Who Killed JonBenet ?

[rrsafety]

For some reason, Fleet White, who used to be John Ramsey's best friend now hates the Ramseys. He was with John when JonBenet was found, but has since become an enemy of the Ramsey family.

One look at these long, crazy, rambling letters written by Fleet White to various people make me think that he's just one more nut in the party mix bowl....

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID35/79.html

[lisafremont]

How can you say that the author of those letters is a nut? Or does that fit your thinking vis a vis the Ramseys?

I think it is interesting that someone who was close to them and in fact present when JBR was found has come to believe that they are involved in the crime. But you seem to think you know more than they do.

I also find it interesting that Fleet and Priscilla White have not gone public, sold their story, written a book, or done anything to cash in on being close to such a high profile crime.

And you malign him? I totally disagree with you.

[awareness]

actually I don't think they are nuts. I think Fleet and Pricilla White wanted to distance themselves. With all the subsequent weirdness and finger pointing, its understandable they had a falling out. The Whites were "thought of" much like all the Ramsey's friends were.

[~Leslie~]

I scanned it briefly as it was WAY too long!
Most of the second or was it third letter? Was White railing against Mr Tracey and addressed to the Board Of Regents at the U Of Colorado ...

It is now perfectly obvious to us that Mr. Tracey has (1) selfishly and irresponsibly used his position as a professional educator on the faculty of the University of Colorado to secure a commercially beneficial arrangement with the prime suspects in an ongoing murder investigation, (2) attempted to generate favorable public opinion for the Ramseys using biased, misleading and sensational television programs clumsily and unconvincingly disguised as academic work product, and (3) engaged in dishonest deceptive conduct in performing advocatory services for the Ramseys.



Oh shoot I just realized this is from Webbsleuths ... speakin' of nutty

[hohum]

He seems a little out of the ordinary. A quick temper and doesn't mind showing it.

[napa]

I can answer this question. Ramsey was asked by the Boulder police for a list of POSSIBLE suspects. He included White's name on the list along with numerous others (includibng his housekeeper). The Boulder police told White that Ramsey had named him as a suspect. White got very angry and turned on Ramsey.

The Whites were also very jealous of the Ramseys, and that goes back a long ways.

[Miss Lissa]

Originally posted by napa
I can answer this question. Ramsey was asked by the Boulder police for a list of POSSIBLE suspects. He included White's name on the list along with numerous others (includibng his housekeeper). The Boulder police told White that Ramsey had named him as a suspect. White got very angry and turned on Ramsey.

The Whites were also very jealous of the Ramseys, and that goes back a long ways. How can you possibly know the Whites were jealous. Do you know them personelly?

[rrsafety]

Originally posted by napa
I can answer this question. Ramsey was asked by the Boulder police for a list of POSSIBLE suspects. He included White's name on the list along with numerous others (includibng his housekeeper). The Boulder police told White that Ramsey had named him as a suspect. White got very angry and turned on Ramsey.

The Whites were also very jealous of the Ramseys, and that goes back a long ways.

This is my reading as well. Apparently the Boulder cops were trying to dig up bad stuff about the Ramsey's by telling their friends "John and Patsy think you might have been involved" ... when in fact it was the cops who were pushing the names of friends as possible suspects to the Ramseys.... truly dispicable in my mind.

[kathyl777us]

Originally posted by Miss Lissa
How can you possibly know the Whites were jealous. Do you know them personelly?

I'd like to know this, too. They were good friends from everything that was said after the murder, and after the murder, the Whites immediately distanced themselves from the Ramseys. As Miss Lissa asked above, were you personally acquainted with these people and knew this to be true, or at least, was that your personal take on the relationship? While I do find the letters a bit strange and definitely rambling, the Whites' didn't capitalize on anything when they could have done like most others involved in situations like this one. I don't think they can be accused of inappropriate or malicious behavior. I've always been curious about why would they think the Ramseys were guilty unless they had significant reason??? JMO

[Former Juror]

Fleet White came to realize what many of us believe about this case. I'm sure it was hard for him considering his close friendship with the Ramseys.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by kathyl777us


I'd like to know this, too. They were good friends from everything that was said after the murder, and after the murder, the Whites immediately distanced themselves from the Ramseys. As Miss Lissa asked above, were you personally acquainted with these people and knew this to be true, or at least, was that your personal take on the relationship? While I do find the letters a bit strange and definitely rambling, the Whites' didn't capitalize on anything when they could have done like most others involved in situations like this one. I don't think they can be accused of inappropriate or malicious behavior. I've always been curious about why would they think the Ramseys were guilty unless they had significant reason??? JMO

I think Steve Thomas talked them into it. He thought if he could turn them against the Ramseys it would help his case.

[weepy willa]

Originally posted by rrsafety
For some reason, Fleet White, who used to be John Ramsey's best friend now hates the Ramseys. He was with John when JonBenet was found, but has since become an enemy of the Ramsey family.

One look at these long, crazy, rambling letters written by Fleet White to various people make me think that he's just one more nut in the party mix bowl....

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID35/79.html

Fleet White was with JR,when he found JBR's body.White stated that JR's shock at finding the body,seemed fake.The Ramsey's then threw suspicion on White,The Santa,everyone but them.

[hohum]

Originally posted by kathyl777us


I'd like to know this, too. They were good friends from everything that was said after the murder, and after the murder, the Whites immediately distanced themselves from the Ramseys. As Miss Lissa asked above, were you personally acquainted with these people and knew this to be true, or at least, was that your personal take on the relationship? While I do find the letters a bit strange and definitely rambling, the Whites' didn't capitalize on anything when they could have done like most others involved in situations like this one. I don't think they can be accused of inappropriate or malicious behavior. I've always been curious about why would they think the Ramseys were guilty unless they had significant reason??? JMO

Priscilla White was purported to be jealous of Patsy according to one of their mutual friends. And the White's in general did not like big money-- though they didn't mind being entertained by the Ramsey's at their summer house in Charlevoix on their dime. And I guess if the White's didn't like rich people then such people should have just donated all their money to the poor. It appears the White's were very judgemental. PMPT did an interesting job of portraying Fleet White, who BTW got everybody mad at him in Atlanta at the funeral.

[hohum]

Originally posted by weepy willa


The Ramsey's then threw suspicion on White,The Santa,everyone but them.

Hard to understand why they didn't just yell out it was us it was us.:lol:

[napa]

John Ramsey has stated that the Whites are jealous of anyone who "has money"

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by napa
John Ramsey has stated that the Whites are jealous of anyone who "has money"

That kind of statement tells me more about the person who is making it (Ramsey) than the person they are referring to (White).

Know what I mean?

[kathryn]

Fleet and Priscilla White = SNOBS

Simple.

:seeya:

[Miss Lissa]

Originally posted by napa
John Ramsey has stated that the Whites are jealous of anyone who "has money" Maybe they are just not very materialistic people. They were friends with the Ramseys , who obviously had money.When people say things like that, to me it screams of being catty and spiteful. I am talking about John saying that about the Whites. I think Fleet saw the true "Ramseys" that day and that is why the Ramseys pointed their fingers at the Whites. Fleet and Pricilla haven't wrote a book, they haven't done interviews and they cooperated with the police from the beginning. They didn't lawyer up immediately and seemed to genuinely want justice for Jon Benet, without profiting from her death. JMHO

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by BostonLegal


First of all I get the impression that White is bull-in-a china shop personality and emotional.

Perhaps Fleet is privvy to information that only he and John knew and he felt strongly that John should come forward. He was with John when the body was found.

And just MAYBE that information is what is not known to the general public and IS known to the killer. :shrug:

[Pepper]

Originally posted by Kay Crowley
You can find a copy of JBR's autopsy report at thesmokinggun.com.

At the end of the nine page report is a copy of the evidence that was given to the Boulder police department.

I hope this helps.:)

You've posted this same thing on at least two different threads (the only two I've read so far this afternoon).

1. Isn't that against TOS?
2. What is your point? If you have one, just make it. You have added absolutely nothing to either of the threads on which I've seen this posted.

[La_Cavalière]

Just checking: I assume that the Whites' handwriting was compared to the ransom note and that they were eliminated as suspects?

[napa]

Do you mean hEARsay?

[deputydi]

Has anyone read Fleet White's "letter to the people of Colorado"?

It's kind of long, but it sounds to me like he believed the Ramsey's were guilty. It's suspicions like this that can end a friendship pretty quickly -- regardless of how long you've been friends.

This is the very last paragraph:


The people of Colorado are entitled to be frustrated and angry with those public officials and other persons who have brought this case to its current status. We must be mindful, however, of the first cause of the investigation's failure—the refusal of John and Patsy Ramsey to cooperate fully and genuinely with those officially charged with the responsibility of investigating the death of their daughter, JonBenet.
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/08171998whitetopeopleco.htm

[Angelina]

I was reading a timeline, I think, I would have to go back and look it up, but does anyone else remember, it was witnessed that when White left the Ramsey's home after finding Jonbenet, he told everyone good bye then picked up one gift, didnt say where it picked it up from in the house, then he left with it. I thought that sounded odd, as they were all at the party together the night before. Maybe the Ramseys had forgot to take him one of his gifts, or maybe there was something in that wrapped present that some were trying to get out of that home. Most everyone knows trash and everything else will be checked after a crime. Wouldnt it be clever to have incriminating evidence wrapped and under the tree, then have someone later help you get it out. Just a thought and/or speculation.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Miss Lissa
Maybe they are just not very materialistic people. They were friends with the Ramseys , who obviously had money.When people say things like that, to me it screams of being catty and spiteful. I am talking about John saying that about the Whites. I think Fleet saw the true "Ramseys" that day and that is why the Ramseys pointed their fingers at the Whites. Fleet and Pricilla haven't wrote a book, they haven't done interviews and they cooperated with the police from the beginning. They didn't lawyer up immediately and seemed to genuinely want justice for Jon Benet, without profiting from her death. JMHO

I TOTALLY agree.

And of course, all the people who were saying the Ramseys had nothing to do with the crime & were pointing their fingers at the police were going to ostracize the Whites for not joining their side.

There was to be no dissent in camp Ramsey.

