58 AM

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

Again: it was not a police officer who confronted John Ramsey with the fiber evidence, but a lawyer (Levin). And as opposed to the police, lawyers are NOT allowed to lie during interrogations.

There is no getting around the fact that the fiber evidence against the Ramseys is rock-solid and extremely damaging.

Well, I'm not bullmoose........but just a comment. Apparently, it wasn't strong enough for a grand jury to indict a Ramsey. JMO

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

<snip>

It's ridiculous to believe that he played any part in this. It just shows desperation for you IDI's to believe that someone...no...anyone did it except the Ramseys; even when there is nothing to support such a theory against some of the people you are accusing. IMO

No, it shows that we are willing to look at people other than the Ramseys. It shows we don't have "tunnel vision." JMO

LindaA

10-11-2006, 10:02 AM

RE your last post:

:beer:

Ames

10-11-2006, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

But what evidence is there that he was involved? What physical evidence? What would his motive be?
What reason would he have to write a ransom note? Do you really think he would risk his freedom to sneak into the Ramsey home and spend all that time there doing those things when he could have been caught at any time?
You IDI people think the "intruder" got into the house while the Ramseys were at the Whites party and wrote the note then. Not possible for it to happen that way if Fleet did it.
It's ridiculous to believe that he played any part in this. It just shows desperation for you IDI's to believe that someone...no...anyone did it except the Ramseys; even when there is nothing to support such a theory against some of the people you are accusing. IMO

I agree...for Fleet to have possibly snuck into the Ramsey's house, and wrote that three page ransom letter....and to have been there hours before the Ramsey's got home from HIS party, he would have had to leave the party way before anyone else did. I do believe that the other guests would have noticed if the host of the Christmas party, had left way before they did. That would have been just a "little" suspicious. Fleet White believes that the RDI...and he knows them better than all of us posters do. IMO

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by LindaA
RE your last post:

:beer:

I have read your posts and I like the way you make your points/ask your questions.

I don't think any of us know who murdered JonBenet and to me both sides have reasonable arguments. The problem is - both sides are guilty of continuously stating incorrect information - repeatedly. I posted that there were fingerprints on the ransom note. As it turned out none were detected. I wish (me included) that people would verify their information before posting it as fact OR just state IMO if that's what it is. JMO

:seeya:

LadyFisher

10-11-2006, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Hi Lady Fisher. I appologize for implying you are obtuse. You're not, and I enjoy your posts.

Yes, I do get riled up about the cord. There is simply no reason at all to think there is any missing cord. The killer could have brought it with him, or it could have been in the house (like most everything else used) but there just isn't any reason to think there is another 100' of cord that ought to be found.

I don't blame anyone for bringing up evidence repeatedly. I do get annoyed when I think they know better. Most of you IDIs know very well by now there is no valid reason to say some cord is missing.

Could there be some more? Yes. Need there be, no. Ok, Wally.....My hubby is retire, but took a part time job as a maintenance man for an apartment complex....he has a roll of cord that looks identical to me as the cord used on JB...it was inexpensive, probably didn't cost more than $5.00 for the entire roll......what I am trying to say is....there was nothing found remaining in the Rs home of the cord, duct tape, etc....there would have been some left some where imho.....why would the Ramseys have disposed of these things and left other item....maybe I am obtuse, but it makes NO SENSE, Wally.......hubby says all the items...stun gun, cord, duct tape, etc. could easily fit in a man's winter coat....I think the intruder brought these things with him....just because you've ruled that out in your mind, doesn't mean I have....I would also like to know where the remainder of that paint brush is..I know you think it could have been broken months before, but I believe that splinters from it were found in the basement after the murder! You have not explained these things away to my satisfaction and until you do, I will continue to ?

LindaA

10-11-2006, 12:19 PM

And I do agree with you about both sides confusing the issue by posting incorrect info. I think Harz said on another thread possibly that it is so hard to know what hsa been refuted and what has not when you look at other sites that have not been updated. I also notice a tendency to ignore questions that cannot be answered without casting doubt on ones own opinion.

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 12:23 PM

MyrDawn started a poll asking for people's opinons. The last time I looked it was about 50/50 RDI/IDI.

I think it's interesting that as hard as everyone has tried to sell their opinion I haven't seen an RDI or IDI switch sides. :)

nuisanceposter

10-11-2006, 01:21 PM

Any items related to the murder in the house (supposing there was other cord and tape to find) could have been stashed and left the house with Pam Paugh when she filled a police cruiser with bags and boxes of items from the Ramsey house right after the murder. People have always found it suspicious that John Ramsey asked her to get his golf clubs - it was the middle of winter and he had just had his baby murdered - who's thinking of golf?

The cord and the tape could have possibly been the last of what there was. The tape had been used on something else, so there's no reason to assume there was any more of a roll to find, and the cord could easily have been a length of cord that was also used on something else.

It's also possible that if there was any left of those items that they left with the Ramseys. I don't know that anyone searched their coats or Patsy's purse before they left the house after JonBenet was found.

As for the pubic hair, Patsy said that people who stayed over at their house would sometimes stay in JonBenet's room. Any one of them could have left it, as well as anyone who ever used the bathroom at the Ramsey house. Hairs fall off and transfer every day all day long.

Steve Thomas says in his book that it wasn't a pubic hair at all, it was an ancillary hair (like from your arm), and it was sourced back to Patsy's family.

LindaA

10-11-2006, 02:07 PM

I voted in the poll -- that and IDI, but I wouldn't have a stroke if I found that a RDI.

LadyFisher

10-11-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Any items related to the murder in the house (supposing there was other cord and tape to find) could have been stashed and left the house with Pam Paugh when she filled a police cruiser with bags and boxes of items from the Ramsey house right after the murder. People have always found it suspicious that John Ramsey asked her to get his golf clubs - it was the middle of winter and he had just had his baby murdered - who's thinking of golf?

The cord and the tape could have possibly been the last of what there was. The tape had been used on something else, so there's no reason to assume there was any more of a roll to find, and the cord could easily have been a length of cord that was also used on something else.

It's also possible that if there was any left of those items that they left with the Ramseys. I don't know that anyone searched their coats or Patsy's purse before they left the house after JonBenet was found.

As for the pubic hair, Patsy said that people who stayed over at their house would sometimes stay in JonBenet's room. Any one of them could have left it, as well as anyone who ever used the bathroom at the Ramsey house. Hairs fall off and transfer every day all day long.

Steve Thomas says in his book that it wasn't a pubic hair at all, it was an ancillary hair (like from your arm), and it was sourced back to Patsy's family. But, nuisance, do you realize how far out those explanations are...what are the odds that it would have just been the end of a roll of duct tape or cord? Come one.....why would they have hidden that stuff and nothing else? It just doesn't add up! :confused: No, Thomas is wrong again it was not an axillary hair, it was and still is an unidentified pubic hair.....it didn't belong to any of the Ramseys, they had to give their own samples! :seeya:

WallyCleaver

10-11-2006, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Ok, Wally.....My hubby is retire, but took a part time job as a maintenance man for an apartment complex....he has a roll of cord that looks identical to me as the cord used on JB...it was inexpensive, probably didn't cost more than $5.00 for the entire roll......what I am trying to say is....there was nothing found remaining in the Rs home of the cord, duct tape, etc....there would have been some left some where imho.....why would the Ramseys have disposed of these things and left other item....maybe I am obtuse, but it makes NO SENSE, Wally.......hubby says all the items...stun gun, cord, duct tape, etc. could easily fit in a man's winter coat....I think the intruder brought these things with him....just because you've ruled that out in your mind, doesn't mean I have....I would also like to know where the remainder of that paint brush is..I know you think it could have been broken months before, but I believe that splinters from it were found in the basement after the murder! You have not explained these things away to my satisfaction and until you do, I will continue to ?

I know what you're saying. I think asking where is the reamaining role of duct tape is a reasonable question. There's also a reasonable explanation for why there may not be a remaining role.

Same with the cord, except more so. Tape, to my knowledge isn't sold in any form but on roles. Cord is sold other than on rolls. Good point though about the cord your husband bought. Yes, sometimes it's sold on rolls, but I wouldn't be expecting to see a partial role of cord the same way I might expect to find a partial role of tape. Cord very frequently isn't sold to the customer on a roll.

To me it seems more likely the killer didn't bring tape and cord from outside, becaue he didn't bring anything else. Why come half prepared? Why would he bring his own cord, intending to make a garrotte, but not a stick for the handle? I think it's more likely the cord was in the house, and had already been used for something else. It was put into use as a garrotte that night. Same with the tape.

Yes, all those items would fit in a coat pocket, but again, he used paper and pen from the home, a paintbrush from the home, probably the flashlight from the home, it just seems to me the cord and tape came from the home too.

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
I voted in the poll -- that and IDI, but I wouldn't have a stroke if I found that a RDI.

Same here.

WallyCleaver

10-11-2006, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
But, nuisance, do you realize how far out those explanations are...what are the odds that it would have just been the end of a roll of duct tape or cord? ...

The odds are pretty good. First because cord often doesn't come on rolls to begin with, the odds are excellent that it's not the end of the roll.

With tape, there has to be an end of the roll sometime.

A better question might be this - if the intruder brought his own tape and cord, how did red fibers consistant with PR's jacket get on the tape and entwined in the cord?

Alternatively, if the cord and tape were already in the house, it's quite reasonable that her fibers (if they are hers) were on the items.

LadyFisher

10-11-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I know what you're saying. I think asking where is the reamaining role of duct tape is a reasonable question. There's also a reasonable explanation for why there may not be a remaining role.

Same with the cord, except more so. Tape, to my knowledge isn't sold in any form but on roles. Cord is sold other than on rolls. Good point though about the cord your husband bought. Yes, sometimes it's sold on rolls, but I wouldn't be expecting to see a partial role of cord the same way I might expect to find a partial role of tape. Cord very frequently isn't sold to the customer on a roll.

To me it seems more likely the killer didn't bring tape and cord from outside, becaue he didn't bring anything else. Why come half prepared? Why would he bring his own cord, intending to make a garrotte, but not a stick for the handle? I think it's more likely the cord was in the house, and had already been used for something else. It was put into use as a garrotte that night. Same with the tape.

Yes, all those items would fit in a coat pocket, but again, he used paper and pen from the home, a paintbrush from the home, probably the flashlight from the home, it just seems to me the cord and tape came from the home too. Wally, I think he also wore latex gloves, the ME found something consistent with the material of latex gloves in JB....I don't think it was his intention to leave a note, I think he was going to abduct her and then kill her away from the home....or I think that was his initial intention, once he was in the home he decided to write the note...he enjoyed doing it....he related to the movie lines of the villains in those movies...a standard kidnapping kit is....stun gun, duct tape, and cord/rope.....he brought what he thought at the time was necessary....why he decided to torture her and murder her in her own basement is beyond me.....maybe he realized after he got there how hard it would be to remove her body from there and dispose of it later....we're talking about one sick puppy here! Gotta run...must take granddaughter shopping after school and then gotta watch the Cardinal & Mets game tonight! Hope the Cards win! :seeya:

WallyCleaver

10-11-2006, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Wally, I think he also wore latex gloves, the ME found something consistent with the material of latex gloves in JB....I don't think it was his intention to leave a note, I think he was going to abduct her and then kill her away from the home....or I think that was his initial intention, once he was in the home he decided to write the note...he enjoyed doing it....he related to the movie lines of the villains in those movies...a standard kidnapping kit is....stun gun, duct tape, and cord/rope.....he brought what he thought at the time was necessary....why he decided to torture her and murder her in her own basement is beyond me.....maybe he realized after he got there how hard it would be to remove her body from there and dispose of it later....we're talking about one sick puppy here! Gotta run...must take granddaughter shopping after school and then gotta watch the Cardinal & Mets game tonight! Hope the Cards win! :seeya:

And I'll be hoping for another Tigers win.

cantstandnuts

10-11-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by rashomon
Every single bit of evidence points to the Ramseys and miles away from any intruder.

I'd say the opposite is true.

The only problem with the intruder theory that I have is how did JB get the pineapple? I just can't see an intruder giving it to her and I see no reason why Patsy would say she hadn't fed it to her if she had.

thewhitewitch1

10-11-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

I'd say the opposite is true.

The only problem with the intruder theory that I have is how did JB get the pineapple? I just can't see an intruder giving it to her and I see no reason why Patsy would say she hadn't fed it to her if she had.

Good lord. We have explained over and over why Patsy wouldn't admit feeding it to her. Do you people ever read anything besides what supports your own theory??? (banging head on desk)

thewhitewitch1

10-11-2006, 04:13 PM

cantstandnuts

10-11-2006, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Good lord. We have explained over and over why Patsy wouldn't admit feeding it to her. Do you people ever read anything besides what supports your own theory??? (banging head on desk)

Don't you mean you have explained over and over why YOU BELIEVE Patsy wouldn't admit it?

Isn't that a theory? Unless you've proven it to be fact somehow in which case I stand corrected, it's not true just because you've said it over and over again...it's still a theory.

nuisanceposter

10-11-2006, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

Don't you mean you have explained over and over why YOU BELIEVE Patsy wouldn't admit it?

Isn't that a theory? Unless you've proven it to be fact somehow in which case I stand corrected, it's not true just because you've said it over and over again...it's still a theory.

Patsy and John were caught lying about it. They originally told police that Jonbenet was awake when they got home - Patsy said she tucked her in bed and sang her a song, and John said he read her a book.

Four months later on April 30th, 1997, they changed their story to they one that they've stuck with, that she asleep - completely contradicting themselves.

When Burke was interviewed in June of 1999, he also said that JonBenet was awake when the Rs got home that night, remembering that she walked into the house in front of their mother - contradicting the story his parents switched to.

The pineapple on the table and in JonBenet's small intestine says she was awake after the family arrived home that night.

What more proof do you need?

cantstandnuts

10-11-2006, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Patsy and John were caught lying about it. They originally told police that Jonbenet was awake when they got home - Patsy said she tucked her in bed and sang her a song, and John said he read her a book.

Four months later on April 30th, 1997, they changed their story to they one that they've stuck with, that she asleep - completely contradicting themselves.

When Burke was interviewed in June of 1999, he also said that JonBenet was awake when the Rs got home that night, remembering that she walked into the house in front of their mother - contradicting the story his parents switched to.

The pineapple on the table and in JonBenet's small intestine says she was awake after the family arrived home that night.

What more proof do you need?

I haven't ever been aware that they were caught lying about it. Everything I've read about this case says that the Ramseys have always insisted JB was asleep when they got home and that Burke was mistaken about her being awake.

And didn't the autopsy indicate that the "substance" in her stomach "could be" pineapple?

Look, I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to sort out the real facts from all the many distortions that continue to be spread even though they've been otherwise disproven. There are a ton of them and it never hurts to question. JMO

MyrDawn

10-11-2006, 05:43 PM

I've seen posts saying over and over that cord isn't always sold on rolls, and that's why it's not strange no more matching cord was found, even if it was a Ramsey that killed JonBenet.

I think most of us are aware of how rope and cord is sold already.

But, I have NEVER seen a store where rope or cord is sold by the inch. It's sold by the FOOT in every hardware store I've even been in.

The total of the white cord found at the crime scene is 21". That is more than one foot and less than 2 feet.

Can anyone give me the name and phone number of a store where cord or rope like that is sold by the inch, not by the foot?

MyrDawn

10-11-2006, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

I haven't ever been aware that they were caught lying about it. Everything I've read about this case says that the Ramseys have always insisted JB was asleep when they got home and that Burke was mistaken about her being awake.

And didn't the autopsy indicate that the "substance" in her stomach "could be" pineapple?

Look, I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to sort out the real facts from all the many distortions that continue to be spread even though they've been otherwise disproven. There are a ton of them and it never hurts to question. JMO

I've never heard anything about them saying JonBenet was awake when they got home, either. Susan Stien said JonBenet was asleep in the car when the Ramseys delivered the presents there after they left the White's.

The autopsy report said that substance was "The yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple."

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/autopsy.html

The ME, Meyer, couldn't even differentiate between vegetable or fruit material, yet he said it "may" represent pinapple. IMO, that was only because he KNEW pineapple had been found on the kitchen counter. I'll bet if asparagus had been found on the counter, the autopsy report would have said " which may represent asparagus".

MOO

Ames

10-11-2006, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Wally, I think he also wore latex gloves, the ME found something consistent with the material of latex gloves in JB

I think that one of the Ramsey's used the latex glove "inside of her", because it would seem like less of an "intrusion" for her if they did. I seriously do not believe that it was premeditated murder, or intentional, but the cover up was. I think that one of them used a latex glove, because they thought that it would seem less intrusive. Like they couldn't stand the thought of their own flesh coming in contact with the inside of her, because that was their daughter. (Thats pretty graphic, but I hope you get my point). IMO

Ames

10-11-2006, 06:23 PM

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

I haven't ever been aware that they were caught lying about it. Everything I've read about this case says that the Ramseys have always insisted JB was asleep when they got home and that Burke was mistaken about her being awake.

And didn't the autopsy indicate that the "substance" in her stomach "could be" pineapple?

Look, I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to sort out the real facts from all the many distortions that continue to be spread even though they've been otherwise disproven. There are a ton of them and it never hurts to question. JMO

I've never read anything that says JonBenet was awake either. I've asked another poster where s/he read that.

I have read Perfect Murder/Perfect Town by Lawrence Schiller which stated = the Ramseys said she was asleep (can't post page), but I can post from John Douglas' "The Cases That Haunt Us" - page 598 - large print edition:

"JonBenet fell asleep in the car, and John carried her into the house and upstairs to her room, where Patsy got her ready for bed. They said she did not wake up during any on this."

WallyCleaver

10-11-2006, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn
I've seen posts saying over and over that cord isn't always sold on rolls, and that's why it's not strange no more matching cord was found, even if it was a Ramsey that killed JonBenet.

I think most of us are aware of how rope and cord is sold already.

But, I have NEVER seen a store where rope or cord is sold by the inch. It's sold by the FOOT in every hardware store I've even been in.

The total of the white cord found at the crime scene is 21". That is more than one foot and less than 2 feet.

Can anyone give me the name and phone number of a store where cord or rope like that is sold by the inch, not by the foot?

Most hardwares will sell you any length you like. It's rare to buy less than a foot, as that length isn't often useful. They'll be happy to sell you a foot and a half. Most stores make the cut a few inches beyond the amount measured - that way the customer knows they're getting all they paid for, and they feel their getting a bit extra as well. Depends on the store though. Home Depot will sell you any length you like, but will cut it right on the line of measurement. Little mom and pop hardwares will usually throw in a few extra inches.

So, nothing unusual about a 21" piece of cord. But it needn't have been bought at that length. We don't know whether the cord was in the house or not, but if it was, there is no telling how long it had been there, and what length it was originally. It may have been cut from a longer piece which had been used days/weeks/months prior. The other part might have been used on a package. We simply don't know.

But - I'll say it again. There is simply no reason to think their ought to be some more cord around the house somewhere. Apparently there wasn't, and that fact really doesn't tell us anything at all.

Athena

10-11-2006, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

I've never heard anything about them saying JonBenet was awake when they got home, either. Susan Stien said JonBenet was asleep in the car when the Ramseys delivered the presents there after they left the White's.

The autopsy report said that substance was "The yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple."

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/autopsy.html

The ME, Meyer, couldn't even differentiate between vegetable or fruit material, yet he said it "may" represent pinapple. IMO, that was only because he KNEW pineapple had been found on the kitchen counter. I'll bet if asparagus had been found on the counter, the autopsy report would have said " which may represent asparagus".

MOO

Exactly! Same with the red fibers from supposedly Patsy's jacket. Explain why there were no gray fibers found with the fibers from her jacket. They just don't have any other explanation for the red fibers. Red is a primary Christmas color and presents were wrapped in the basement. I wonder if they ever tested the fiber from the wrappings used.

Re: the black fibers and Levin. It is specifically stated in PMPT that Levin nor Kane evaluated the evidence. They were just there to present it. The BPD fed them the questions and they were upset they could not be involved in the interviews as it was one of the conditions of John Ramsey.

thewhitewitch1

10-11-2006, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Exactly! Same with the red fibers from supposedly Patsy's jacket. Explain why there were no gray fibers found with the fibers from her jacket. They just don't have any other explanation for the red fibers. Red is a primary Christmas color and presents were wrapped in the basement. I wonder if they ever tested the fiber from the wrappings used.

Re: the black fibers and Levin. It is specifically stated in PMPT that Levin nor Kane evaluated the evidence. They were just there to present it. The BPD fed them the questions and they were upset they could not be involved in the interviews as it was one of the conditions of John Ramsey.

Thought the red fibers were from her Christmas sweater...?

Athena

10-11-2006, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Thought the red fibers were from her Christmas sweater...?

No -- they specifically refer to her jacket/coat. I've read it in another interview but I am on dial-up tonight - my cable went out so too slow to do another search. LOL

13 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Now, Mrs. Ramsey,

14 you -- are you aware, I should say, that

15 your paint kit was found very close to the

16 wine cellar door?

17 A. I have heard that.

18 Q. Did you recall at any time that

19 you were shown photographs in that regard?

20 A. No.

21 Q. We have found, and I want you to

22 help us, maybe you can offer an explanation

23 for this. We have found fibers in the paint

24 tray that appear to come off of the coat in

25 the photograph we showed you.

0184

1 A. In the paint tray?

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. What's a paint --

4 MR. WOOD: Hold on. Let him ask

5 you his question and then answer his

6 question. What is your question?

7 MR. LEVIN: I did.

8 MR. WOOD: You got your answer?

9 MR. LEVIN: Well, I got, she said

10 what's a paint tray.

11 MR. WOOD: No, she didn't. She

12 was following your question, in the paint

13 tray because you said we have found, and I

14 want you to help us, maybe you can offer an

15 explanation for this. We have found fibers

16 in the paint tray that appear to come off of

17 the coat in the photograph we showed you.

18 What is the question?

19 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Can you explain

20 for us how the fibers from the coat got in

21 the paint tray?

22 MR. WOOD: Are you stipulating as

23 a fact that the fibers that you say are in

24 the paint tray, in fact, came from that coat

25 that we earlier discussed, or is it simply a

0185

1 matter that you say they may have? Because

2 I am not going to let her answer

3 argumentative, hypothetical opinions. I will

4 let her answer if you are going to state it

5 as a matter of fact that that fiber came

6 from that jacket.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

Athena

10-11-2006, 11:34 PM

According to PMPT there were seven elements that law enforcement, DAs Staff and the Grand Jury agreed upon whether they thought the RDI or IDI. I am putting in the 5th one since it is written but since the book was written the palm print mentioned belonged to Melinda Ramsey:

1) Unidentified Pubic Hair
2) Shoe Imprint of Hi-tec boot (was not Burke's)
3) Related to broken window:
It was open
Scuff mark on the wall beneath it
Pieces of glass found on suitcase
Broken glass on sill that Fleet White had picked up and placed
there
Partial spiderweb - spider could have come out of hibernation
due to sudden temperature rise that morning. Some experts
agreed that the stands of web were elastic enough to survive
disruption
4) Unidentified palm prints (later id'd as Melinda's)
5) DNA (isolated)
6) Possible use of stun gun (John Myers, Coroner agreed it was possible)
7) Author of the Ransom Note

Equally puzzling questions:

Police had come up with a list of 600 people who had been in the Ramseys' home within the past six months of the murder
Cord (had been determined to have been cut and frayed at ends)
Duct Tape (ripped from a roll)
Flashlight (not sure of ownership)
Remainder of paint brush
Noose which took time to make, secured it by tying twice around JBR's neck (goes on to say that it was gruesome and horrifying; the killer would have eventually had to look into JBR's face to be sure that she was dead).

thewhitewitch1

10-12-2006, 12:02 AM

Re: Broken window and glass. Two different stories from John.
1998 version in which he does not say that Fleet picked up the glass; he says "they" did.

5 JOHN RAMSEY: I just wanted to start

6 logically from the bottom up, I guess, as I was

7 looking at it. And I could have just as easily

8 gone upstairs, but I went down. Probably just

9 logically going through every inch of the house.

10 So I went down to the basement. I went into this

11 room with Fleet. I explained to him that this

12 window had been cracked open and I closed it. That

13 the window was broken, but I think it was broken

14 by me once before. We got down on our hands and

15 knees looking for some glass just to see.

16 LOU SMIT: What did you find?

17 JOHN RAMSEY: I think we found a few fragments

18 of glass not enough to indicate that it was a

19 fresh break.

20 LOU SMIT: What did you do with those fragments?

21 JOHN RAMSEY: We might have put them on the

22 ledge, if I remember. It really wasn't much. We

23 had only found one or two. We might have put them

24 up here on the ledge.