[Jasvon]

It sounds to me that Fleet was jealous of John Ramsey and his lawyer friends who advised him what to do. IMO, Fleet must have thought JR should have thought more highly of his advice than the advice of lawyers.

~ Jas

[Angelina]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I am truly puzzled by White's actions.

I am puzzled by everyone's actions in this case. Everything is bizarre about this case. I have never seen a case with this many twists and turns. Even though, there was no hard evidence in the Scott Peterson case, I dont think it was this confusing. JMHO

[samsong]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I TOTALLY agree.

And of course, all the people who were saying the Ramseys had nothing to do with the crime & were pointing their fingers at the police were going to ostracize the Whites for not joining their side.

There was to be no dissent in camp Ramsey.

Isn't that the truth! :)

[joanw_123]

I'm trying to imagine the Ramsey's actions throughout this horrific

event, and I have a lot of unanswered questions and thoughts:

- John and Patsy get up day after Xmas and come down the stairs where

they find a note
* Why would a kidnapper risk putting the note on one staircase,
given they might not have used it. Why would he/she not put it
on a kitchen counter where it would be seen immediately.
* I'm wondering why a Mother/Father would not check on their
kids while they're upstairs....expecially given the excitement
of the Xmas season. Usually the kids are up first.

- J&P find the note. J reads it, stating that his child will be

"beheaded" if they call ANYONE. They go upstairs and find her missing.

The note is not a hoax.
* Why would P call the authorities and 5 other people, given the
threat of her daughter being beheaded? Given you believe the
note, wouldn't you be excuting your own daughter by calling
in so many people and authorities? Did they not take the note
seriously?
* They found her missing, but did not search the whole house.
* What if the kids were playing a cruel prank on their parents?
Would you not search the WHOLE house....checking....run outside
and look around....exhaust that possibility? Don't kids often
play pranks, hide in closets etc? Couldn't that have been a
possibility?

- Friends and authorities arrive and John is told by authorities to

search the basement. He takes Fleet White. FW concludes that John's

behaviour is suspect.
* Why did he and FW argue that day. Also at the funeral. Why
has FW disconnected himself from the family.
* Where did John disappear to that morning? He said he went to
check the mail, but he was gone a very long time. They have
never found the murder weapon (Club, bat, flashlight??) nor
have they ever found the roll of duct tape that was used. Is
it possible that John was ridding these items from the scene?

- John and Fleet find the body, John undoes JBR and carries her

upstairs.
* Don't the most feeble minded of us know, not to touch a crime
scene. Given JR position in life, would that not indicate a
"Take charge" kind of guy? Even in his grief, would he not
realize, at some level, that what he was doing as wrong. Did
FWhite instruct him not to move the body. Was that part of
their arguement that day? Wouldn't this absolve John in terms
of most any DNA found?

- The Ramsey's hire a team of high profile lawyers.
* Why would this be necessary?
* If they're complying completely with the police, why do they
need lawyers.
* You don't hear this happening in cases where the parent's are
innocent and genuily concerned.

On the other hand:

- They have identified DNA (Not J&P's) under Jon Benet's nail and on her

panties.
* Is this being compared with other pedophiles?

- John K has identified that he remembers/saw:
* a cheque stup on John's desk for $118,000.
* unique features regarding the staircase
* specifics about the basement where she was killed
* graphic details about Jon Benet's body


Still very confused..... I've always leaned toward the parents being the perps.....now I'm not so sure, given that the DNA's not theirs.

:shrug:

[Jan Powell]

Did the White's testify before the Grand Jury? That would have been a good time to speak up since they are prosecution/LE driven. IIRC they were in session 13 months, but I don't remember how many other, if any, cases they heard.

[lost indie]

Why were Fleet White and his wife excluded as suspects? He behavior after, and even before, the murders seemed odd to me. He knew the layout of the house and certianly had JonBenet's trust. Was it DNA?

[sunsplashed]

Honestly, I have no idea why Fleet and Priscilla White were excluded as suspects. I would assume they, along with many of the Ramseys other friends, gave hair and blood samples to the police, as well as handwriting samples. That is an assumption ONLY. I don't KNOW.

I find it strange that Fleet turned against John and Patsy because the Ramseys hired lawyers and a PR firm. I've always felt there was another reason the Whites turned against the Ramseys and ended their friendship, but that's my opinion ONLY.

JMO

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by Mimi428


That kind of statement tells me more about the person who is making it (Ramsey) than the person they are referring to (White).

Know what I mean?

Yep, ITA

[samsong]

Originally posted by sunsplashed
Honestly, I have no idea why Fleet and Priscilla White were excluded as suspects. I would assume they, along with many of the Ramseys other friends, gave hair and blood samples to the police, as well as handwriting samples. That is an assumption ONLY. I don't KNOW.

I find it strange that Fleet turned against John and Patsy because the Ramseys hired lawyers and a PR firm. I've always felt there was another reason the Whites turned against the Ramseys and ended their friendship, but that's my opinion ONLY.

JMO

Many people thought there was another reason. I don't know if we will ever know.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by samsong


Many people thought there was another reason. I don't know if we will ever know.

I'm of the firm belief that we'll never know.

JMO

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by sunsplashed
[

I find it strange that Fleet turned against John and Patsy because the Ramseys hired lawyers and a PR firm. I've always felt there was another reason the Whites turned against the Ramseys and ended their friendship, but that's my opinion ONLY.

JMO [/B]

I find it very strange as well. They spent Christmas with
these friends. We have close friends we spend Christmas
with, they are like family to us. I cannot imagine that
if their child was killed there would be anything that would
turn us against them, unless we honestly believed they
had killed their child, which I would never, ever believe.
If they reacted differently than we thought they should? No
way. We might argue with them, we would certainly give
our advice, solicited or not, but turn on them? No way,
no how, unless we honestly believed they were guilty.

[samsong]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


I find it very strange as well. They spent Christmas with
these friends. We have close friends we spend Christmas
with, they are like family to us. I cannot imagine that
if their child was killed there would be anything that would
turn us against them, unless we honestly believed they
had killed their child, which I would never, ever believe.
If they reacted differently than we thought they should? No
way. We might argue with them, we would certainly give
our advice, solicited or not, but turn on them? No way,
no how, unless we honestly believed they were guilty.

I know what you are talking about. I just don't think we will ever know. Even though he may think he knows they were the killers, he must just have a hunch and no evidence.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by samsong


I know what you are talking about. I just don't think we will ever know. Even though he may think he knows they were the killers, he must just have a hunch and no evidence.

Yes, but a pretty odd hunch about such close friends.

[Mojo Bumpkin]

Originally posted by napa
I can answer this question. Ramsey was asked by the Boulder police for a list of POSSIBLE suspects. He included White's name on the list along with numerous others (includibng his housekeeper). The Boulder police told White that Ramsey had named him as a suspect. White got very angry and turned on Ramsey.

The Whites were also very jealous of the Ramseys, and that goes back a long ways.

This is bull-poo!

The Whites were upset with the Ramsey's because they (Whites) felt the ramsey's weren't being cooperative enough in order to solve the murder. John and Fleet came to blows here in Atlanta after the funeral. Neither accused the other of the murder...THIS IS FALSE. Of course John and Patsy had to provide a list of people who were one of the last persons to see JBR alive.

DANG.....I hate it when people get the facts wrong.

[samsong]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


Yes, but a pretty odd hunch about such close friends.

He was there before and after. Maybe he saw something that wouldn't be evidence, but would raise a flag with him. He may have questioned their behavior in the days following the murder. I know he wrote a letter stating that he was upset with the influence of their attorneys on the handling of the case.

[LexieRae]

Originally posted by weepy willa


Fleet White was with JR,when he found JBR's body.White stated that JR's shock at finding the body,seemed fake.The Ramsey's then threw suspicion on White,The Santa,everyone but them.

This did not happen UNTIL long after JBR was buried. Fleet and his wife stood behind the Ramseys until the BPD about the 3rd or 4th time THEY were questioned. Fleet has a temper and he got mad & told the cops they should be out looking for the killer and quit wasting their time....the BPD said John Ramsey gave us YOUR NAME. It was a lie. The Ramseys were asked to give a list of people that had intimate knowledge of the family and where they would be that night. Their name was on the list, but so were many other names including the housekeeper's and alot of the people at the party and family. But Fleet BELIEVED the BPD and got mad and John & him had a fight. He then started pointing the finger at John. The Ramseys NEVER accused Fleet or anyone else. They just made a list like BPD asked them to.
(Patsy in Atlanta the day before the funeral decided she wanted JB stuffed cat "Socks" to put in the casket with her and Priscilla, also in Atlanta with Patsy...somehow got that toy that was in Boulder to Atlanta in time for the funeral....)

[Devotion]

Originally posted by lisafremont
How can you say that the author of those letters is a nut? Or does that fit your thinking vis a vis the Ramseys?

I think it is interesting that someone who was close to them and in fact present when JBR was found has come to believe that they are involved in the crime. But you seem to think you know more than they do.

I also find it interesting that Fleet and Priscilla White have not gone public, sold their story, written a book, or done anything to cash in on being close to such a high profile crime.

And you malign him? I totally disagree with you.
:shrug: IMO: I AGREE..
The White's are very nice, honest people, and was an eye witness to JR finding the child..I value their opnion...WHY would anyone except a member of the R family want to discredit the White's???jmo

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by lost indie
Why were Fleet White and his wife excluded as suspects? He behavior after, and even before, the murders seemed odd to me. He knew the layout of the house and certianly had JonBenet's trust. Was it DNA?

Yes, the same DNA that did not clear the parents.

[Devotion]

Originally posted by napa
I can answer this question. Ramsey was asked by the Boulder police for a list of POSSIBLE suspects. He included White's name on the list along with numerous others (includibng his housekeeper). The Boulder police told White that Ramsey had named him as a suspect. White got very angry and turned on Ramsey.

The Whites were also very jealous of the Ramseys, and that goes back a long ways.
:shrug: imo: I DON'T BELIEVE IT...

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Devotion

:shrug: IMO: I AGREE..
The White's are very nice, honest people, and was an eye witness to JR finding the child..I value their opnion...WHY would anyone except a member of the R family want to discredit the White's???jmo

Somebody else wanted to "discredit" the Whites.