1997 version:

JR: Ah, well, I remember they took me aside, and we sat in John Andrew’s room which is the one next to JonBenet’s and she went through what I should do when we talked to the caller and I must insist that I talk to JonBenet and that we need until 5 o’clock to raise the money. I’d actually called my (inaudible) and arranged for the money. Ah, and I think we had by that time started to wonder if one of the housekeepers might be involved. And there was some activity around that direction. We waited until past 11 and then we, and then I think we were in the living room and Linda said why don’t you take someone and look through the house and see if there’s anything you notice that’s unusual. And Fleet and I, Fleet was standing there and said he’d go with me. And we went down to the basement, went into the train room, which is, you know, the train set is, and that’s really the only window that’s, would let in entrance into he basement. And actually I’d gone down there earlier that morning, into that room, and the window was broken, but I didn’t see any glass around, so I assumed it was broken last summer. I used that window to get into the house when (inaudible) I didn’t have a key. But the window was open, about an eighth of an inch, and just kind latched it. So I went back down with Fleet, we looked around for some glass again, still didn’t see any glass. And I told him that I thought that the break came from when I did that last summer and then, then I went from there into the cellar. Pull on the door, it was latched. I reach up and unlatched it, and then I saw the white blanket, (inaudible).

nuisanceposter

10-12-2006, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Exactly! Same with the red fibers from supposedly Patsy's jacket. Explain why there were no gray fibers found with the fibers from her jacket. They just don't have any other explanation for the red fibers. Red is a primary Christmas color and presents were wrapped in the basement. I wonder if they ever tested the fiber from the wrappings used.

Re: the black fibers and Levin. It is specifically stated in PMPT that Levin nor Kane evaluated the evidence. They were just there to present it. The BPD fed them the questions and they were upset they could not be involved in the interviews as it was one of the conditions of John Ramsey.

Where does it say the fibers found matching Patsy's jacket were red?

So what are you saying in relation to Levin and the black fibers? Are you saying BPD lied to Levin about that fiber evidence, and Levin didn't know because he hadn't seen the evidence himself?

cantstandnuts

10-12-2006, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Nope, they at first said that she was awake, and then they changed their story. Burke, even said that she was awake, and that she went upstairs first, followed by Patsy. I believe what you may be thinking about, is the fact that John said that Burke was sleeping, and later Burke said that he was not asleep, but was just pretending, when John checked in on him. IMO

I've googled my head off and have never gotten this confirmed anywhere.

Where'd you hear about it?

This is why I can never be 100% sure of guilt. There's too much information that conflicts what I thought I knew. This thread is are you 100% sure? Well, how can anyone be when there is so much out there that's being contradicted?

Anyway, I always thought they said she was asleep and that Burke was mistaken in thinking he saw her awake before her murder. I did know about Burke being asleep/not asleep and where all that came from, but this statement that they originally said JB was awake is new to me.

nuisanceposter

10-12-2006, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

I've googled my head off and have never gotten this confirmed anywhere.

Where'd you hear about it?

This is why I can never be 100% sure of guilt. There's too much information that conflicts what I thought I knew. This thread is are you 100% sure? Well, how can anyone be when there is so much out there that's being contradicted?

Anyway, I always thought they said she was asleep and that Burke was mistaken in thinking he saw her awake before her murder. I did know about Burke being asleep/not asleep and where all that came from, but this statement that they originally said JB was awake is new to me.

I posted this on another thread -

ST's book, hb, page 23

Officers reconstructed some of the timeline of the previous night from the parents' recollection. John Ramsey said the family returned home from the party about ten o'clock, and he read to both children before they went to sleep. He confirmed to Arndt that he had read to JonBenet after tucking her in. He would later deny these statements as well.

ST's book, hb, page 173

(JR is being interviewed by Thomas and Trujillo)

But even with that cursory reading, John Ramsey said he found "errors or misunderstandings." He said not only did he not check every door in the house the night before but he did not believe he checked any door. Also incorrect was the police notation that Ramsey said he read to the kids before going to bed. "That did not happen. I mean what happened was the kids went to bed and then I read."

I asked, "Do you attribute that simply to an officer's error in recollection, or might you have said that?"

"No, I wouldn't have said that. I think that maybe the way I said it was misinterpreted. I clearly did not read to the kids that night. JonBenet was asleep, we wanted Burke to get to sleep. We were going to get up early the next morning."

To believe him now, one would have to believe that three police officers - Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach - were all mistaken about what Ramsey had told them.

The part about Burke saying she was awake comes from the Atlanta interview of June 1999.

ST's book, hb, pg 317

Burke saud that his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home but awakened to help carry presents into the house of a friend. When they got home , JonBenet walked in slowly and went up the spiral stairs to her bed, just ahead of Patsy.

Given the amount of detail Burke has supplied, it seems to me that he can remember what happened and is not mistaken. When you consider what he said along with the Rs originally saying JB was awake only to change their story later (Patsy originally said she sang to JB while tucking her in bed, later saying she sang to her while she was already asleep), it looks like they were lying about JB being alseep when they got home.

sweetcharlotte

10-12-2006, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

The part about Burke saying she was awake comes from the Atlanta interview of June 1999.

ST's book, hb, pg 317

Burke saud that his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home but awakened to help carry presents into the house of a friend. When they got home , JonBenet walked in slowly and went up the spiral stairs to her bed, just ahead of Patsy.

Given the amount of detail Burke has supplied, it seems to me that he can remember what happened and is not mistaken. When you consider what he said along with the Rs originally saying JB was awake only to change their story later (Patsy originally said she sang to JB while tucking her in bed, later saying she sang to her while she was already asleep), it looks like they were lying about JB being alseep when they got home.

This link shows an excerpt from ST's book where he talks about Burke saying JonBenet was awake........but ST went on to say that this differed from the initial story that JonBenet was asleep and carried up the stairs ...... and that he (ST) thought Burke was confused.

http://www.acandyrose.com/12261996-911.htm

sweetcharlotte

10-12-2006, 12:20 PM

I needed a "refresher" course on some things so I went googling this morning. I found this April 14, 2000 LKL interview with Steve Thomas, the Ramseys and Lin Wood - interesting reading. Thought I would "share."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/14/lkl.00.html

sweetcharlotte

10-12-2006, 12:23 PM

May 28, 2001 LKL interview with Lou Smit. Another "refresher" for me.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0105/28/lkl.00.html

nuisanceposter

10-12-2006, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

This link shows an excerpt from ST's book where he talks about Burke saying JonBenet was awake........but ST went on to say that this differed from the initial story that JonBenet was asleep and carried up the stairs ...... and that he (ST) thought Burke was confused.

http://www.acandyrose.com/12261996-911.htm

Doesn't change the fact that he points out that JR changed his story, in more than one place.

Burke being able to remember specifics, like his sister waking up to carry gifts and walking in the house in front of Patsy, doesn't sound like he's confused, but hey, I haven't seen the interview.

sweetcharlotte

10-12-2006, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Doesn't change the fact that he points out that JR changed his story, in more than one place.

Burke being able to remember specifics, like his sister waking up to carry gifts and walking in the house in front of Patsy, doesn't sound like he's confused, but hey, I haven't seen the interview.

But the point here is that the Ramseys did not change their story about JonBenet being asleep when they got home. Burke told a different story - not John & Patsy - and even Thomas thought Burke was confused.

I read the bit too about John changing his story with regard to the glass. The interviews were a year apart. I don't think there was that much inconsistency in his story.....he just didn't remember particulars - which IMO - were not that significant.

JMO

nuisanceposter

10-12-2006, 02:04 PM

Yes, he DID change his story! He said he read to the kids and went to bed, and then later he said he had been misunderstood, and what he said the kids went to bed and read.

Three independent police officers recorded in their reports that JR said he read to the kids and went to bed. THREE different officers all heard him say that at separate times on the 26th, and then when JR went in to talk to police on April 30th he contradicted himself and tried to say these three officers all misunderstood him.

And that wasn't the only thing about his story that he changed.

What do you mean, with regard to the glass? What glass? The basement window? The basement window he found open while searching for anything unusual that might help him figure out what happened to his daughter, the same one he closed and never bothered to mention to anyone until four months later?

Please - he's down there against police orders, looking around for anything out of the ordinary, and when he finds something, he goes back upstairs and sits down and doesn't say anything to anyone - not to the detective there in the house to assist in the investigation, not to his best friend, and not to his wife, whom he believes to be out of her mind with worry. That just doesn't make sense, and when considered in combination with all the other evidence, is REALLY suspicious.

WallyCleaver

10-12-2006, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Athena
According to PMPT there were seven elements that law enforcement, DAs Staff and the Grand Jury agreed upon whether they thought the RDI or IDI. I am putting in the 5th one since it is written but since the book was written the palm print mentioned belonged to Melinda Ramsey:

1) Unidentified Pubic Hair
2) Shoe Imprint of Hi-tec boot (was not Burke's)
3) Related to broken window:
It was open
Scuff mark on the wall beneath it
Pieces of glass found on suitcase
Broken glass on sill that Fleet White had picked up and placed
there
Partial spiderweb - spider could have come out of hibernation
due to sudden temperature rise that morning. Some experts
agreed that the stands of web were elastic enough to survive
disruption
4) Unidentified palm prints (later id'd as Melinda's)
5) DNA (isolated)
6) Possible use of stun gun (John Myers, Coroner agreed it was possible)
7) Author of the Ransom Note

Equally puzzling questions:

Police had come up with a list of 600 people who had been in the Ramseys' home within the past six months of the murder
Cord (had been determined to have been cut and frayed at ends)
Duct Tape (ripped from a roll)
Flashlight (not sure of ownership)
Remainder of paint brush
Noose which took time to make, secured it by tying twice around JBR's neck (goes on to say that it was gruesome and horrifying; the killer would have eventually had to look into JBR's face to be sure that she was dead).

How do they know the HI-TEC print wasn't Burke's ?

Why would there be broken glass on the suitcase?

If we are to believe JR, the window had been broken for several months. If we are to believe PR, she and the housekeeper cleaned up the glass after JR broke in that window in the summer. (The housekeeper doesn't recall cleaning up glass)

So, first, why would there be any broken glass around at all? The window swings open. It wasn't necessary to break glass to get in.

Second, the suitcase wouldn't have been under the window until after the intruder got in and put it there. By that time any glass in the sill should have been brushed away in the process of dragging his behind through the window. The glass, if any, should have been on the floor.

Who says the spideer could have come out of hibernation? Which spider expert said that? The temp. when the first officers arrived on the scene was 9 or 10 degrees F.

If there had been 600 people in the house in 6 months, wouldn't that mean we have 600 potential sources for the HI-Tec print?

rashomon

10-12-2006, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

I've never heard anything about them saying JonBenet was awake when they got home, either. Susan Stien said JonBenet was asleep in the car when the Ramseys delivered the presents there after they left the White's.

The autopsy report said that substance was "The yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple."

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/autopsy.html

The ME, Meyer, couldn't even differentiate between vegetable or fruit material, yet he said it "may" represent pinapple. IMO, that was only because he KNEW pineapple had been found on the kitchen counter. I'll bet if asparagus had been found on the counter, the autopsy report would have said " which may represent asparagus".

MOO
It was pineapple. There is no doubt about it. Even Lou Smit told John Ramsey that there is no question that it was pineapple, so I suppose a lab analysis following the autopsy had in fact shown this to be the case.

rashomon

10-12-2006, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Well, I'm not bullmoose........but just a comment. Apparently, it wasn't strong enough for a grand jury to indict a Ramsey. JMO
The whole Grand Jury business was a joke. The main suspects, John and Patsy, did not even testify, but instead, Lou Smit and Trip DeMuth, two firm believers in the intruder theory, did. Smit and DeMuth also assisted in picking the jury panel.

cantstandnuts

10-12-2006, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

It was pineapple. There is no doubt about it. Even Lou Smit told John Ramsey that there is no question that it was pineapple, so I suppose a lab analysis following the autopsy had in fact shown this to be the case.

I have yet to read anything conclusive about that. Not to say you're wrong, you're probably not, but it's just not published anywhere. The only thing that is is the coroner report that says it was a vegetable or fruit "substance" that may be pineapple.