California woman's story of widespread 'sex ring' conspiracy
draws Boulder DA's attention.

On February 25, 2000 Boulder, Colorado newspaper The Daily Camera broke the story of a 37 year old woman from the San Luis Obispo area of California having contacted Boulder attorney Lee Hill after seeing him interviewed on Fox News Channel about a deposition he had taken on October 20, 1998 of John Ramsey in the Stephen Miles lawsuit against a supermarket tabloid. (see story above)

It was reported that the woman claimed she was assaulted as a child by adults who used a rope or garrote to partially suffocate her. The woman reportedly has information that a widespread 'sex ring' could have been behind the strangulation and bludgeon death of JonBenét Ramsey. The woman said she knew the Ramsey's through the Fleet White family. She said her mother's godfather is 86 year old Fleet R. White, Sr. , father of Fleet R. White, Jr. who was a close friend of John Ramsey until shortly after the murder, and who was with John Ramsey within seconds of his finding JonBenét's body in the basement. Fleet White, Jr. was cleared as a suspect in April 1997.

The woman has been in therapy for years as a result of the abuse and her therapist is also cooperating with the investigator's checking the woman's story.

Sheriff's officials in San Luis Obispo County said the woman has a history of making false reports. One deputy was quoted as saying that "the woman is considered a 'fruit loop' by officers". Attorney Hill said his client acknowledges making reports to local authorities that have not been followed up but that the woman denies that her reports were false.

Boulder DA Alex Hunter at first, found the woman believable and arranged for the woman to be interviewed by both the Boulder Police and the FBI. Within days, Hunter was quoted as saying "Opinions about believability are premature before a full investigation is complete."

Hill said his client is prepared to name people that she thought might have witnessed what was done to JonBenét, and said he was outraged that Boulder police didn't seem to take her claims seriously. "They treated her like a suspect," Hill said.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer2/primer9_sideshow.html

[Devotion]

Originally posted by hohum


Hard to understand why they didn't just yell out it was us it was us.:lol:

IMO: IMAGE< IMAGE>IMAGE:
Only a fool would want to pull time in prison for a child murder...jmo.. seeya:

[hohum]

Originally posted by napa
John Ramsey has stated that the Whites are jealous of anyone who "has money"

John did not say that, a mutual friend of the Ramsey's and the White's made that comment, and that Priscilla was jealous of Patsy. During the police interrogation of JOHN RAMSEY, he was asked if Fleet had a lot of money and JOHN R said he had no idea.

[hohum]

Originally posted by Devotion

:shrug: IMO: I AGREE..
The White's are very nice, honest people, and was an eye witness to JR finding the child..I value their opnion...WHY would anyone except a member of the R family want to discredit the White's???jmo

Because some people are odd. Very little surprises me anymore.

[nutmeg22]

Wow..this story just gets stranger and stranger. Breezy you had done a good job of digging up information! It caught my eye because San Luis Obispo is a very favorite town of ours...we go there alot and our children attended college there.
I wonder how many other "sex rings" use garrotes? Probably alot wouldn't you think? S & M rings? I don't know, just curious.

[Devotion]

Originally posted by samsong


I know what you are talking about. I just don't think we will ever know. Even though he may think he knows they were the killers, he must just have a hunch and no evidence.

:shrug: IMO: WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HE KNOWS.
But one thing we do know, IT was serious enough, it broke up a long time friendship...jmo

[LexieRae]

While Fleet and Priscilla were in Atlanta with the Ramseys after the funeral, it was Fleets idea for the Ramseys to do the interview with CNN that was aired on Jan1. The Ramseys did it because Fleet urged them to get out there and talk.
In my opinion, they had a 'falling out' that was egged on by the BPD.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by swc
I will say this, I am not that up on Fleet but I suspect I know as much as the next person.

While I clearly believe the Ramsey's were responsible, I do not perceive the falling out to be about this case because of Fleet having some inside knowledge of the murder.
This seems to be the main argument, at least what I have read.

If Fleet was to have such high moral standards that he breaks up a friendship over the murder, then I believe those high moral standards would have him telling what he knows.

I agree with you, swc. I believe if Fleet suspected or knew anything, he would have contacted LE.

I don't for a second think Fleet was influenced by Steve Thomas or that Priscilla White was jealous of Patsy Ramsey, as some posters have speculated.

JMO

[LexieRae]

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_908900,00.html

Little tidbit from 2001...5 years after the murder. Tells about Fleet White. Also shows a little about his temper.:D

[abby15]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Unless Fleet realized that the Ramseys might have good cause to suspect him? What's that saying "the best offense is a good defense?" JMO

I thought it was "the best defense is a good offense?"

[LexieRae]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Perfect Murder/Perfect Town by Lawrence Schiller - page 65

This was in Atlanta following JonBenet's funeral.

Fleet hovered over John, telling him he had to go back to Boulder and help the police. It was wrong for him to hire his own investigators and criminal attoryneys, said Fleet. .....later in same paragraph.... What was this he'd heard about John contacing CNN for an interview? His daughter had just been buried. How could Patsy and John even think about going on television?

Last sentence of paragraph, "The two friends separated, knowing they would never speak to each other again."

IMO - this is just one example of how Fleet tried to tell John what to do.......and maybe John felt he had the right to make his own decisions regarding these matters.

See link I just posted. Fleet was upset because he felt the Ramseys were not cooperating with BPD. The Ramseys DID go back to Boulder after the funeral. (about Jan 3-4) They lived there until after Burke got out of school in the spring. They stayed with friends.

[samsong]

Originally posted by swc
I will say this, I am not that up on Fleet but I suspect I know as much as the next person.

While I clearly believe the Ramsey's were responsible, I do not perceive the falling out to be about this case because of Fleet having some inside knowledge of the murder.
This seems to be the main argument, at least what I have read.

If Fleet was to have such high moral standards that he breaks up a friendship over the murder, then I believe those high moral standards would have him telling what he knows.

He may have told the police things, but they may not have been able to be used as evidence. He could have looked at the totality of the Ramseys' behavior and had a feeling that would not necessarily be a smoking gun.

I don't think we will ever know.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Perfect Murder/Perfect Town by Lawrence Schiller - page 65

IMO - this is just one example of how Fleet tried to tell John what to do.......and maybe John felt he had the right to make his own decisions regarding these matters.

and clearly he should have listened to his friend because
all of these actions have not served the Ramsey's all that
well. ASSUMING. of course, that they are innocent. If not,
they've never been indicted, so I guess they made the
right decision in that case.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I agree with you, swc. I believe if Fleet suspected or knew anything, he would have contacted LE.

I don't for a second think Fleet was influenced by Steve Thomas or that Priscilla White was jealous of Patsy Ramsey, as some posters have speculated.

JMO

I agree if he knew anything he'd have gone to LE. Suspecting
something is an entirely different thing and it seems clear to
me from his letters that he did, indeed, come to suspect his
former friends.

[docg]

White took a look into the windowless room and saw nothing unusual. Later, he observed John looking into the same room and screaming -- turning on the light a few seconds LATER.

When White looked it was early AM. The sun was not yet out, his eyes would have been dark adapted. Yet he saw nothing. When John looked it was 1 PM. He came from the first floor which was flooded with sunlight. His eyes were NOT dark adapted. You may not understand the importance of this but I do. When your eyes aren't dark adapted and you step into a dark area it can take a few minutes before you can see your hand in front of your face.

NOW do you understand why White is suspicious?

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by docg
White took a look into the windowless room and saw nothing unusual. Later, he observed John looking into the same room and screaming -- turning on the light a few seconds LATER.

When White looked it was early AM. The sun was not yet out, his eyes would have been dark adapted. Yet he saw nothing. When John looked it was 1 PM. He came from the first floor which was flooded with sunlight. His eyes were NOT dark adapted. You may not understand the importance of this but I do. When your eyes aren't dark adapted and you step into a dark area it can take a few minutes before you can see your hand in front of your face.

NOW do you understand why White is suspicious?

docg, where did this come from? So this is the statement of Fleet White and it is on record? hmmm. when did he make this statement?

[bullmoose]

A few minutes, docg? A couple of seconds is more likely enough to adapt to different lighting. Some people react slower, but not minutes before you can see your hand in front of your face. If my eyes were that slow to adapt, I would need a seeing-eye dog. And a braille keyboard. bullmoose:lol:

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by bullmoose
A few minutes, docg? A couple of seconds is more likely enough to adapt to different lighting. Some people react slower, but not minutes before you can see your hand in front of your face. If my eyes were that slow to adapt, I would need a seeing-eye dog. And a braille keyboard. bullmoose:lol:


well then get me a dog! when I walk into a dark theater where the movie has already started, it takes a few minutes for my eyes to adjust...I am old, but it takes more than seconds. JMO

[bullmoose]

A theater is devoid of light, and I agree it takes more than a few seconds to adapt to it. But I doubt it was anywhere near that dark in the room Jonbenet was found in. When the door opened there would have been light spilling in from the next room that John and Fleet were in. It doesn't take all that much light to illuminate a small room. bullmoose

[awareness]

Originally posted by docg
White took a look into the windowless room and saw nothing unusual. Later, he observed John looking into the same room and screaming -- turning on the light a few seconds LATER.

When White looked it was early AM. The sun was not yet out, his eyes would have been dark adapted. Yet he saw nothing. When John looked it was 1 PM. He came from the first floor which was flooded with sunlight. His eyes were NOT dark adapted. You may not understand the importance of this but I do. When your eyes aren't dark adapted and you step into a dark area it can take a few minutes before you can see your hand in front of your face.

NOW do you understand why White is suspicious?

IMO according to your theory, maybe John Ramsey knew the body was there all along, therefore his eyes didn't need to adjust to what he already knew.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by docg
White took a look into the windowless room and saw nothing unusual. Later, he observed John looking into the same room and screaming -- turning on the light a few seconds LATER.

When White looked it was early AM. The sun was not yet out, his eyes would have been dark adapted. Yet he saw nothing. When John looked it was 1 PM. He came from the first floor which was flooded with sunlight. His eyes were NOT dark adapted. You may not understand the importance of this but I do. When your eyes aren't dark adapted and you step into a dark area it can take a few minutes before you can see your hand in front of your face.

NOW do you understand why White is suspicious?

I don't. That makes me feel it casts suspicion on John, instead.

If Fleet White's eyes had already adapted to the dark, i.e., the pupils enlarged to let in more light, then he could see more.

If John Ramsey had just entered the room from a room flooded with sunlight, i.e., pupils had not yet adapted to the dark and were still smaller in size because of the light, then it stands to reason, at least from my viewpoint, that John would NOT have been able to see anything in the room for a few minutes until his eyes adapted and his pupils.

When we first enter a dark room from bright sunlight, we can't see much. However, after being in the dark room for a few minutes, out pupils adapt and enlarge and we can see more.

JMO

Today, I've been reading Det. Arndt's deposition and other documents, and to me, things look worse and worse for John Ramsey as the perpetrator and Patsy as an accomplice after the fact. What you just wrote, that John screamed and turned on the lights AFTER, only strengthens my belief that John may be the one who did this.

Absolutely just my opinion.

[sweetiepie]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I don't. That makes me feel it casts suspicion on John, instead.

If Fleet White's eyes had already adapted to the dark, i.e., the pupils enlarged to let in more light, then he could see more.

If John Ramsey had just entered the room from a room flooded with sunlight, i.e., pupils had not yet adapted to the dark and were still smaller in size because of the light, then it stands to reason, at least from my viewpoint, that John would NOT have been able to see anything in the room for a few minutes until his eyes adapted and his pupils.

When we first enter a dark room from bright sunlight, we can't see much. However, after being in the dark room for a few minutes, out pupils adapt and enlarge and we can see more.

JMO

Today, I've been reading Det. Arndt's deposition and other documents, and to me, things look worse and worse for John Ramsey as the perpetrator and Patsy as an accomplice after the fact. What you just wrote, that John screamed and turned on the lights AFTER, only strengthens my belief that John may be the one who did this.

Absolutely just my opinion.

I think you just restated what docg said.

Arndt thinks he's guilty because of the way he was holding her. She thought Ramsey was going to kill all of them before the police and/or an ambulance arrived. Completely ridiculous.

As far as White not seeing JonBenet in the room goes, that suggests JonBenet was hidden somewhere and someone, presumably John Ramsey, brought her out and placed her in the room. Why would he do this?

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by sweetiepie


I think you just restated what docg said.

Arndt thinks he's guilty because of the way he was holding her. She thought Ramsey was going to kill all of them before the police and/or an ambulance arrived. Completely ridiculous.

As far as White not seeing JonBenet in the room goes, that suggests JonBenet was hidden somewhere and someone, presumably John Ramsey, brought her out and placed her in the room. Why would he do this?

No, not exactly. If John Ramsey just came down from a sunfilled room and looked in a dark room and saw something, BEFORE his eyes had adapted to the dark, then I find that odd.

Certainly if Fleet White would have known she was in that room he would have "found" her.

JMO

[jmgos1]

maybe John thought Fleet would enter the room first, but Fleet held back, so John had to go in first. jmo

[docg]

I wasn't stating my own opinion, simply explaining why White might be suspicious of John.

Why wouldn't White have seen anything unusual in that room early in the AM, with dark adapted eyes? Because the body hadn't been moved there yet? I doubt it. I can't see anyone attempting to move the body once the police were in the house.

But if the body had been hidden very carefully in a corner, under a blanket or two, then White might well have failed to notice it. When John entered in the dark, he would have had an opportunity to move it front and center before turning the light on. Why would he do that? Well, if he's the killer, and he's hidden the body in a corner, under blankets, in the most remote room in the house, then it would look VERY bad for him if it were found hidden so carefully away. NOT the sort of thing an intruder would bother doing. But EXACTLY the sort of thing HE might want to do if his plan is to store the body there until he can remove it later and dump it.

[Mojo Bumpkin]

Originally posted by LexieRae
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_908900,00.html

Little tidbit from 2001...5 years after the murder. Tells about Fleet White. Also shows a little about his temper.:D


Huh? How does this update show Fleet's Temper? I don't get it.......:shrug: Are you saying he has a "temper" because he chose not to testify at Thomas Miller's trial?

[Devotion]

Originally posted by docg
I wasn't stating my own opinion, simply explaining why White might be suspicious of John.

Why wouldn't White have seen anything unusual in that room early in the AM, with dark adapted eyes? Because the body hadn't been moved there yet? I doubt it. I can't see anyone attempting to move the body once the police were in the house.

But if the body had been hidden very carefully in a corner, under a blanket or two, then White might well have failed to notice it. When John entered in the dark, he would have had an opportunity to move it front and center before turning the light on. Why would he do that? Well, if he's the killer, and he's hidden the body in a corner, under blankets, in the most remote room in the house, then it would look VERY bad for him if it were found hidden so carefully away. NOT the sort of thing an intruder would bother doing. But EXACTLY the sort of thing HE might want to do if his plan is to store the body there until he can remove it later and dump it.
:read: IMO: VERY SMART POINTS.

[trt]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


No, not exactly. If John Ramsey just came down from a sunfilled room and looked in a dark room and saw something, BEFORE his eyes had adapted to the dark, then I find that odd.

Certainly if Fleet White would have known she was in that room he would have "found" her.

JMO

Reread dog's post...that's what he/she posted. That can't you understand why White was suspicious (of John) because of the fact that it would take a while for one's eyes to adapt to a dark room after coming from a lit one.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by trt


Reread dog's post...that's what he/she posted. That can't you understand why White was suspicious (of John) because of the fact that it would take a while for one's eyes to adapt to a dark room after coming from a lit one.

Yes, I can understand why White was suspicious of John Ramsey.

I must have read the first poster's post wrong.

My mistake. My apologies.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by nutmeg22



well then get me a dog! when I walk into a dark theater where the movie has already started, it takes a few minutes for my eyes to adjust...I am old, but it takes more than seconds. JMO

It takes MINUTES for my eyes to adjust! I don't dare go up or down the stairs until they do.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by docg
White took a look into the windowless room and saw nothing unusual. Later, he observed John looking into the same room and screaming -- turning on the light a few seconds LATER.

When White looked it was early AM. The sun was not yet out, his eyes would have been dark adapted. Yet he saw nothing. When John looked it was 1 PM. He came from the first floor which was flooded with sunlight. His eyes were NOT dark adapted. You may not understand the importance of this but I do. When your eyes aren't dark adapted and you step into a dark area it can take a few minutes before you can see your hand in front of your face.

NOW do you understand why White is suspicious?

Sorry, I misread your post the other day and reposted the same thing!

My apologies to you.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


and clearly he should have listened to his friend because
all of these actions have not served the Ramsey's all that
well. ASSUMING. of course, that they are innocent. If not,
they've never been indicted, so I guess they made the
right decision in that case.

I think Fleet White knew what the Ramsey lawyers did not...

that to not fully cooperate with investigators was only going to hurt the Ramseys in the long run.

I think what made everyone turn against Fleet is that the group agreed with the lawyers' game plan and figured they knew how to work the system.

Ten years later, I'm sure John wishes he listened to Fleet, the only person who was giving him good advice.

[hohum]

Originally posted by Mojo Bumpkin



Huh? How does this update show Fleet's Temper? I don't get it.......:shrug: Are you saying he has a "temper" because he chose not to testify at Thomas Miller's trial?

Fleet often acted very irrationally after the murder and has proven himself to have a quick temper. All of this has been posted about over the last days. He was even held in contempt of court.

[sweetiepie]

Originally posted by docg
I wasn't stating my own opinion, simply explaining why White might be suspicious of John.

Why wouldn't White have seen anything unusual in that room early in the AM, with dark adapted eyes? Because the body hadn't been moved there yet? I doubt it. I can't see anyone attempting to move the body once the police were in the house.

But if the body had been hidden very carefully in a corner, under a blanket or two, then White might well have failed to notice it. When John entered in the dark, he would have had an opportunity to move it front and center before turning the light on. Why would he do that? Well, if he's the killer, and he's hidden the body in a corner, under blankets, in the most remote room in the house, then it would look VERY bad for him if it were found hidden so carefully away. NOT the sort of thing an intruder would bother doing. But EXACTLY the sort of thing HE might want to do if his plan is to store the body there until he can remove it later and dump it.

I'm having a hard time following your logic. If John Ramsey's plan was to store the body until he could remove it and dump it, then he must have changed his mind before Patsy wrote the ransom note (I don't think she did, but I'm following your hypothesis) and called the police. So why didn't he move the body to the middle of the room before the police arrived? It just doesn't make sense to me that he moved the body.

Your eye theory, though, does make sense. Perhaps Fleet White didn't see JonBenet because HIS eyes hadn't adjusted....or maybe he lied or was mistaken about checking that room.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by docg
White took a look into the windowless room and saw nothing unusual. Later, he observed John looking into the same room and screaming -- turning on the light a few seconds LATER.

When White looked it was early AM. The sun was not yet out, his eyes would have been dark adapted. Yet he saw nothing. When John looked it was 1 PM. He came from the first floor which was flooded with sunlight. His eyes were NOT dark adapted. You may not understand the importance of this but I do. When your eyes aren't dark adapted and you step into a dark area it can take a few minutes before you can see your hand in front of your face.

NOW do you understand why White is suspicious?

The following is what Fleet said that caught MY eye:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/841487/detail.html

"I have respect for this court," White began. "In this case, however, I did not have so much respect for this case in which I'd been subpoenaed."


“We respect your business but not the country that it serves,"

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Fleet often acted very irrationally after the murder and has proven himself to have a quick temper. All of this has been posted about over the last days. He was even held in contempt of court.

The same can be said about the Ramseys. They acted irrationally & weren't about to win any awards for congeniality, except maybe from their personal friends.


And Fleet's contempt was in 2001. By that time, I'm sure he knew the actual JB case was never going to be solved & he didn't want to be dragged into court to testify in a spinoff case over someone who tried to buy the ransom note.

30 days in jail was probably worth it to him to not be further dragged into the whole circus.