Unless you have a link that I haven't read yet...

bullmoose

10-12-2006, 04:27 PM

rashoman: I'm quite curious about how you can state that Lou Smit had a hand in picking who was going to be on the grand jury? In my entire life I have never heard of an investigator having that kind of supernatural power. Honestly, do you know anything about the justice system in the USA? As for the Ramseys not testifying to the grand jury; I believe what happened was they were not asked to; as for lawyers not lying because of fear of disbarment, are you from Mars? Go to an American Courtroom where the local liar's club meets; oops I guess I meant to say Bar Association[ you know, lawyers, judges,] and sit in on a normal day's proceedings, you will hear lawyers lying at least whenever they are pleading to the judge how their clients promise never to do whatever it is that they are in trouble for. As for your assertion that the fiber evidence is convincing and solid, maybe it is to you. But not to me. bullmoose

sweetcharlotte

10-12-2006, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

The whole Grand Jury business was a joke. The main suspects, John and Patsy, did not even testify, but instead, Lou Smit and Trip DeMuth, two firm believers in the intruder theory, did. Smit and DeMuth also assisted in picking the jury panel.

I'll bet those citizens who served on the Grand Jury for 13 months didn't think it was a joke.......and you know they had the right to call any witnesses they wished to call. They didn't call John & Patsy.

cantstandnuts

10-12-2006, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Yes, he DID change his story! He said he read to the kids and went to bed, and then later he said he had been misunderstood, and what he said the kids went to bed and read.

Three independent police officers recorded in their reports that JR said he read to the kids and went to bed. THREE different officers all heard him say that at separate times on the 26th, and then when JR went in to talk to police on April 30th he contradicted himself and tried to say these three officers all misunderstood him.

(snip)

Did all these investigators get separate statements to this or were all in the room at the same time (if you know)?

If they interviewed him separately and that's the outcome, that is something different than if they were all together when he said it...it's happened in the staff meetings I have at work that people misconstrue what I've said and all think I've said the same thing when what I've actually said is something different. :D

rashomon

10-12-2006, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

I have yet to read anything conclusive about that. Not to say you're wrong, you're probably not, but it's just not published anywhere. The only thing that is is the coroner report that says it was a vegetable or fruit "substance" that may be pineapple.

Unless you have a link that I haven't read yet...
If memory serves, there exist sources which mention that even rind of pineapple was found in JB's digestive tract. I read about it on several forums, but didn't take notes, but maybe someone here has a link.
And when even Lou Smit, a firm believer in the intruder theory, told John Ramsey that it was in fact pineapple, and desperately tried to fit this damaging evidence into the Ramseys' own story (which is why Smit called the damaging pineapple evidence 'the big bugaboo'), you can be 100 per cent certain that Smit did not lie about it. For if there had be the slightest doubt re the forensic validity of the pineapple evidence, you bet Smit would have taken chalenged it. but he never did.
'Journey Beyond Reason', p. 111:

Lou Smit: "The pineapple is inside her, so we have to figure out ho that pineapple got there. She had to eat it at some point."
John Ramsey: "Are you sure it was pineapple?"
Lou Smit: "No question. No question. So that's always been the big bugaboo."

Half-digested pineapple in JB's body sets the time of death at about one hour after eating the pineapple.

bullmoose

10-12-2006, 04:57 PM

rashoman: Since you know that Lou Smit helped pick out the grand jury, why would the pineapple[ whenever ingested] be any kind of problem, a bugaboo? If Smit had that much power over the whole affair, it should have been an insignificant detail. How do you explain that. I'm very curious to hear your explanation.:lol:

Athena

10-12-2006, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

If memory serves, there exist sources which mention that even rind of pineapple was found in JB's digestive tract. I read about it on several forums, but didn't take notes, but maybe someone here has a link.
And when even Lou Smit, a firm believer in the intruder theory, told John Ramsey that it was in fact pineapple, and desperately tried to fit this damaging evidence into the Ramseys' own story (which is why Smit called the damaging pineapple evidence 'the big bugaboo'), you can be 100 per cent certain that Smit did not lie about it. For if there had be the slightest doubt re the forensic validity of the pineapple evidence, you bet Smit would have taken chalenged it. but he never did.
'Journey Beyond Reason', p. 111:

Lou Smit: "The pineapple is inside her, so we have to figure out ho that pineapple got there. She had to eat it at some point."
John Ramsey: "Are you sure it was pineapple?"
Lou Smit: "No question. No question. So that's always been the big bugaboo."

Half-digested pineapple in JB's body sets the time of death at about one hour after eating the pineapple.

I don't know where you get your info from - I can take a guess but won't. The coroner COULD NOT establish time of death so how can someone else have done that? Pray tell -- digestion takes 5-6 hours to go from the stomach to the intestines. Experts said that even if she had eaten pineapple it could have been eaten as early as 4:30pm.

It really gets frustrating hearing the same misinformation repeated. Most of the misinformation comes from Thomas and his fans and the rest from the deliberate erroneous leaks to the media and the tabloids. jmo

WallyCleaver

10-12-2006, 07:45 PM

Athena

10-12-2006, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

How do they know the HI-TEC print wasn't Burke's ?

Why would there be broken glass on the suitcase?

If we are to believe JR, the window had been broken for several months. If we are to believe PR, she and the housekeeper cleaned up the glass after JR broke in that window in the summer. (The housekeeper doesn't recall cleaning up glass)

So, first, why would there be any broken glass around at all? The window swings open. It wasn't necessary to break glass to get in.

Second, the suitcase wouldn't have been under the window until after the intruder got in and put it there. By that time any glass in the sill should have been brushed away in the process of dragging his behind through the window. The glass, if any, should have been on the floor.

Who says the spideer could have come out of hibernation? Which spider expert said that? The temp. when the first officers arrived on the scene was 9 or 10 degrees F.

If there had been 600 people in the house in 6 months, wouldn't that mean we have 600 potential sources for the HI-Tec print?

Wally -- I know you have read the board - but this is all typed right from PMPT and there are links to everything else above posted.

I am one of the few on this board that provides supporting documentation with almost everything I post (other than my opinions/speculations). Everything posted above in addition to coming from PMPT book, I have posted links to previously.

Yes you are correct saying the hi-tec print could have come from a number of people that had been in the house including contractors. Another point is out of the 600 there were many that would have known the layout of the house.

Athena

10-12-2006, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

Did all these investigators get separate statements to this or were all in the room at the same time (if you know)?

If they interviewed him separately and that's the outcome, that is something different than if they were all together when he said it...it's happened in the staff meetings I have at work that people misconstrue what I've said and all think I've said the same thing when what I've actually said is something different. :D

LOL -- Twisting Thomas (thanks bullmoose) said it so it must be true. :rolleyes:

Athena

10-12-2006, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
rashoman: Since you know that Lou Smit helped pick out the grand jury, why would the pineapple[ whenever ingested] be any kind of problem, a bugaboo? If Smit had that much power over the whole affair, it should have been an insignificant detail. How do you explain that. I'm very curious to hear your explanation.:lol:

What I find funny is that Lou Smit was originally excluded from making a presentation to the Grand Jury nevermind picking out a jury??? He went to court to force Hunter to let him make the presentation. Doubt seriously he had anything to do with interviewing the potential jurors. Below describes the situation and it is also in PMPT but this saves me from typing:

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

Hunter and Smit Clash: In February 1999, District Attorney Alex Hunter demanded that detective Lou Smit return evidence that he collected while he worked on the case, including crime scene photographs. Smit refuses "even if I have to go to jail" because he believed the evidence would be destroyed if returned, because it supported the intruder theory. Hunter filed a restraining order and got a court injunction demanding the evidence. Hunter also refused to allow Smit to testify before the grand jury.

Smit Seeks Court Order: Detective Lou Smit filed a motion asking Judge Roxanne Bailin to allow him to address the grand jury. It is not clear if Judge Bailin granted his motion, but on March 11, 1999, Smit testified before the jury. Later that same month, district attorney Alex Hunter signed an agreement allowing Smit to keep the evidence he had collected in the case, but prohibited Smit from "relaying prior conversations" with Ramsey prosecutors and not interfere with the on-going investigation."

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

thewhitewitch1

10-12-2006, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

Don't you mean you have explained over and over why YOU BELIEVE Patsy wouldn't admit it?

Isn't that a theory? Unless you've proven it to be fact somehow in which case I stand corrected, it's not true just because you've said it over and over again...it's still a theory.

I know it's a theory. You said you couldn't understand why Patsy wouldn't admit she'd fed JB pineapple and we offered you a reasonable explaination as to why she wouldn't admit it. I never said that is what happened. It was something for you to consider because it does make sense but I guess you don't want to consider it. I'm not Patsy and I wasn't there. None of us were so all we can do is speculate. When you expressed your confusion over the pineapple, I must have been mistaken when I thought you wanted someone to venture a guess for the reason why she wouldn't admit it. If I had offered a reason that involved an intruder, I have a feeling you'd have jumped right on it. IMO

Ames

10-12-2006, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I posted this on another thread -

ST's book, hb, page 23

Officers reconstructed some of the timeline of the previous night from the parents' recollection. John Ramsey said the family returned home from the party about ten o'clock, and he read to both children before they went to sleep. He confirmed to Arndt that he had read to JonBenet after tucking her in. He would later deny these statements as well.

ST's book, hb, page 173

(JR is being interviewed by Thomas and Trujillo)

But even with that cursory reading, John Ramsey said he found "errors or misunderstandings." He said not only did he not check every door in the house the night before but he did not believe he checked any door. Also incorrect was the police notation that Ramsey said he read to the kids before going to bed. "That did not happen. I mean what happened was the kids went to bed and then I read."

I asked, "Do you attribute that simply to an officer's error in recollection, or might you have said that?"

"No, I wouldn't have said that. I think that maybe the way I said it was misinterpreted. I clearly did not read to the kids that night. JonBenet was asleep, we wanted Burke to get to sleep. We were going to get up early the next morning."

To believe him now, one would have to believe that three police officers - Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach - were all mistaken about what Ramsey had told them.

The part about Burke saying she was awake comes from the Atlanta interview of June 1999.

ST's book, hb, pg 317

Burke saud that his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home but awakened to help carry presents into the house of a friend. When they got home , JonBenet walked in slowly and went up the spiral stairs to her bed, just ahead of Patsy.

Given the amount of detail Burke has supplied, it seems to me that he can remember what happened and is not mistaken. When you consider what he said along with the Rs originally saying JB was awake only to change their story later (Patsy originally said she sang to JB while tucking her in bed, later saying she sang to her while she was already asleep), it looks like they were lying about JB being alseep when they got home.

Thanks so much for posting this for cantstandnuts...(sound's like my daughter..she can't stand nuts either!!!)

Athena

10-12-2006, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Thanks so much for posting this for cantstandnuts...(sound's like my daughter..she can't stand nuts either!!!)

You do realize that is NOT true. This is why I made a previous post about verifying and checking what you read. Read the interview that Thomas is referring to in his book. It directly contradicts what he says in his lying book

It really gets frustrating when the same old untruths and misinforation is repeated over and over again. Again this has nothing to do with RDI v IDI -- Steve Thomas' book is totally twisted and for people that have read his depo and the interviews it should be realized by now. :shrug:

Mimi428

10-12-2006, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I don't know where you get your info from - I can take a guess but won't. The coroner COULD NOT establish time of death so how can someone else have done that? Pray tell -- digestion takes 5-6 hours to go from the stomach to the intestines. Experts said that even if she had eaten pineapple it could have been eaten as early as 4:30pm.

It really gets frustrating hearing the same misinformation repeated. Most of the misinformation comes from Thomas and his fans and the rest from the deliberate erroneous leaks to the media and the tabloids. jmo

Funny you didn't think it took nearly so long to digest pineapple when you wrote this in response to something Miss O had posted...

Athena
Senior Member

Registered: May 2005
Location:
Posts: 4248

quote:

Hiya MissO,

Actually pineapple aids in digestion of food so would be digested faster than say a starch or fish or meat. It is acidic. jmo

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=273790&perpage=40&pagenumber=5

We know she ate cracked crab & shrimp - & those items were well out of her stomach & small intestine. By YOUR own post you admit fish or meat takes longer & an acidic fruit takes less time.

Now you are backpedaling from what you wrote one month ago to claim that this fast-digesting acidic food slowed down to a 5-6 hour crawl.

I agree with you that it is frustrating to read the constant misrepresentations we keep getting. I just don't see Steve Thomas & the media being responsible in this particular instance.

MOO

Athena

10-12-2006, 11:55 PM

Miimi - No backpedaling here. Please see almost verbatim the same post I made also a month ago about experts saying she could have eaten the pineapple as early as 4:30pm. I have also learned since I posted that - that it is the bromelin in the pineapple that does aid in digestion in the food however it can take 5-6 hours to be expelled from the stomach.

breezy1234
Senior Member

Registered: May 2005
Location:
Posts: 1914

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Athena

I can't find the link, sorry, but I also read an expert's opinion that even if it had been pineapple it could have been eaten as early as 4:30pm. Also at the White's Christmas Dinner it was not said they did not serve pineapple but that they could not recall if they did or not. I can't find a link - if I do will post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plaintiff also theorizes, based on the presence of the unidentified matter in JonBenet's stomach that, contrary to Mrs. Ramsey's testimony, she was up during the night and fed JonBenet the pineapple. (PSDMF 45.) There is no evidence in the record that indicates when JonBenet ate the pineapple. Defendants state they did not feed JonBenet pineapple upon returning home from the White's party that evening. (SMF 13.) Mr. White does not recall if pineapple was served at his dinner party on December 25, 1996. (F. White Dep. at 202.)