5 years had passed. Time to move on.

[hohum]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


The same can be said about the Ramseys. They acted irrationally & weren't about to win any awards for congeniality, except maybe from their personal friends.


And Fleet's contempt was in 2001. By that time, I'm sure he knew the actual JB case was never going to be solved & he didn't want to be dragged into court to testify in a spinoff case over someone who tried to buy the ransom note.

30 days in jail was probably worth it to him to not be further dragged into the whole circus.



First off, Fleet White's daughter was not murdered so his stress level of grief and anger was not on the same chart with the Ramsey's. Anger and a quick temper have been shown to be a part of Fleet's personality. And most law abiding citizens don't want to be held in contempt of court and comply with the law. Another example of Fleet's unwillingness to cooperate. If this had been John Ramsey held in contempt people would be all over it faster than a bee on honey.

[hohum]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


The same can be said about the Ramseys. They acted irrationally & weren't about to win any awards for congeniality, except maybe from their personal friends.


And Fleet's contempt was in 2001. By that time, I'm sure he knew the actual JB case was never going to be solved & he didn't want to be dragged into court to testify in a spinoff case over someone who tried to buy the ransom note.

30 days in jail was probably worth it to him to not be further dragged into the whole circus.



First off, Fleet White's daughter was not murdered so his stress level of grief and anger was not on the same chart with the Ramsey's. Anger and a quick temper have been shown to be a part of Fleet's personality. And most law abiding citizens don't want to be held in contempt of court and comply with the law. Another example of Fleet's unwillingness to cooperate. If this had been John Ramsey held in contempt people would be all over it faster than a bee on honey. But no John conducted himself with dignity as did Patsy.

[hohum]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


The same can be said about the Ramseys. They acted irrationally & weren't about to win any awards for congeniality, except maybe from their personal friends.


And Fleet's contempt was in 2001. By that time, I'm sure he knew the actual JB case was never going to be solved & he didn't want to be dragged into court to testify in a spinoff case over someone who tried to buy the ransom note.

30 days in jail was probably worth it to him to not be further dragged into the whole circus.



First off, Fleet White's daughter was not murdered so his stress level of grief and anger was not on the same chart with the Ramsey's. Anger and a quick temper have been shown to be a part of Fleet's personality. And most law abiding citizens don't want to be held in contempt of court and comply with the law. Another example of Fleet's unwillingness to cooperate. If this had been John Ramsey held in contempt people would be all over it faster than a bee on honey. But no, John conducted himself with dignity as did Patsy.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


First off, Fleet White's daughter was not murdered so his stress level of grief and anger was not on the same chart with the Ramsey's. Anger and a quick temper have been shown to be a part of Fleet's personality. And most law abiding citizens don't want to be held in contempt of court and comply with the law. Another example of Fleet's unwillingness to cooperate. If this had been John Ramsey held in contempt people would be all over it faster than a bee on honey. But no, John conducted himself with dignity as did Patsy.

I'm sure Fleet White didn't care a bit about some lawyer who allegedly tried to buy the ransom note.

The only case that was important to Fleet was the MURDER CASE... not the endless lawsuits that made no difference to anyone except the people involved.


IF Daphne White had been murdered, I highly doubt Fleet & his wife would have avoided a formal police interview for FOUR MONTHS.

And I doubt it would have taken them more than a YEAR to realize the police needed the clothes they were wearing the night their daughter died.

Hopefully if Fleet was too stupid to know these things, he would have hired a lawyer who was smart enough to advise him properly.

[hohum]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I'm sure Fleet White didn't care a bit about some lawyer who allegedly tried to buy the ransom note.

The only case that was important to Fleet was the MURDER CASE... not the endless lawsuits that made no difference to anyone except the people involved.


IF Daphne White had been murdered, I highly doubt Fleet & his wife would have avoided a formal police interview for FOUR MONTHS.

And I doubt it would have taken them more than a YEAR to realize the police needed the clothes they were wearing the night their daughter died.

Hopefully if Fleet was too stupid to know these things, he would have hired a lawyer who was smart enough to advise him properly.

You are presuming to say what Fleet White and his wife would do if his daughter was killed? I didn't realize that you knew Fleet personally.

HAH, Fleet hire a lawyer? Now wouldn't that be evidence of guilt that he had "lawyered up?" :lol:

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
[...]
And I doubt it would have taken them more than a YEAR to realize the police needed the clothes they were wearing the night their daughter died.

[...]

It took BPD that long to ask for them.

[hohum]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Is there anything else you need to "know" about Fleet White?

Yeah, I'd like to know some facts about Fleet not someone's opinion of Fleet. Two completely different things.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


It took BPD that long to ask for them.


And that's why this case will never be solved.

Everyone was so busy FIGHTING each other, NOBODY seemed to be concerned about what was best for the investigation.


A mountain of mistakes and endless finger pointing & complaining.

[hohum]

Originally posted by Holly

It would be very interesting to me to see (or hear) exactly what BPD actually asked Mr. Ramsey to provide.

The Ramsey's were asked for a list of people who had a key to their house.

[Pimmslimited]

Originally posted by Holly

Shades of Scott Peterson and the MPD!

I have always been appalled by the court rulings that allow LE to LIE to "persons of interest," friends, family members, prospective witnesses, and who knows who else, in order to build a case against their chosen sacrificial lamb.

While I knew little of this case 10 years ago, I am more convinced than ever of the total depravity of the BPD and the DA at the time of this child's murder.

You couldn't be more right in your assessment.

[samsong]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


The same can be said about the Ramseys. They acted irrationally & weren't about to win any awards for congeniality, except maybe from their personal friends.


And Fleet's contempt was in 2001. By that time, I'm sure he knew the actual JB case was never going to be solved & he didn't want to be dragged into court to testify in a spinoff case over someone who tried to buy the ransom note.

30 days in jail was probably worth it to him to not be further dragged into the whole circus.

5 years had passed. Time to move on.

Absolutely. The Ramseys' behavior at the beginning set the stage for what was to happen. There were so many mistakes made by so many of the people involved. Unfortunately, this case will probably never be solved due to all of them.

[angelskye]

Originally posted by Holly

Shades of Scott Peterson and the MPD!

I have always been appalled by the court rulings that allow LE to LIE to "persons of interest," friends, family members, prospective witnesses, and who knows who else, in order to build a case against their chosen sacrificial lamb.

While I knew little of this case 10 years ago, I am more convinced than ever of the total depravity of the BPD and the DA at the time of this child's murder.

Absolutely! :beer:

How do you ever expect to get to the truth if YOU (LE) is telling lies, and you also suspect the SUSPECT to be telling lies?

LE should be held to a higher standard than the Perp, no?

Makes NO sense.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by samsong


Absolutely. The Ramseys' behavior at the beginning set the stage for what was to happen. There were so many mistakes made by so many of the people involved. Unfortunately, this case will probably never be solved due to all of them.


It's very sad. Everyone should be ashamed of how they let poor JB down.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


It took BPD that long to ask for them.

Do you have a link proving this?

I'd love to see it in something official is all.

Thank you.

[emmeblu]

I still hate the fact that the BPD did not secure the home. If only they had done a thorough search of the premise. How on earth do you miss a body in the basement???? From the get-go, BPD botched the crime scene. Such a crying shame.

Nothing short of a miracle will solve this crime. JMO

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Do you have a link proving this?

I'd love to see it in something official is all.

Thank you.

No problem! There is also a reference somewhere (maybe further along in this depo) that gives the specific dates. It was nearly a year befor they were asked and I think it took the Ramseys about a month to find the clothes and send them in. You could check their interviews as well

Thomas depo:
10 Q. Did it strike you as odd that the
11 Boulder Police Department never made a request
12 to the Ramsey family to obtain the articles
13 of clothing that they wore on the 25th of
14 December for almost a year?
15 MR. DIAMOND: Are you representing
16 that is the case?
17 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I think Mr. Thomas
18 knows that is absolutely the case, don't you?
19 A. Which question?
20 Q. That the one that I -- well, the
21 Boulder Police Department didn't ask John and
22 Patsy Ramsey for the articles of clothing
23 they had worn on the 25th of December, 1996
24 until almost a year later, true?
25 A. For a long time, that was a
314
1 mistake, yes.
2 Q. Didn't that strike you as odd?
3 A. That the police did that?
4 Q. You and the police, you were part
5 of the case?
6 A. Yes.

[trich]

Okay I have a question...

why do people put these letters on the internet ....
who is putting them on line ....are the writers or the receivers
of these letters doing this?
I think it shows lack of charactor to do this....
Are so many looking for their 15 minutes of fame..
I find it disgusting to say the least.

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


No problem! There is also a reference somewhere (maybe further along in this depo) that gives the specific dates. It was nearly a year befor they were asked and I think it took the Ramseys about a month to find the clothes and send them in. You could check their interviews as well

Thomas depo:
10 Q. Did it strike you as odd that the
11 Boulder Police Department never made a request
12 to the Ramsey family to obtain the articles
13 of clothing that they wore on the 25th of
14 December for almost a year?
15 MR. DIAMOND: Are you representing
16 that is the case?
17 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I think Mr. Thomas
18 knows that is absolutely the case, don't you?
19 A. Which question?
20 Q. That the one that I -- well, the
21 Boulder Police Department didn't ask John and
22 Patsy Ramsey for the articles of clothing
23 they had worn on the 25th of December, 1996
24 until almost a year later, true?
25 A. For a long time, that was a
314
1 mistake, yes.
2 Q. Didn't that strike you as odd?
3 A. That the police did that?
4 Q. You and the police, you were part
5 of the case?
6 A. Yes.

Do you have the link to where this was obtained from? where Mr. Diamond was being questioned?

I am not doubting this portion of the transcript, at all, I would just like to read further into the same transcript and I could not find this particular one.

IMO

[angelskye]

Originally posted by trich
Okay I have a question...

why do people put these letters on the internet ....
who is putting them on line ....are the writers or the receivers
of these letters doing this?
I think it shows lack of charactor to do this....
Are so many looking for their 15 minutes of fame..
I find it disgusting to say the least.

You mean Karr's emails?

Actually, they came straight from the DA's office.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


Do you have the link to where this was obtained from? where Mr. Diamond was being questioned?

I am not doubting this portion of the transcript, at all, I would just like to read further into the same transcript and I could not find this particular one.

IMO

Mr. Diamond is a lawyer. Steve Thomas is the one being deposed.
http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by hohum


But no, John conducted himself with dignity as did Patsy.

You saw it as dignity, I saw it as arrogance. It's all in
the eye of the beholder.

[hohum]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


You saw it as dignity, I saw it as arrogance. It's all in
the eye of the beholder.

Some see the glass half full and some see it half empty.

[LI_Mom]

It's a shame BPD waited so long to get their clothes.

What's absolutely appalling to me is that the DA wasn't overseeing things & making sure everything that should have been done WAS being done. Hunter's handling of this case was a real disgrace.

Either EVERYONE was completely negligent or there was a reason the police took so long to get the clothes.

Did they have trouble getting the necessary WARRANT for the evidence?

Did the Ramsey lawyers advise their clients NOT to turn over the clothes unless they were required to by law?


I think there's more to this pathetic 'story' than meets the eye. :(

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


You saw it as dignity, I saw it as arrogance. It's all in
the eye of the beholder.

I saw it as arrogance, too, and fear, and an attempt to hide something, but that's JMO.

I think Mark Klaas acted with dignity.

JMO

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I saw it as arrogance, too, and fear, and an attempt to hide something, but that's JMO.

I think Mark Klaas acted with dignity.

JMO

If one group concludes they looked arrogant and one that they looked dignified, the only conclusion is one can't conclude anything from how they looked.

Personally I think Marc Klaas is dogmatic and volatile. If I was in a crisis I wouldn't want him anywhere around me. I would want someone like John Walsh who seems to have an understanding, based on decades of experience, of how victims feel .

[Paisley]

Originally posted by napa
I can answer this question. Ramsey was asked by the Boulder police for a list of POSSIBLE suspects. He included White's name on the list along with numerous others (includibng his housekeeper). The Boulder police told White that Ramsey had named him as a suspect. White got very angry and turned on Ramsey.

The Whites were also very jealous of the Ramseys, and that goes back a long ways. Makes me wonder why he would get so angry/defensive.

[Paisley]

Originally posted by emmeblu
I still hate the fact that the BPD did not secure the home. If only they had done a thorough search of the premise. How on earth do you miss a body in the basement???? From the get-go, BPD botched the crime scene. Such a crying shame.

Nothing short of a miracle will solve this crime. JMO It really IS mindboggling that LE didn't search the house top to bottom first...

This one has a low rate of solvability... is that a word?

[Paisley]

Originally posted by LexieRae
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_908900,00.html

Little tidbit from 2001...5 years after the murder. Tells about Fleet White. Also shows a little about his temper.:D Tnhis guy is a first class a-hole.. I would put him on a list of suspects..

He refuses to show up to court... and then criticizes the Ramseys for not cooperating....

White's actions are arrogant... who the hell doesn't show up to court when they're called?

[trt]

Originally posted by Paisley
It really IS mindboggling that LE didn't search the house top to bottom first...

This one has a low rate of solvability... is that a word?

Yeah, that's the really tragic part. This case probably could have been solved had the police actually done their job from beginning to end. Poor JB

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


If one group concludes they looked arrogant and one that they looked dignified, the only conclusion is one can't conclude anything from how they looked.

Personally I think Marc Klaas is dogmatic and volatile. If I was in a crisis I wouldn't want him anywhere around me. I would want someone like John Walsh who seems to have an understanding, based on decades of experience, of how victims feel .

Poor Marc Klaas, he does have my sympathy for I know the pain of losing a child, but he was thrown into the media over his head. I commend him for putting together the foundation that he oversees, but John Walsh's opinion and help I truly repect and would count on in any crime situation. JMO of course.

[deputydi]

Originally posted by sunsplashed
I saw it as arrogance, too, and fear, and an attempt to hide something, but that's JMO.

I think Mark Klaas acted with dignity.

JMO
Other than "the way they acted", is there any other evidence pointing toward John and/or Patsy? At least in the Scott Peterson investigation, there was evidence pointing directly toward him that was separate and apart from "the way he acted". I don't see any this time around.

[Paisley]

Originally posted by trt


Yeah, that's the really tragic part. This case probably could have been solved had the police actually done their job from beginning to end. Poor JB I know. :rose:

[Paisley]

Originally posted by deputydi

Other than "the way they acted", is there any other evidence pointing toward John and/or Patsy? At least in the Scott Peterson investigation, there was evidence pointing directly toward him that was separate and apart from "the way he acted". I don't see any this time around. Unless the Ramseys had a plethora of sado masochistic toys in their closet and videos plus magazines to boot... it would not appear (to me) that they would be capable of doing this to their daughter.

To me they acted like shocked parents who just had their worst nightmare come to life.

[bullmoose]

To trt, I wish I shared your optmism that the case was solvable, if things, like the cops had been more adept, etc. I honestly think there was more than just a child's murder here; it was the murder of a family, a ruining that has been successfully done by some sick and hateful monster. But all the contradictory evidance to me points to to a clever fiend, who has been enjoying the whole show, since 96. Like Jack the Ripper; did you know he kept taunting Scotland Yard for many years after he supposedly stopped killing? I think the real culprit in this case may just be like Jack. It is the only explanation I can believe that would explain that ransom note. JMO, mind you. bullmoose

[deputydi]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
<snip>What's absolutely appalling to me is that the DA wasn't overseeing things & making sure everything that should have been done WAS being done. Hunter's handling of this case was a real disgrace.
<snip>
What makes you think it is the job of the District Attorney to oversee an investigation being conducted by the police?????? There was enough animosity between the two groups and I don't think this would have helped much even if they had tried to "oversee" the investigation.

[trt]

Originally posted by bullmoose
To trt, I wish I shared your optmism that the case was solvable, if things, like the cops had been more adept, etc. I honestly think there was more than just a child's murder here; it was the murder of a family, a ruining that has been successfully done by some sick and hateful monster. But all the contradictory evidance to me points to to a clever fiend, who has been enjoying the whole show, since 96. Like Jack the Ripper; did you know he kept taunting Scotland Yard for many years after he supposedly stopped killing? I think the real culprit in this case may just be like Jack. It is the only explanation I can believe that would explain that ransom note. JMO, mind you. bullmoose

I doubt that its solvable now. I think it could have been solved if there wasn't so much incompetence early on. I think that a known intruder is a viable theory as well and would definitely explain the Ramsey's seeming involvement.

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by bullmoose
To trt, I wish I shared your optmism that the case was solvable, if things, like the cops had been more adept, etc. I honestly think there was more than just a child's murder here; it was the murder of a family, a ruining that has been successfully done by some sick and hateful monster. But all the contradictory evidance to me points to to a clever fiend, who has been enjoying the whole show, since 96. Like Jack the Ripper; did you know he kept taunting Scotland Yard for many years after he supposedly stopped killing? I think the real culprit in this case may just be like Jack. It is the only explanation I can believe that would explain that ransom note. JMO, mind you. bullmoose


It is an explanation that makes sense...the note was written in such a way for a reaspm, and it was planned...the killer wanted to "get it right" hence the second try at the note. I think it's a personal note to the Ramseys by someone who knew them. I think the author of the note was pretty intelligent, too, not some run-of-the-mill vagrant.

[Paisley]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Ever get the idea that some were "cleared" too quickly? ;) LIke White?

[bullmoose]

I am more than a little suspicious of almost all of the 'investigating' that the then BPD did. As I remember in the Jack the Ripper case, evidence was destroyed by investigators for reasons that are still debated. That people may have 'cleared' so quickly by a police force that already knew who did it, is very hard to believe. Or at least give much credence to. bullmoose

[reprise]

Originally posted by Paisley
Unless the Ramseys had a plethora of sado masochistic toys in their closet and videos plus magazines to boot... it would not appear (to me) that they would be capable of doing this to their daughter.

To me they acted like shocked parents who just had their worst nightmare come to life.

I haven't seen any evidence that points to anyone in particular having committed this crime. Unfortunately, there is also little evidence which absolutely excludes anyone, either.

We'll never know if that evidence once existed and was lost in the first hours of the investigation (either because the crime scene was trashed or because it simply wasn't collected).

[hohum]

Originally posted by trt


I doubt that its solvable now.

I'm keeping my hopes up for JB.

[trt]

Originally posted by hohum


I'm keeping my hopes up for JB.

Yeah, me too. I hope to goodness that they can solve this case even with all of the missteps originally, because that little girl's short life deserves some amount of closure.

[hohum]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Personally I think Marc Klaas is dogmatic and volatile. If I was in a crisis I wouldn't want him anywhere around me. I would want someone like John Walsh who seems to have an understanding, based on decades of experience, of how victims feel .

I agree. Klaas is an irritating know it all and like Steve Thomas loves to tell people what they should have done, in hindsight of course. :rolleyes:

[bullmoose]

I think maybe that is why it caused such a furor when Karr was arrested; people were hoping that after all this time and all the wildly competing theories as to what happened, that closure to the case would occur. I hoped it was a solution myself although deep down I suspected he was just a perverted wacko with no connection to the case. At least he's off the streets for a while, if nothing else is accomplished. bullmoose

[Paisley]

Originally posted by reprise


I haven't seen any evidence that points to anyone in particular having committed this crime. Unfortunately, there is also little evidence which absolutely excludes anyone, either.

We'll never know if that evidence once existed and was lost in the first hours of the investigation (either because the crime scene was trashed or because it simply wasn't collected). That's what is so frustrating about it. JonBenet certainly deserved better.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by deputydi

What makes you think it is the job of the District Attorney to oversee an investigation being conducted by the police?????? There was enough animosity between the two groups and I don't think this would have helped much even if they had tried to "oversee" the investigation.

Uh. Maybe because they are supposed to be PARTNERS and after the same thing....

JUSTICE for victims.

In normal circumstances, the DA works WITH the police.

But that's ONLY when the goal is to solve crimes & build strong cases that can be prosecuted.

I don't think they shared that goal.