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10.htm

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

09-11-2006 02:25 AM

Athena

10-13-2006, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Funny you didn't think it took nearly so long to digest pineapple when you wrote this in response to something Miss O had posted...

Athena
Senior Member

Registered: May 2005
Location:
Posts: 4248

quote:

Hiya MissO,

Actually pineapple aids in digestion of food so would be digested faster than say a starch or fish or meat. It is acidic. jmo

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=273790&perpage=40&pagenumber=5

We know she ate cracked crab & shrimp - & those items were well out of her stomach & small intestine. By YOUR own post you admit fish or meat takes longer & an acidic fruit takes less time.

Now you are backpedaling from what you wrote one month ago to claim that this fast-digesting acidic food slowed down to a 5-6 hour crawl.

I agree with you that it is frustrating to read the constant misrepresentations we keep getting. I just don't see Steve Thomas & the media being responsible in this particular instance.

MOO

I would appreciate that when you quote me not to take it out of context. When I made that response to MsO - it was in response to her taking THREE DAYS to digest food - :rolleyes:

Athena
Senior Member

Registered: May 2005
Location:
Posts: 4249

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
All I know is it usually takes me about three days to digest my Christmas dinner. Wouldn't the amount of food eaten affect the rate of digestion? The "pineapple" may have had to wait in a long line.

Go Andy!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hiya MissO,

Actually pineapple aids in digestion of food so would be digested faster than say a starch or fish or meat. It is acidic. jmo

Report this post

thewhitewitch1

10-13-2006, 12:11 AM

So we are to assume that she ate the pineapple before or during the Whites dinner yet all of the other food she had eaten had already digested but the pineapple didn't?? :eek:
C'mon...no one can dispute that there was a bowl of pineapple sitting out at the Ramseys, Patsys and Burkes fingerprints were on it, Patsy never claimed JB ate some at any point of the day and denied putting the bowl there so how can anyone dispute that Jonbenet ate the pineapple after she came home from the Whites at some point?
At any rate, it has already been determined that there was no pineapple at the Whites.
It HAD to have been eaten after she came home that evening or else Patsy could easily have admitted to giving it to her earlier. Why didn't she? Because it didn't happen that way and she just didn't think of that. IMO

Athena

10-13-2006, 12:12 AM

Interesting -- I thought fruit would be easier to digest but ONLY if it is eaten on an EMPTY stomach which means if pineapple was eaten after dinner it would have had to wait in line as MsO had suggested in her first post. So I stand corrected MsO.
Thanks Mimi for making me research this further.

Fruits are very easy to digest and metabolize, but only when eaten on an empty stomach.

In fact, most fruits go straight through the stomach into the duodenum for digestion, which means if you put fresh fruit on top of a big meal, it has to sit and wait in the top of the stomach until the other food is digested, during which delay bacteria attack the fruit and ferment it, gobbling up all the nutrients and leaving you with gas and metabolic wastes.

http://www.hps-online.com/hfood.htm

Athena

10-13-2006, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
So we are to assume that she ate the pineapple before or during the Whites dinner yet all of the other food she had eaten had already digested but the pineapple didn't?? :eek:
C'mon...no one can dispute that there was a bowl of pineapple sitting out at the Ramseys, Patsys and Burkes fingerprints were on it, Patsy never claimed JB ate some at any point of the day and denied putting the bowl there so how can anyone dispute that Jonbenet ate the pineapple after she came home from the Whites at some point?
At any rate, it has already been determined that there was no pineapple at the Whites.
It HAD to have been eaten after she came home that evening or else Patsy could easily have admitted to giving it to her earlier. Why didn't she? Because it didn't happen that way and she just didn't think of that. IMO

It has not been determined that the Whites did not serve pineapple -- they said they did not recall. Doesn't confirm anything. That means it also could have been served and they just don't remember. Pineapple is also a very popular if not the most popular fruit at holiday gatherings. You also don't know if anyone that came into the Ramseys home the day of the 26th did not bring pineapple with them. With the media feeding the public with leaks -- do you really think anyone that brought pineapple into the house would admit it??? I think not.

Athena

10-13-2006, 12:19 AM

Ugh and I ate an apple tonight after dinner thinking it helps -- from now on fruit on an empty stomach only.

Goodnight all. :seeya:

WallyCleaver

10-13-2006, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by Athena

It has not been determined that the Whites did not serve pineapple -- they said they did not recall. Doesn't confirm anything. That means it also could have been served and they just don't remember. Pineapple is also a very popular if not the most popular fruit at holiday gatherings. You also don't know if anyone that came into the Ramseys home the day of the 26th did not bring pineapple with them. With the media feeding the public with leaks -- do you really think anyone that brought pineapple into the house would admit it??? I think not.

I know that whenever my friends call me and say their daughter has been kidnapped, I always bring pineapple.

LadyFisher

10-13-2006, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Athena

It has not been determined that the Whites did not serve pineapple -- they said they did not recall. Doesn't confirm anything. That means it also could have been served and they just don't remember. Pineapple is also a very popular if not the most popular fruit at holiday gatherings. You also don't know if anyone that came into the Ramseys home the day of the 26th did not bring pineapple with them. With the media feeding the public with leaks -- do you really think anyone that brought pineapple into the house would admit it??? I think not. I find it very odd that the Whites cannot remember what they served at the party................everyone is always hitting on the Ramseys for forgetting things after their daughter was murdered....they were in shock...what's the Whites excuse? The Whites didn't just have a daughter murdered.......I think she grabbed a piece of pineapple right before she left the White's house! jmho

LadyFisher

10-13-2006, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Most hardwares will sell you any length you like. It's rare to buy less than a foot, as that length isn't often useful. They'll be happy to sell you a foot and a half. Most stores make the cut a few inches beyond the amount measured - that way the customer knows they're getting all they paid for, and they feel their getting a bit extra as well. Depends on the store though. Home Depot will sell you any length you like, but will cut it right on the line of measurement. Little mom and pop hardwares will usually throw in a few extra inches.

So, nothing unusual about a 21" piece of cord. But it needn't have been bought at that length. We don't know whether the cord was in the house or not, but if it was, there is no telling how long it had been there, and what length it was originally. It may have been cut from a longer piece which had been used days/weeks/months prior. The other part might have been used on a package. We simply don't know.

But - I'll say it again. There is simply no reason to think their ought to be some more cord around the house somewhere. Apparently there wasn't, and that fact really doesn't tell us anything at all. I won't concede on this point, Wally....I've lived a long time...I've never seen anyone buy 21 in. of cord..it doesn't make sense...you buy a roll, which is cheaper that way.....do you think the Ramseys just went into a hardware store already knowing the exact amount they would need to murder their daughter and buy it...it isn't logical, Wally, give it up! Our Cards lost last night! :(

LadyFisher

10-13-2006, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Funny you didn't think it took nearly so long to digest pineapple when you wrote this in response to something Miss O had posted...

Athena
Senior Member

Registered: May 2005
Location:
Posts: 4248

quote:

Hiya MissO,

Actually pineapple aids in digestion of food so would be digested faster than say a starch or fish or meat. It is acidic. jmo

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=273790&perpage=40&pagenumber=5

We know she ate cracked crab & shrimp - & those items were well out of her stomach & small intestine. By YOUR own post you admit fish or meat takes longer & an acidic fruit takes less time.

Now you are backpedaling from what you wrote one month ago to claim that this fast-digesting acidic food slowed down to a 5-6 hour crawl.

I agree with you that it is frustrating to read the constant misrepresentations we keep getting. I just don't see Steve Thomas & the media being responsible in this particular instance.

MOO Mimi, if you have the time to remember all the posts posted here on this board, and then post them...you have to have a theory...I know you stated you didn't, that you were just convinced that the Rs did it..but you have to have a reason why....so please explain your version of what happened the night of the murder...and please don't give us a watered-down theory similar to Thomas' about feeding their child pineapple...and then murdering her because she wet the bed....:confused: Still waiting.....................:)

cantstandnuts

10-13-2006, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Athena

LOL -- Twisting Thomas (thanks bullmoose) said it so it must be true. :rolleyes:

I hear ya. I don't put much faith in any of what Thomas has to report. It's kind of funny that people use him as an accurate source. How much misinformation is actually in that book I wonder...

sweetcharlotte

10-13-2006, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I won't concede on this point, Wally....I've lived a long time...I've never seen anyone buy 21 in. of cord..it doesn't make sense...you buy a roll, which is cheaper that way.....do you think the Ramseys just went into a hardware store already knowing the exact amount they would need to murder their daughter and buy it...it isn't logical, Wally, give it up! Our Cards lost last night! :(

Not trying to get into the cord fray (lol) but, here is a post from MissO re: the info from PM/PT relative to the cord and duct tape that Thomas "thought" Patsy purchased:

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.

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."

If you google the brand name of the cord (autopsy said 1/4 inch cord) you'll find it comes prepacked.

LadyFisher

10-13-2006, 10:04 AM

LadyFisher

10-13-2006, 10:11 AM

cantstandnuts

10-13-2006, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I know it's a theory. You said you couldn't understand why Patsy wouldn't admit she'd fed JB pineapple and we offered you a reasonable explaination as to why she wouldn't admit it. I never said that is what happened. It was something for you to consider because it does make sense but I guess you don't want to consider it. I'm not Patsy and I wasn't there. None of us were so all we can do is speculate. When you expressed your confusion over the pineapple, I must have been mistaken when I thought you wanted someone to venture a guess for the reason why she wouldn't admit it. If I had offered a reason that involved an intruder, I have a feeling you'd have jumped right on it. IMO

I really never thought the Ramseys had anything to do with it because I can't understand why they would kill JB on Christmas night in some fit of rage over bedwetting or anything else. Patsy seemed highly invested in her daughter, wrapped up in her life completely, so it's a pretty big leap to think she would just kill her one night because of anger. The Ramseys have no history of it...they have a history of running her around in pageants and dying her hair and Patsy had a huge investment in JB and those pageants so the whole idea that they would just kill her defies logic. They behaved strangely, no doubt about that, but all of us who say we would act a certain way really don't know that, because we aren't them. They had a ton of money and John is pretty well connected, so the fact that he hired lawyers and PR people isn't that strange considering who he is...strange for us normal folks, but not them. People who are nothing like them couldn't possibly pretend to know how they should act in the face of all this, but the fact is, that's what has gotten them convicted in the court of public opinion...they did the pageants, they hired lawyers, they wore the same clothes two days in a row, and Patsy loved "that" child...oh and they had what I consider minor inconsistencies in their statements over the years.
I don't have a problem with your theory, it's valid if you believe they did it. I'm just not so sure they did and I don't understand why people aren't willing to believe there was an intruder...it's also a valid theory with some evidence to back it up. I'd say that RDI folks ALSO have trouble with any theory that isn't supportive of the parents being guilty, yet IDI aren't allowed the same latitude?
Your response to my post made it seem as though you had explained it all when really it was yet another theory, which makes sense from the RDI point of view, but not the other and yes, that's the side I'm looking from, so OF COURSE, if there were a theory to explain it from that view, I'd love to hear it. Jump all over it, no! It would have to make sense for me to do that. I'm not invested in this at all, it's interesting and painfully tragic and I want the mystery solved and I'm looking for more to back up the IDI theory because that's the side of the fence I sit on. I don't get angry or take issue with the RDI side...I can hear it all and think it ALL over, believe it or not.
I took issue with the "good lord" statement in your post, because whether or not you put a reasonable explanation out there or not, I may still be confused. Then you basically accused me of not accepting any but my own theory. That's simply not true. Prove the Ramseys did this and I'll buy it...but that hasn't been done so I'm allowed to sit wherever I want to on that fence.
Sorry to ramble, probably lost you already...