[MaryD]

Originally posted by BostonLegal


First of all I get the impression that White is bull-in-a china shop personality and emotional.

Perhaps Fleet is privvy to information that only he and John knew and he felt strongly that John should come forward. He was with John when the body was found.

Been reading a lot of old interviews etc., seems when the first police officer on the scene saw John bring JonBenet up to the main floor she was convinced of his guilt. She said that he carried her body in a strange manner with her head above his. She said he shot her a look that was telling, he scared her. I was also reading an interview with Patsy and it was unreal, she answered practically everything with I don't recall. The simplest of questions, did JB take a bath or wash up before dinner that night? Didn't recall, Did Burke have a pair of High Tech boots with compasses on them?, don' t remember. Didn't remember the Santa Doll that JB received from a pageant shortly before Christmas. Basically she remembered nill. She did remember taking off JBs clothes that night. It almost seems like she was heavily medicated before the crime or is avoiding the answers. She did mention that all of her previosly named suspects are still suspects. I truly think that John does not act like the many fathers I've seen on TV who have lost their daughters, I have never seen the slightest look of pain or despair on his face.

[hohum]

Originally posted by MaryD


Been reading a lot of old interviews etc., seems when the first police officer on the scene saw John bring JonBenet up to the main floor she was convinced of his guilt. She said that he carried her body in a strange manner with her head above his. She said he shot her a look that was telling, he scared her.

At last, some concrete evidence they can use in court. :lol:

[reprise]

Been reading a lot of old interviews etc., seems when the first police officer on the scene saw John bring JonBenet up to the main floor she was convinced of his guilt.

IIRC, she wasn't the first officer on the scene, just the first detective on the scene. I have no idea how I'd carry my child's body if I discovered it after the onset of rigor mortis, but I think it would be somewhat awkwardly.

Didn't she also move the body after it had been brought upstairs by Ramsey?

[hohum]

Originally posted by reprise


IIRC, she wasn't the first officer on the scene, just the first detective on the scene. I have no idea how I'd carry my child's body if I discovered it after the onset of rigor mortis, but I think it would be somewhat awkwardly.

Didn't she also move the body after it had been brought upstairs by Ramsey?

Arndt moved the body if that is who the poster is talking about.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by hohum


Arndt moved the body if that is who the poster is talking about.

I believe she also covered her which added to the contamination.

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by Paisley
That's what is so frustrating about it. JonBenet certainly deserved better.

JonBenet does deserve better and for that reason I keep hoping against hope that this crime will be solved one day despite all the best efforts of those in charge in Boulder.

[reprise]

Originally posted by hohum


Arndt moved the body if that is who the poster is talking about.

Yes, I was referring to Arndt. Has there every been a satisfactory explanation given for why she moved the body?

[MaryD]

Originally posted by hohum


At last, some concrete evidence they can use in court. :lol:

Excuse me, I didn't realize I had to provide concrete evidence here. Seems even the BPD couldn't do that. Do you have any comments on Patsys lack of memory? Or John's lack of emotion?

[jerzeegirl]

i agree with everything you said, i think its called PTSD. The only thing i dont agree with, patsy was medicated before the murder of her daughter. According to her husband, she was on antidepressants and so was he. Paxel and Quanopin.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by reprise


Yes, I was referring to Arndt. Has there every been a satisfactory explanation given for why she moved the body?

I believe John placed the body on the hallway floor & maybe Arndt probably wanted to move it to a safer location, where it was out of traffic?

As a parent, I CAN understand him removing the tape & tring to loosen the rope on the ripe.

But, after you finally realized your child is 100% dead, I really can't understand why he would still pick her up & carry her upstairs.

But then I still can't understand why he found the window open earlier and did NOT bother to tell the police. Or why he said he saw a "supicious" car outside that morning & did NOT bother to say anything to the police.

I get the feeling Patsy was the strong one in that family & John really wasn't very assertive or dependable in a pinch.

[reprise]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I believe John placed the body on the hallway floor & maybe Arndt probably wanted to move it to a safer location, where it was out of traffic?

As a parent, I CAN understand him removing the tape & tring to loosen the rope on the ripe.

But, after you finally realized your child is 100% dead, I really can't understand why he would still pick her up & carry her upstairs.

But then I still can't understand why he found the window open earlier and did NOT bother to tell the police. Or why he said he saw a "supicious" car outside that morning & did NOT bother to say anything to the police.

I get the feeling Patsy was the strong one in that family & John really wasn't very assertive or dependable in a pinch.

I absolutely understand a parent moving a body before anyone could stop them. I cannot understand a trained detective then moving the body again before it was examined in situ by the ME. I have read reports that Arndt did declare a crime scene and try to clear the house prior to JonBenet's body being discovered, but I'm not sure how credible those reports are.

Just another one of those areas where Boulder PD badly compromised the evidence and the investigation, IMO.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
i agree with everything you said, i think its called PTSD. The only thing i dont agree with, patsy was medicated before the murder of her daughter. According to her husband, she was on antidepressants and so was he. Paxel and Quanopin.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

I'm not sure that is before the murder.
_______________

TT: That you are (inaudible). . . are you taking any other medications right now?


JR: I have been on Paxel, and Quanopin, which are both prescription anti-depressants.

TT: Okay, and the second one is?

JR: Quanopin.

TT: OK. I’m not familiar with that one.

JR: It like, kind of like Adavan, I’m not an expert but . .
TT: . . . Okay. How much Paxel where you taking?

JR: Uh, well one tablet a night, I don’t know how, but I can get the prescription from (inaudible) the size of it, whatever it is.

TT: Is it the same prescription that Patsy is on or. . .

JR: Basically, yeah, probably exactly the same thing.

TT: And the second medication, you take that once a night?

JR: Right.

TT: Right before bedtime?

JR: Yep.

[Louisadelmar]

I believe that should read Klonopin and Paxil.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
I believe that should read Klonopin and Paxil.

SSRIs (of which Paxil is one) can precipitate suicidal and/or homicidal ideation in certain people (I've seen it happen with a family member and a different SSRI). HOWEVER, if it was prescribed before JonBenet's death and had this been the case with either of the Ramseys it's almost certain that those around them would have observed other behaviour indicating that there was "something not right".

[watson]

It seems to me that now that the Boulder PD flopped on this case 10-8 years ago (although I don't blame them as they had not much experience), and the Boulder DA flopped even BIGGER in the last few years, and now with this KARR fiasco. That it is time to consider a FRESH START to what has become a national and international investigation......and DISGRACE.
Maybe if the elected or hired officals and LE of CO, population of the whole state at the time of the crime.... 3 1/2 million.... (not half as much as a major US city) can't advance a solution to the crime, then maybe the interested US public can?
The facts and evidence of the crime have, in these long and unproductive 10 years, all been released to the public. The members of this board are well familiar with them. It would seem since this crime has not been solved, and the ALL the facts ARE known, that the problem isn't with the FACTS, but with the INTERPETATION of the facts and evidence.....and those WRONG interpettations made in the first weeks and months of the investigation.
Since the board will be shut down for the holiday weekend, it would seem a good time for everyone to consider the KNOWN EVIDENCE and FACTS freshly, and try to RE-Interpet them in a fresh light.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LI_Mom

I get the feeling Patsy was the strong one in that family & John really wasn't very assertive or dependable in a pinch.

Snipped for bandwidth only.

I see Patsy as the strong one, too. I think Patsy did what Patsy had to do.

She was going for cancer treatment alone. I don't think that's something most people would do. Not that it's relevant to murder.

JMO

[LI_Mom]

They were probably prescribed that after the murder.


Patsy was given something by the pediatrician on the 26th. I don't think John was druhhed also.


With these type of drugs, would they have found it easy to pass lie detectors or would they not affect the results?

I wonder why they balked at being tested?

[reprise]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
They were probably prescribed that after the murder.


Patsy was given something by the pediatrician on the 26th. I don't think John was druhhed also.


With these type of drugs, would they have found it easy to pass lie detectors or would they not affect the results?

I wonder why they balked at being tested?

My understanding is that the drugs themselves would not generally affect the results of a polygraph.

True delusional and dissociative states can give odd polygraph results, but it's highly unlikely that the examiners wouldn't notice that something was very amiss with the person's mental state.

[jerzeegirl]

john ramsey was on paxil and the other one prior to the murder, patsy wasnt on anything prior, only after, i just re read both of their depos. Thats what was said.

eyes are killing me from the reading! Those depos are hard to follow with my eyes. Same with the karr emails, i think ill need glass soon after this.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
john ramsey was on paxil and the other one prior to the murder, patsy wasnt on anything prior, only after, i just re read both of their depos. Thats what was said.

eyes are killing me from the reading! Those depos are hard to follow with my eyes. Same with the karr emails, i think ill need glass soon after this.

Which interview did you read?

[reprise]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
They were probably prescribed that after the murder.


Patsy was given something by the pediatrician on the 26th. I don't think John was druhhed also.


With these type of drugs, would they have found it easy to pass lie detectors or would they not affect the results?

I wonder why they balked at being tested?

I wouldn't take a polygraph either. They aren't definitive and they aren't admissable as evidence in many places. A "good" result wouldn't have cleared them of suspicion and a "bad" resulted would have only attracted increased attention from law enforcement.

[jerzeegirl]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Which interview did you read?

brb let me see .....ill link em

[deputydi]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
Uh. Maybe because they are supposed to be PARTNERS and after the same thing....

JUSTICE for victims.

In normal circumstances, the DA works WITH the police.

But that's ONLY when the goal is to solve crimes & build strong cases that can be prosecuted.

I don't think they shared that goal.
They are two different entities with two different functions. I've never known the DAs office to "oversee" in an investigation conducted by the police.

They are, however, expected to work together toward a common goal. Unfortunately, there are always personalities and egos involved.

[jerzeegirl]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Which interview did you read?

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

[Louisadelmar]

Thanks!

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by deputydi

They are two different entities with two different functions. I've never known the DAs office to "oversee" in an investigation conducted by the police.

They are, however, expected to work together toward a common goal. Unfortunately, there are always personalities and egos involved.


I didn't say they should be forced to "oversee" what the police do.

I said the DA should know how to work WITH the police so crimes can be solved & prosecuted.