LadyFisher

10-13-2006, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Ames

I think that one of the Ramsey's used the latex glove "inside of her", because it would seem like less of an "intrusion" for her if they did. I seriously do not believe that it was premeditated murder, or intentional, but the cover up was. I think that one of them used a latex glove, because they thought that it would seem less intrusive. Like they couldn't stand the thought of their own flesh coming in contact with the inside of her, because that was their daughter. (Thats pretty graphic, but I hope you get my point). IMO Well, at least you offered an explanation, although I don't believe that one....were there latex gloves found in the Ramsey home, they shouldn't have been too hard to find......just like the stun gun, duct tape, and leftover cord.....those things were not found in the home.....you RDIs have to include the latex gloves and stun gun imo in your theories since these were not ruled out by the ME that did the autopsy! :seeya:

nuisanceposter

10-13-2006, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I find it very odd that the Whites cannot remember what they served at the party................everyone is always hitting on the Ramseys for forgetting things after their daughter was murdered....they were in shock...what's the Whites excuse? The Whites didn't just have a daughter murdered.......I think she grabbed a piece of pineapple right before she left the White's house! jmho

And then just by coincidence the Ramseys happen to have a bowl of pineapple on their breakfast table???

The pineapple in JonBenet's small intestine was found to be consistent down to the rind with the pineapple in the bowl on the Ramsey's table.

She ate it at home. The Ramseys lied. They changed their stories repeatedly, whenever it suited them best. This is proven fact - they contradict themselves more than once, on more than one part of their story.

Why is that hard to accept?

nuisanceposter

10-13-2006, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I'll bet those citizens who served on the Grand Jury for 13 months didn't think it was a joke.......and you know they had the right to call any witnesses they wished to call. They didn't call John & Patsy.

Which doesn't make sense at all. Why would the jury NOT want to hear from the parents of the murdered child who were home at the time of the murder - which took place in their house?

Did you know a juror was heard on television to have gone into the court preceedings already of the opinion that a parent could not do something like that to their own child? Not only do parents do things like that, but that's hardly a fair and impartial juror - and she wasn't the only one who felt that way.

People have suggested that DA Alex Hunter be brought up on charges of obstruction of justice and malfeasance for his conduct in the JBR case.

cantstandnuts

10-13-2006, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Thanks so much for posting this for cantstandnuts...(sound's like my daughter..she can't stand nuts either!!!)

Sounds like I'd get along good with your daughter...on the nut thing anyway. :D

You would think this major issue about getting caught in a lie would be well known to everyone interested in the case...funny, it only made a mention in Thomas's book. Wonder why.

LadyFisher

10-13-2006, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

And then just by coincidence the Ramseys happen to have a bowl of pineapple on their breakfast table???

The pineapple in JonBenet's small intestine was found to be consistent down to the rind with the pineapple in the bowl on the Ramsey's table.

She ate it at home. The Ramseys lied. They changed their stories repeatedly, whenever it suited them best. This is proven fact - they contradict themselves more than once, on more than one part of their story.

Why is that hard to accept? As I said, show me one home that doesn't have pineapple at Christmas.....the majority do, we do! YOU lost a daughter and then come back here and post how many inconsistent statements you made following the shock of something like that! If imho they had been fibbing about the pineapple it would have been all to easy to come up with an innocent reason, they didn't, they have always stated they do not know! It's only important to you Thomas enthusiasts...it's as someone else stated on here a "red herring" imho

LadyFisher

10-13-2006, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Not trying to get into the cord fray (lol) but, here is a post from MissO re: the info from PM/PT relative to the cord and duct tape that Thomas "thought" Patsy purchased:

If you google the brand name of the cord (autopsy said 1/4 inch cord) you'll find it comes prepacked. Thank you, sweet..........maybe that will settle the issue for Wally......common sense just tells me that they wouldn't have predetermined the exact amount of cord need to garrotte their daughter, murder her...and then go to a hardware store and buy 21 in....it just doesn't make sense! :seeya:

nuisanceposter

10-13-2006, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
As I said, show me one home that doesn't have pineapple at Christmas.....the majority do, we do! YOU lost a daughter and then come back here and post how many inconsistent statements you made following the shock of something like that! If imho they had been fibbing about the pineapple it would have been all to easy to come up with an innocent reason, they didn't, they have always stated they do not know! It's only important to you Thomas enthusiasts...it's as someone else stated on here a "red herring" imho

Consistent down to the rind.

And for the record, I don't completely buy Thomas's theory of what happened to JonBenet. I believe the head wound occurred first, and I believe the Ramseys staged the rest, but I can't say for sure that Patsy was the one who hit JonBenet and I'm not sure the head wound came the sink or bathtub.

My admiration of Thomas comes from him dedicating himself to giving a little girl murdered in her own home on Christmas night the justice she deserves. He ran himself ragged, in detriment to his own health, fighting for her. He went up against a corrupt DA's office that stymied him at every turn, for her benefit. John and Patsy Ramsey didn't work that hard for JonBenet.

Interesting to note about Thomas...the Rs sued him, and then sought a settlement with him - a settlement that they didn't need to go for and one that worked out to Thomas's favor - he's still able to sell his book as it was originally written, he can still talk about it as he wishes, he admitted to no wrongdoing, and he never had to pay any money to the Rs. They sought the settlement, under those terms, and they didn't have to - they chose to.

Consistent DOWN TO THE RIND. That pineapple in JonBenet's small intestine came from that bowl on the breakfast table.

And BTW - my family has never served pineapple at Christmas - where is that a tradition?

Mimi428

10-13-2006, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Mimi, if you have the time to remember all the posts posted here on this board, and then post them...you have to have a theory...I know you stated you didn't, that you were just convinced that the Rs did it..but you have to have a reason why....so please explain your version of what happened the night of the murder...and please don't give us a watered-down theory similar to Thomas' about feeding their child pineapple...and then murdering her because she wet the bed....:confused: Still waiting.....................:)

Your erroneous conclusions demonstrate what happens when you assume. You have made the assumption that I "have the time to remember all the posts posted here on this board, and then post them..."

Not true. Not by a long shot. The search function works fine on this board. So does Google.

Try it.

However, it does not work well at all for verifying desperate, wild-eyed claims of "show me one home that doesn't have pineapple at Christmas". For that, we would probably need some kind of a poll.

I can think of dishes and/or recipes that have been served at many Christmas functions that have pineapple as one ingredient, but that is not what happened in this instance. And I can safely assert that at no time has plain pineapple been served at any Christmas function that I have ever attended. In my experience, holiday foods lean more to wonderful dishes which require multiple ingredients rather than single-item foods standing alone(meats being the exception). The green beans get combined in the casserole. The pineapple is part of the fruit salad. And so on.

YMMV

cantstandnuts

10-13-2006, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

And then just by coincidence the Ramseys happen to have a bowl of pineapple on their breakfast table???

The pineapple in JonBenet's small intestine was found to be consistent down to the rind with the pineapple in the bowl on the Ramsey's table.

She ate it at home. The Ramseys lied. They changed their stories repeatedly, whenever it suited them best. This is proven fact - they contradict themselves more than once, on more than one part of their story.

Why is that hard to accept?

Are you saying the pineapple was proven to be the same pineapple that was in the bowl? How on earth would anyone know that? Where can I read about this? Thomas's book?

Seems perfectly logical to me since Burke's and Patsy's prints are on the bowl, they're the ones who ate the stuff and for all we know they had it at breakfast and it sat there all day and night. And in the shock of the whole mess, they simply forgot about it or couldn't think straight enough to answer.

And since the Whites don't remember whether they had pineapple or not, it sure makes sense that they did and just don't remember and that JB ate it there.

Logic works regardless of what side of the fence a person sits on.

lucky13

10-13-2006, 11:11 AM

MOO
The cord- what about Patsy's original artwork? I've read that she used cord to attach 'slings' on the back of them for hanging. Aunt Pam removed one of Patsy's paintings from the crime scene soon after the murder. WHY? Why would she care about a stupid painting at a time like that? Was it now slingless??? I'm thinking it was, hence the reason for removing it.
The pineapple- it is absolutely ridiculous that not one person who attended the Whites party could not remember if there was any pineapple served or not. And the Whites themselves don't know either??? Really??Was there no planning to this Christmas dinner? Did she just set out some random food at the last minute? Most people would have planned their Christmas dinner menu ahead of time & would be well aware of what they had or had not served. How about looking in the trash for pineapple rhinds, or an empty pineapple can/container etc.?? I personally believe that the pineapple in the Ramseys home, on the Ramseys table, was what was in JB's stomach/intestines. I think the Ramseys lied about JB being asleep because it just made their story easier to remember. They just forgot or didn't realize that the pineapple would become an issue. Why wouldn't they wake up JB anyway? She was a bedwetter. Did the Ramseys really think that she would get through the entire night without wetting her bed? (Especially since they sometimes woke her up around midnight to pee so that she would not wet her bed.) Was Patsy going to leave peed-on sheets on JB's bed that morning? She already stated that she wasn't sure of when JB had last taken a bath(how sad) & she wasn't even going to bathe her before their trip either?? That's disgusting to me. Patsy didn't bathe, she wasn't going to bathe the kids....eww. Who would have ever thought by looking at her that Patsy Ramsey was not a very clean person??? You just never know, do you? Makes ya wonder what other 'secrets' she has.....
MOO

nuisanceposter

10-13-2006, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Thank you, sweet..........maybe that will settle the issue for Wally......common sense just tells me that they wouldn't have predetermined the exact amount of cord need to garrotte their daughter, murder her...and then go to a hardware store and buy 21 in....it just doesn't make sense! :seeya:

Or maybe they bought a package of the cord, used most of it elsewhere, and the lengths used to make the garotte and tie her wrists were all that was left over, sitting around the house.

Where is 21 inches coming from? The cord around her neck was 17 inches, and the cord on her wrists was 15 inches.

nuisanceposter

10-13-2006, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

Are you saying the pineapple was proven to be the same pineapple that was in the bowl? How on earth would anyone know that? Where can I read about this? Thomas's book?

Seems perfectly logical to me since Burke's and Patsy's prints are on the bowl, they're the ones who ate the stuff and for all we know they had it at breakfast and it sat there all day and night. And in the shock of the whole mess, they simply forgot about it or couldn't think straight enough to answer.

And since the Whites don't remember whether they had pineapple or not, it sure makes sense that they did and just don't remember and that JB ate it there.

Logic works regardless of what side of the fence a person sits on.

It actually does come from Thomas's book, but as I pointed out, the Rs sued him and then sought a settlement - one of the stipulations being that Thomas does not have to alter a word of his book and can still sell it as it was originally written, and admits to no wrongdoing.

I've heard that the White's did not serve pineapple, and that JonBenet barely ate while she was at their house. The pinapple was behind the cracked crab she ate at dinner, which was already to her large intestine - meaning she ate it well before she ate the pineapple.

It follows logic quite well to think that if a child has fresh pineapple (not canned) in her intestine, and there is a bowl of fresh pineapple (not canned) on the table of her house, then the pineapple she ate came from that bowl - especially when her parents originally said she was awake when they got home that night, only to change their story some four months later.

Mimi428

10-13-2006, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Or maybe they bought a package of the cord, used most of it elsewhere, and the lengths used to make the garotte and tie her wrists were all that was left over, sitting around the house.

Where is 21 inches coming from? The cord around her neck was 17 inches, and the cord on her wrists was 15 inches.

I don't understand the insistence that this was new cord - or very recently purchased. It's not as if the Ramsey family was recently formed. J & P weren't newlyweds just setting up housekeeping. I have plenty of odd lengths of various sorts of cords, ropes, twines & string & it has been over 4 years since I had any occasion to buy any. I doubt my experience is unusual, that kind of stuff just collects itself, imo.

nuisanceposter

10-13-2006, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

I don't understand the insistence that this was new cord - or very recently purchased. It's not as if the Ramsey family was recently formed. J & P weren't newlyweds just setting up housekeeping. I have plenty of odd lengths of various sorts of cords, ropes, twines & string & it has been over 4 years since I had any occasion to buy any. I doubt my experience is unusual, that kind of stuff just collects itself, imo.

Same here. If I went out to the garage or kitchen (we don't have a basement), I guarantee you I could find several lengths of cord in various lengths, not one of them in a package.

And with kids, especially boys, you never know what's going to end up where. They pick up things and carry them around, use them, set them down - you could find anything anywhere. LHP said both Burke and JonBenet weren't very good at picking up after themselves - she said she took Burke's knife away because he'd sit and whittle just anywhere, leaving wood shavings laying where they fell.

I don't know why people think it isn't possible that the cord used was just another piece of debris in a house jam-packed with clutter.

sweetcharlotte

10-13-2006, 11:38 AM

Why don't you ask Steve Thomas? He's the one who tracked down Patsy's purchases and insisted they included cord and duct tape. He was so convinced he bought what he thought was the same cord/tape to use during one of his presentations. lol

nuisanceposter

10-13-2006, 11:43 AM

There's a lot of questions I'd like to ask Steve Thomas, but I doubt I'll ever get the chance.

All he did was prove she could have bought those items. For all we know, she did, and the tape and cord was mostly used up by Christmas night, perhaps for packaging gifts to be shipped.

sweetcharlotte

10-13-2006, 11:45 AM

Note to self: Tell dear sweet DIL not to bring a bowl of fresh pineapple for Christmas eve party. Must be mixed with something.

cantstandnuts

10-13-2006, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

It actually does come from Thomas's book, but as I pointed out, the Rs sued him and then sought a settlement - one of the stipulations being that Thomas does not have to alter a word of his book and can still sell it as it was originally written, and admits to no wrongdoing.

I've heard that the White's did not serve pineapple, and that JonBenet barely ate while she was at their house. The pinapple was behind the cracked crab she ate at dinner, which was already to her large intestine - meaning she ate it well before she ate the pineapple.

It follows logic quite well to think that if a child has fresh pineapple (not canned) in her intestine, and there is a bowl of fresh pineapple (not canned) on the table of her house, then the pineapple she ate came from that bowl - especially when her parents originally said she was awake when they got home that night, only to change their story some four months later.

Didn't Thomas's deposition contradict his book? Regardless of the suit, he was definitely lying/mistaken about quite a few things, which makes what he has to say very suspect to me.

I've heard the Whites don't know whether they served pineapple or not and she certainly could have grabbed some after eating her cracked crab (I had no idea kids ate this!) if the Whites did in fact have some and just don't remember. While I do believe your theory is plausible, I also believe mine is. It could have happened either way.

I'm still not positive the claim about the Ramseys lying about JB being awake is true. Thomas says it but no one else does anywhere...you'd think this juicy detail would have been gone over and over and would be public knowledgeand beaten to death, but it's not, it's just in Thomas's book. I find that very strange. And, the neighbor they dropped gifts to says JB was asleep in the car, yet doesn't someone else say she helped them deliver those gifts? Too many inconsistencies...I am not at all sure what to believe.

nuisanceposter

10-13-2006, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Note to self: Tell dear sweet DIL not to bring a bowl of fresh pineapple for Christmas eve party. Must be mixed with something.

Lol, good one.

Seriously, though...where is it a tradition to serve fresh pineapple at Christmas? I have never heard of that.

cantstandnuts

10-13-2006, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Lol, good one.

Seriously, though...where is it a tradition to serve fresh pineapple at Christmas? I have never heard of that.

We rarely have pineapple (except when we have ham and it's on top) so it being a tradition is unknown to me as well.

I was thinking it may have been on top of some cake or something that someone made or brought to the party...that could be easily missed and forgotten by everyone in attendance.

LadyFisher

10-13-2006, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Note to self: Tell dear sweet DIL not to bring a bowl of fresh pineapple for Christmas eve party. Must be mixed with something. :lol: But if she did, you wouldn't FORGET it like the Whites did....wouldn't everyone here remember what they served at their OWN Christmas party :confused: LE knew that a standard kidnapping kit would include: ROPE/CORD, DUCT TAPE, STUN GUN, and this perp wore latex gloves...that's why they even sifted through the fireplace looking for the remainder of these items....how in the world would the Ramseys have known that if they killed their daughter over a bedwetting incident and staged this.....because they didn't! It's that simple.....so the RDIs have to believe there could be no remaining cord, etc......it doesn't make sense they would just have enough remaining to bind and garrotte their daughter, even LE had sense enough to know that! Have a great day, folks!

Mimi428

10-13-2006, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Note to self: Tell dear sweet DIL not to bring a bowl of fresh pineapple for Christmas eve party. Must be mixed with something.

Heck, let her bring it if she likes it. But if she does bring it, I assume if the occasion arrives that the police ask you about it, yiy will at least retain the memory of where it came from & how it got there.

Unlike the Ramseys, who just cannot recall how the heck that bowl of pineapple got to their house or how Patsy & Burke's fingerprints may have gotten on it. Golly gee whiz. Wonder where that came from?

Mimi428

10-13-2006, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
:lol: But if she did, you wouldn't FORGET it like the Whites did....

The Whites? How about the RAMSEYS??

The bowl of pineapple WAS found in THEIR house, remember?

So many dodges & deflections to everybody EXCEPT the people who realistically could be expected to have a personal priority about helping to find who murdered their own daughter.

But hey, it's like Patsy said - an innocent 6 year old getting her head bashed in, being sexually molested & being strangled to death isn't nearly so bad as what J & P went through - the loss of a child, illness, etc.

<sarcasm intended>

cantstandnuts

10-13-2006, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

The Whites? How about the RAMSEYS??

The bowl of pineapple WAS found in THEIR house, remember?

So many dodges & deflections to everybody EXCEPT the people who realistically could be expected to have a personal priority about helping to find who murdered their own daughter.

But hey, it's like Patsy said - an innocent 6 year old getting her head bashed in, being sexually molested & being strangled to death isn't nearly so bad as what J & P went through - the loss of a child, illness, etc.

<sarcasm intended>

I'm going to just speak for myself and tell you that had my child been brutally murdered while I slept through it all, I could very EASILY have forgotten the details about a bowl of stupid pineapple and how it got to be sitting there...especially considering this was holiday time when there are a ton of details to remember... and even if it weren't, people do all sorts of things absent mindedly and then forget about it, especially the mundane. Are you saying that you remember every single thing you do daily and can later account for it all?

I don't blame the Whites for not recalling whether they had pineapple at their party or not and I don't blame the Ramseys for forgetting how, when, and why that bowl ended up sitting on their table.

LindaA

10-13-2006, 01:03 PM

In the south pineapple is a sign of hospitality and is often served at Christmas, usually as part of a salad or dessert. (Pineapple, mandarin oranges, coconut, maraschino cherries, mini marshmallows and sour cream ws a traditinal holiday dish in my home when I was growing up.)

Does anyone know if the White's party was the sort where people bring dishes to share or did the Whites prepare all the food themselves or did theyhave it catered? This might make a difference in their knowing just what was served.

nuisanceposter

10-13-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

We rarely have pineapple (except when we have ham and it's on top) so it being a tradition is unknown to me as well.

I was thinking it may have been on top of some cake or something that someone made or brought to the party...that could be easily missed and forgotten by everyone in attendance.

Not a chance. With all of the publicity this case got, if anyone had brought a dish with pineapple on it then, they would have said, "hey, I brought a dish with pineapple." Those people at the White's party were friends of the Rs, people who would want them to be able to answer for the pineapple.

The Whites have said they did not serve pineapple - I don't know where this idea they don't know is coming from. This was a planned Christmas dinner - dishes were thought of and prepared well in advance.

As for the cracked crab, Priscilla White set aside a plate of it especially for JonBenet to try. Anyone who is read up on the case knows that. It was a custom of the Whites to serve cracked crab at Christmas. Patsy talks about it in DOI.

And if she ate the pineapple off a cake or something, where is the cake in her intestine? Did she just sit and dig the pineapple off and eat it without the cake? Come on!

The most logical explanation for the pineapple that is consistent down to the rind with the stuff in the bowl is that JonBenet ate the pineapple that was in the bowl. If you need to believe that the Rs had no idea she ate it, then maybe she came downstairs and ate it after they went to bed. I just don't see the need to try to insist that it was served elsewhere and everyone who was there somehow forgot. That isn't logical, when there's a bowl of it right on the table - and it matches what's in her belly.

Mimi428

10-13-2006, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

I'm going to just speak for myself and tell you that had my child been brutally murdered while I slept through it all, I could very EASILY have forgotten the details about a bowl of stupid pineapple and how it got to be sitting there...especially considering this was holiday time when there are a ton of details to remember... and even if it weren't, people do all sorts of things absent mindedly and then forget about it, especially the mundane. Are you saying that you remember every single thing you do daily and can later account for it all?

I don't blame the Whites for not recalling whether they had pineapple at their party or not and I don't blame the Ramseys for forgetting how, when, and why that bowl ended up sitting on their table.

Speaking only for myself, the fuzzy recall is for the events that happen right AFTER the tragedy happens. Memory is good for everything up until that time - everything thereafter is recalled kind of through a fog.

You may not be able to think clearly or have great recall during the initial shock of the moment - but when it becomes patently clear that a CRIME needs to be solved - most folks I know make a huge effort to recall with the best clarity they can muster the events leading up to the crime. They are acutely & very painfully aware of the importance to the investigation that the police have every bit of accurate detail that can be provided. They work overtime racking their brains to recall teeny-tiny details. They report everything, from the most minute to the most overt, because they are hoping upon hope that the pieces can be put together for LE to get the crime solved & the perpetrator arrested & brought to justice. They are so frantic for answers that they will overturn heaven & earth.

MOO

WallyCleaver

10-13-2006, 03:38 PM

WallyCleaver

10-13-2006, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Not trying to get into the cord fray (lol) but, here is a post from MissO re: the info from PM/PT relative to the cord and duct tape that Thomas "thought" Patsy purchased:

If you google the brand name of the cord (autopsy said 1/4 inch cord) you'll find it comes prepacked.

Thank you. Now I suppose the IDIs will switch from asking where the missing roll is, to asking where the empty package is.

WallyCleaver

10-13-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Well, at least you offered an explanation, although I don't believe that one....were there latex gloves found in the Ramsey home, they shouldn't have been too hard to find......just like the stun gun, duct tape, and leftover cord.....those things were not found in the home.....you RDIs have to include the latex gloves and stun gun imo in your theories since these were not ruled out by the ME that did the autopsy! :seeya:

The ME didn't rule out a Ming dynasty vase either. Must we include a Ming vase in our theories?

WallyCleaver

10-13-2006, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Or maybe they bought a package of the cord, used most of it elsewhere, and the lengths used to make the garotte and tie her wrists were all that was left over, sitting around the house.

Where is 21 inches coming from? The cord around her neck was 17 inches, and the cord on her wrists was 15 inches.

21" came from a post by MyrDawn who believes a hardware store will only sell you rope in one foot increments. 17+4 = 21, the length of the two tails, but what's forgotten is the length around her neck, and the length around her wrists.

sweetcharlotte

10-13-2006, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Thank you. Now I suppose the IDIs will switch from asking where the missing roll is, to asking where the empty package is.

This IDI thinks the intruder brought what he thought he needed with him in a backpack and took what he didn't use with him. Can't speak for the other IDIs.

WallyCleaver

10-13-2006, 04:19 PM

We hardly ever have pineapple. The reason is, we've had pineapple from Thailand - it puts the Hawaiian stuff to shame. Since supermarkets rarely carry Thai pineapple, we usually don't buy any. Once you've had the good stuff, you just can't eat the Hawaiian stuff.

MissOtisRegrets

10-13-2006, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

This IDI thinks the intruder brought what he thought he needed with him in a backpack and took what he didn't use with him. Can't speak for the other IDIs.

An IDI agrees.

:beer:

WallyCleaver

10-13-2006, 04:20 PM

sweetcharlotte

10-13-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

That's possible. Why didn't he bring his own stick?

Or notepad and pen? Change in plans, maybe? JMO

WallyCleaver

10-13-2006, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Or notepad and pen? Change in plans, maybe? JMO

Or flashlight.

MissOtisRegrets

10-13-2006, 04:33 PM

The presence of the paintbox may be what prompted the idea for the stick in the first place. The Ramseys discovering their daughter's body and the sight of their own personal items having been used to kill her would make an indelible impression.

sweetcharlotte

10-13-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Or flashlight.

Maybe he had his own flashlight. There was no evidence on the flashlight on the counter. Wiped down - I can't explain that, but there were no fingerprints on the RN either?

rashomon

10-13-2006, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
rashoman: I'm quite curious about how you can state that Lou Smit had a hand in picking who was going to be on the grand jury? In my entire life I have never heard of an investigator having that kind of supernatural power. Honestly, do you know anything about the justice system in the USA? As for the Ramseys not testifying to the grand jury; I believe what happened was they were not asked to; as for lawyers not lying because of fear of disbarment, are you from Mars? Go to an American Courtroom where the local liar's club meets; oops I guess I meant to say Bar Association[ you know, lawyers, judges,] and sit in on a normal day's proceedings, you will hear lawyers lying at least whenever they are pleading to the judge how their clients promise never to do whatever it is that they are in trouble for. As for your assertion that the fiber evidence is convincing and solid, maybe it is to you. But not to me. bullmoose
I have the info from Steve Thomas' book, and since neither Lou Smit nor Trip DeMuth ever demanded that Thomas retract what he wrote, you can assume that the info is correct (p. 278):

"I could not see Pete Hofstrom, after a career of plea bargains, pushing to get this case to trial. Now he would lead a team that included Smit, who thought the Ramseys were innocent; DeMuth, whom I thought had bent over backward to accomodate Team Ramsey; Beckner, an administrator who was trying hard to become chief of police; and Wickman, a demoralized police sergeant who hadn't even been told a grand jury was going to be called.
Eventually, at the end of April, twelve jurors and five alternates were chosen to serve on the grand jury.
Among those helping to pick the panel were Lou Smit and Trip DeMuth."

The Ramseys were not asked to testify at the grand jury, but whose decision was it not to call them? Probably the decision of a person who did not want them to be called, have you ever thought of that?

To answer your question about my knowledge of the American justice system: whenever I have a question about the US justice system, I rely on info from the JBR board 'Forums For Justice'. There are incredibly knowledgeable people over there, especially in legal matters.
We don't have grand juries or the death penalty here in Germany, but on the whole the US justice system is not that different from the German justice system.

As for lawyers lying: of course criminal defense lawyers try to get their clients off, and we all know how people like for example Lin Wood try to twist the truth in their client's favor.

A defense lawyer's duty is to his client only and not necessarily to the truth.
But that was not the point here. For the Ramseys were not Levin's clients, therefore he did not act in the role as their defense lawyer, and all I pointed out to you was that in the kind of interrogation Levin conducted, as opposed to police officers, lawyers are not allowed to lie.
Levin confronted the Ramseys with the fiber evidence against them, he did not pull anything out of thin air because the CBI lab had analyzed the fibers and found them to be consistent with the clothes both John and Patsy had worn on that fatal night.

You said the fiber evidence doesn't convince you. Then how would you explain that fibers from Patsy's clothes got in the garrote handle, etc. and fibers from John's shirt got into JB's underwear?
But let me guess: you'll probably assert that 'consistent with' doesn't mean a match, right? But lab techs always say 'consistent with' when they have found a match. To say 'consistent with' is a sceintific way of putting it. So if lab techs have found a fiber at the crime scene to be consistent with a suspect's clothing, this is actually pretty damaging evidence.

sweetcharlotte

10-13-2006, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
The presence of the paintbox may be what prompted the idea for the stick in the first place. The Ramseys discovering their daughter's body and the sight of their own personal items having been used to kill her would make an indelible impression.

And incriminate them at the same time. JMO

nuisanceposter

10-13-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Maybe he had his own flashlight. There was no evidence on the flashlight on the counter. Wiped down - I can't explain that, but there were no fingerprints on the RN either?

No. No fingerprints on the RN, even though both John and Patsy claim to have handled it. Even more strange to me is how John Fernie saw it lying on the floor and read it backwards through the door. Notice that he says the door is locked.

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

2001 June 13 - Transcript Testimony of John Fernie - Colorado vs Miller trial

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."

Now look at this. The police arrived before John Fernie.

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

December 26, 1996
Approximate Sequence Events
Approximate Arrival/Departure

Patsy Ramsey dialed 911 (5:52am)
Patsy Ramsey phoned Whites
Patsy Ramsey phoned Fernies
John Ramsey (reading note)
Burke Ramsey (sleeping??)
JonBenet Ramsey (missing)
Officer Rick French arrived (5:59am)
Officer Karl Veitch arrived
Sgt. Paul Reichenbach arrived
Fleet White arrived (6:30am)
Priscilla White arrived (6:30am)
John Fernie arrived
Barbara Fernie arrived

So why was the RN still on the floor? I have to doubt police would have left such an important piece of evidence just lying on the floor.

MissOtisRegrets

10-13-2006, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

And incriminate them at the same time. JMO

:beer:

cantstandnuts

10-13-2006, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Not a chance. With all of the publicity this case got, if anyone had brought a dish with pineapple on it then, they would have said, "hey, I brought a dish with pineapple." Those people at the White's party were friends of the Rs, people who would want them to be able to answer for the pineapple.

The Whites have said they did not serve pineapple - I don't know where this idea they don't know is coming from. This was a planned Christmas dinner - dishes were thought of and prepared well in advance.

As for the cracked crab, Priscilla White set aside a plate of it especially for JonBenet to try. Anyone who is read up on the case knows that. It was a custom of the Whites to serve cracked crab at Christmas. Patsy talks about it in DOI.

And if she ate the pineapple off a cake or something, where is the cake in her intestine? Did she just sit and dig the pineapple off and eat it without the cake? Come on!

The most logical explanation for the pineapple that is consistent down to the rind with the stuff in the bowl is that JonBenet ate the pineapple that was in the bowl. If you need to believe that the Rs had no idea she ate it, then maybe she came downstairs and ate it after they went to bed. I just don't see the need to try to insist that it was served elsewhere and everyone who was there somehow forgot. That isn't logical, when there's a bowl of it right on the table - and it matches what's in her belly.

I just have a few things to say...

Cake would digest faster than pineapple.

My comment about the cracked crab was that I can't imagine JB eating it, being such a wee one...that's all I meant.

Your belief does make more sense than what I've been able to come up with, I can admit that. I'm just trying to throw things out there because it doesn't hurt to think of and debate all the possibilities that could exist and play devil's advocate for the sake of the accused. If I were being accused of murder, I would appreciate someone doing that for me. Not for one second do I believe the Ramseys even know I exist, of course, but I believe in the motto that one good turn deserves another and you reap what you soe, what goes around comes around, etc. So, I always try to err on the side of courtesy when I can.

I do think there may be an innocent reason for that pineapple to be in JB's stomach. I don't think there's any harm in throwing all possibilities out there, even if remote, just to see what others have to say about it. I'm not 100% sure the Ramseys are innocent but, I am still going to look through the lense that says they're are until something says absolutely they're guilty. There's nothing wrong with that, right?

sweetcharlotte

10-13-2006, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

No. No fingerprints on the RN, even though both John and Patsy claim to have handled it. Even more strange to me is how John Fernie saw it lying on the floor and read it backwards through the door. Notice that he says the door is locked.

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

2001 June 13 - Transcript Testimony of John Fernie - Colorado vs Miller trial

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."

Now look at this. The police arrived before John Fernie.

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

December 26, 1996
Approximate Sequence Events
Approximate Arrival/Departure

Patsy Ramsey dialed 911 (5:52am)
Patsy Ramsey phoned Whites
Patsy Ramsey phoned Fernies
John Ramsey (reading note)
Burke Ramsey (sleeping??)
JonBenet Ramsey (missing)
Officer Rick French arrived (5:59am)
Officer Karl Veitch arrived
Sgt. Paul Reichenbach arrived
Fleet White arrived (6:30am)
Priscilla White arrived (6:30am)
John Fernie arrived
Barbara Fernie arrived

So why was the RN still on the floor? I have to doubt police would have left such an important piece of evidence just lying on the floor.

No time listed for Fernies' time of arrival? Why would Fernie lie?

Coloradokares

10-13-2006, 05:02 PM

Or if it was purchased at McGuckins Hardware as the Receipt and American Express charges against Patsy's American express card would indicate it was sold by a whole package. Duct tape too. I thought the rope had been essentially determined a very long time ago. Is that still in dispute?

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

21" came from a post by MyrDawn who believes a hardware store will only sell you rope in one foot increments. 17+4 = 21, the length of the two tails, but what's forgotten is the length around her neck, and the length around her wrists.

cantstandnuts

10-13-2006, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Speaking only for myself, the fuzzy recall is for the events that happen right AFTER the tragedy happens. Memory is good for everything up until that time - everything thereafter is recalled kind of through a fog.

You may not be able to think clearly or have great recall during the initial shock of the moment - but when it becomes patently clear that a CRIME needs to be solved - most folks I know make a huge effort to recall with the best clarity they can muster the events leading up to the crime. They are acutely & very painfully aware of the importance to the investigation that the police have every bit of accurate detail that can be provided. They work overtime racking their brains to recall teeny-tiny details. They report everything, from the most minute to the most overt, because they are hoping upon hope that the pieces can be put together for LE to get the crime solved & the perpetrator arrested & brought to justice. They are so frantic for answers that they will overturn heaven & earth.

MOO

I hear you and won't argue the point. All I know is I'd look pretty guilty if ever accused, because I honestly forget MANY minute details of what goes on day to day...and I know many people like me. Try as I might, I can easily imagine I'd be saying I don't know to a lot of questions asked of me. People are all different, though and so for you it would look like guilt, while to me it looks like forgetfulness.

Let me ask, is it the not knowing that bugs you about them or the fact that you believe they really didn't try very hard? Maybe both?

sweetcharlotte

10-13-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

<snip>

I just have a few things to say...
I do think there may be an innocent reason for that pineapple to be in JB's stomach. I don't think there's any harm in throwing all possibilities out there, even if remote, just to see what others have to say about it. I'm not 100% sure the Ramseys are innocent but, I am still going to look through the lense that says they're are until something says absolutely they're guilty. There's nothing wrong with that, right?

I read that she had not felt good that day and did not eat much at the Whites so I think there's always the possibility that JonBenet went downstairs to get something to eat, ran into someone unexpectedly and what happened from there happened. JMO

rashomon

10-13-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Why don't you ask Steve Thomas? He's the one who tracked down Patsy's purchases and insisted they included cord and duct tape. He was so convinced he bought what he thought was the same cord/tape to use during one of his presentations. lol

Lol all you want, and like him or not, but every IDI should read SteveThomas' book, for it contains crucial and irrefutable info on case FACTS. If the IDIs had read his book, they could have spared themselves the heated discussion about the cord:

Rope expert Van Tassell, one of the world's foremost experts on knots and cords, examined the cord which was around JB's neck and wrists, and came to the conclusion that it was the same type of cord which Thomas had bought at the McGuckin's sporting goods section for $2.29: a fifty-foot-length of white Stansport 32-strand, 3/16 inch woven soft nylon cord. (ST, p. 234)

nuisanceposter

10-13-2006, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

I just have a few things to say...

Cake would digest faster than pineapple.

My comment about the cracked crab was that I can't imagine JB eating it, being such a wee one...that's all I meant.

Your belief does make more sense than what I've been able to come up with, I can admit that. I'm just trying to throw things out there because it doesn't hurt to think of and debate all the possibilities that could exist and play devil's advocate for the sake of the accused. If I were being accused of murder, I would appreciate someone doing that for me. Not for one second do I believe the Ramseys even know I exist, of course, but I believe in the motto that one good turn deserves another and you reap what you soe, what goes around comes around, etc. So, I always try to err on the side of courtesy when I can.

I do think there may be an innocent reason for that pineapple to be in JB's stomach. I don't think there's any harm in throwing all possibilities out there, even if remote, just to see what others have to say about it. I'm not 100% sure the Ramseys are innocent but, I am still going to look through the lense that says they're are until something says absolutely they're guilty. There's nothing wrong with that, right?

Nothing wrong at all, and you've made some good points. I might be a bit jaded about the Rs at this point - I've spent the past nine and a half years trying to figure out what happened to JonBenet and it seems to me that all of the evidence just keeps coming back and pointing right at John and Patsy. I've seen enough by this point to be 100% sure they're guilty.

There's nothing wrong with examining every possibility, and as you said, if it were me, I would want people to do the same.

nuisanceposter

10-13-2006, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

Lol all you want, and like him or not, but every IDI should read SteveTomas' book, for it contains crucial and irrefutable info on case FACTS. If the IDIs had read his book, they could have spared themselves the heated discussion about the cord:
rope expert Van Tassell, one of the world's foremost experts on knots and cords, examined the cord which was around JB's neck and wrists, and came to the conclusion that it was the same type of cord which Thomas had bought at the McGuckin's sporting goods section for $2.29: a fifty-foot-length of white Stansport 32-strand, 3/16 inch woven soft nylon cord. (ST, p. 234)

Thanks, rashomon. ST spent a long time trying to figure out exactly what kind of cord was used.

I have to agree about reading ST's book. Even if you can't stand the man, his book is still full of information about the case, some you can't find anywhere else as he was a detective on the case and therefore privy to more inside info. If I can handle reading through DOI (countless times), IDIs can handle reading ST's book. You might even realize how much time he spent tracking down tips and leads that had absolutely nothing to with focusing on the Rs.

I think everyone interested in the JonBenet case should read the three main sources of information - Perfect Murder, Perfect Town by Lawrence Schiller, Death of Innocence by John and Patsy Ramsey, and JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation by Steve Thomas.