They seem to understand this in Denver, but in Boulder they were too busy mugging for the cameras & fighting amongst themselves.

Hunter might be a nice guy & he might have meant well but he was NOT a man who knew how to take charge & get things rolling in the right direction.



The District Attorney is the chief law enforcement officer in the City and County of Denver, and is responsible for prosecuting all of the felonies, misdemeanors and serious traffic offenses committed in the city. Our mission in this office is to professionally and completely prosecute crimes and investigate potential crimes on behalf of the people of the State of Colorado and in doing so, do justice, advocate victims' rights and advise and consult in the deterrence and prevention of crime; to ensure the open, evenhanded and humane administration of justice.

http://www.denverda.org/Office_Overview.htm

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl


http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

Sorry, I can't find the reference that says John was on Paxil prior to the murder.

[jerzeegirl]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Sorry, I can't find the reference that says John was on Paxil prior to the murder.

TT: . . . Okay. How much Paxel where you taking?

JR: Uh, well one tablet a night, I don’t know how, but I can get the prescription from (inaudible) the size of it, whatever it is.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Patsy had been diagnosed as cancer free way prior to the death of JonBenet. What are you talking about?

Patsy often flew for cancer treatments by herself.



Are you denying that Patsy was given a sedative or something on that day?

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl


TT: . . . Okay. How much Paxel where you taking?

JR: Uh, well one tablet a night, I don’t know how, but I can get the prescription from (inaudible) the size of it, whatever it is.

I think that is referring to his current medications. It's all in the present tense.

"TT: That you are (inaudible). . . are you taking any other medications right now?
JR: I have been on Paxel, and Quanopin, which are both prescription anti-depressants.
TT: Okay, and the second one is?
JR: Quanopin.
TT: OK. I’m not familiar with that one.
JR: It like, kind of like Adavan, I’m not an expert but . . .
TT: . . . Okay. How much Paxel where you taking?
JR: Uh, well one tablet a night, I don’t know how, but I can get the prescription from (inaudible) the size of it, whatever it is.
TT: Is it the same prescription that Patsy is on or. . .
JR: Basically, yeah, probably exactly the same thing.
TT: And the second medication, you take that once a night?
JR: Right.
TT: Right before bedtime?
JR: Yep.

[hohum]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Sorry, I can't find the reference that says John was on Paxil prior to the murder.

Then maybe it's time to read the interrogation transcripts.

And BTW, you are probably talking about the over the counter melatonin that John took at night to sleep. My husband takes them.

[jerzeegirl]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


I think that is referring to his current medications. It's all in the present tense.

"TT: That you are (inaudible). . . are you taking any other medications right now?
JR: I have been on Paxel, and Quanopin, which are both prescription anti-depressants.
TT: Okay, and the second one is?
JR: Quanopin.
TT: OK. I’m not familiar with that one.
JR: It like, kind of like Adavan, I’m not an expert but . . .
TT: . . . Okay. How much Paxel where you taking?
JR: Uh, well one tablet a night, I don’t know how, but I can get the prescription from (inaudible) the size of it, whatever it is.
TT: Is it the same prescription that Patsy is on or. . .
JR: Basically, yeah, probably exactly the same thing.
TT: And the second medication, you take that once a night?
JR: Right.
TT: Right before bedtime?
JR: Yep.

execpt for when tt asks......how much paxel where you taking?

person asking the questions seems to jump back and forth, confusing, i could be wrong, but i read it as "were"

[hohum]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


I think that is referring to his current medications.

Exactly. No mystery there.

[reprise]

I read Ramsey's statements about the Paxil as indicating that he wasn't sure how many milligrams were in the tablet and him assuming that his dosage was the same as Patsy's.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Holly

Shades of Scott Peterson and the MPD!

I have always been appalled by the court rulings that allow LE to LIE to "persons of interest," friends, family members, prospective witnesses, and who knows who else, in order to build a case against their chosen sacrificial lamb.

While I knew little of this case 10 years ago, I am more convinced than ever of the total depravity of the BPD and the DA at the time of this child's murder.

I agree Holly. Unfortunately it is not illegal and most police do it in any state. :shrug:

[Athena]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Ever get the idea that some were "cleared" too quickly? ;)

I found something that DeLuth said in an interview with Laurel Engel that aired on Geraldo tonight interesting. When asked by Laura how would you proceed with the investigation now that Karr is cleared? His reply was back to square one and revisit the suspects (he believed it was an intruder) and do not assume that everyone was tested or investigated thoroughly. JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by docg
I wasn't stating my own opinion, simply explaining why White might be suspicious of John.

Why wouldn't White have seen anything unusual in that room early in the AM, with dark adapted eyes? Because the body hadn't been moved there yet? I doubt it. I can't see anyone attempting to move the body once the police were in the house.

But if the body had been hidden very carefully in a corner, under a blanket or two, then White might well have failed to notice it. When John entered in the dark, he would have had an opportunity to move it front and center before turning the light on. Why would he do that? Well, if he's the killer, and he's hidden the body in a corner, under blankets, in the most remote room in the house, then it would look VERY bad for him if it were found hidden so carefully away. NOT the sort of thing an intruder would bother doing. But EXACTLY the sort of thing HE might want to do if his plan is to store the body there until he can remove it later and dump it.

Do you have a link to this version of events for this and your previous post?

The version I read was that JR turned the light on first and did not go directly to the room JB was in???

John jumped out of his chair and instead of going to the third floor, John and Patsy’s lavish bedroom suite, at the top of the house he ran down the stairs to the basement, Fleet right behind him. John had to have felt a frigid fear, but he did not show it. There was a broken basement window, that he told Fleet he had broken. There was a suitcase underneath the window that turned out to have a blanket and a child’s book inside. They turned the corner and John reached to open the door to a small room off the basement that the family referred to as the Wine Cellar. No wine was stored there; it had a few shelves and a bare bulb for light. John switched on the light and began screaming, ”Oh my God, oh my God!” He had found the lifeless body of his daughter wrapped in a blanket with her hands and neck attached loosely by a string with a stick made into a crude garrote that was deeply furrowed into the skin of her neck. Stray hair was found in the stick. There was a Barbie nightgown on the floor next to her. Fleet touched JonBenet’s bare foot and instinctively knew she was dead. Both men ran upstairs, yelling, ”She’s here! Call 911,please! She’s here!” John put his daughter on the hard floor of the foyer, and Patsy’s friends were helping her off the floor, where she had been weeping for several hours. Detective Arndt didn’t have a two way police radio and she was clearly in need of assistance. Arndt picked up JonBenet’s lifeless body and moved it near the Christmas tree.

http://www.justicejunction.com/innocence_lost_jonbenet_ramsey_look_at_the_crime.h tm

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
I believe that should read Klonopin and Paxil. I thought Klonopin was a seizure med or an adjunct to seizure meds.....was it Patsy or John on this medication?

[jerzeegirl]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I thought Klonopin was a seizure med or an adjunct to seizure meds.....was it Patsy or John on this medication?

its john who is on it, he called it quanopin

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by MaryD


Been reading a lot of old interviews etc., seems when the first police officer on the scene saw John bring JonBenet up to the main floor she was convinced of his guilt. She said that he carried her body in a strange manner with her head above his. She said he shot her a look that was telling, he scared her. I was also reading an interview with Patsy and it was unreal, she answered practically everything with I don't recall. The simplest of questions, did JB take a bath or wash up before dinner that night? Didn't recall, Did Burke have a pair of High Tech boots with compasses on them?, don' t remember. Didn't remember the Santa Doll that JB received from a pageant shortly before Christmas. Basically she remembered nill. She did remember taking off JBs clothes that night. It almost seems like she was heavily medicated before the crime or is avoiding the answers. She did mention that all of her previosly named suspects are still suspects. I truly think that John does not act like the many fathers I've seen on TV who have lost their daughters, I have never seen the slightest look of pain or despair on his face. I have a husband who is very much like John...he doesn't show his emotions publicly...only in the privacy of our own home......none of us saw John Ramsey in the privacy of his own home....so we cannot speculate on his pain or despair! imho...I truly believe that he and Patsy were in shock....everyone reacts to shock differently!

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I thought Klonopin was a seizure med or an adjunct to seizure meds.....was it Patsy or John on this medication?

It's also good for panic attacks. I've had them and they are like seizures in a way.

I can't remember for sure, I think both were one it but would have to check.

[jerzeegirl]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


It's also good for panic attacks. I've had them and they are like seizures in a way.

I can't remember for sure, I think both were one it but would have to check.

well i believe they call it post traumatic stress disorder. Everyone reacts different to mental trauma, physical trauma, etc.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by thannahh


I agree. Some men don't even show their emotions at home, much less to a widely-spread media coverage area. I still think that the strange look on his face as he carried his child's body was the look of disbelief, the HE, the FATHER, found the body when the house was full of detectives! Hannah, I think he must have been horrified to find his daughter dead in the cellar....it is just a horrible thing to lose a child...especially in this manner!

[reprise]

Originally posted by Athena


I found something that DeLuth said in an interview with Laurel Engel that aired on Geraldo tonight interesting. When asked by Laura how would you proceed with the investigation now that Karr is cleared? His reply was back to square one and revisit the suspects (he believed it was an intruder) and do not assume that everyone was tested or investigated thoroughly. JMO

Absolutely. There have been massive advances in forensic science since the time this murder took place, and it should be used to re-examine whatever evidence wasn't hopelessly compromised by BPD in the early hours of the investigation.

Likewise, re-interviewing witnesses can reveal information that the original officers considered insignificant and failed to record. Relationships can also change dramatically and people can become willing to give information they would not have at the time of the original crime.

That said, how do you justify the cost of re-investigating this particular crime from square one. Manpower and scientific testing cost money which may well be wasted if re-examining this case produces no new leads or evidence.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


It's also good for panic attacks. I've had them and they are like seizures in a way.

I can't remember for sure, I think both were one it but would have to check. I knew that Ativan or Adivan or howeve you spell it was sometimes given for panic attacks...I did not know that Klonopin was also used for this...I only thought it was for seizures......thanks for your response.....doesn't the Klonopin make you sleepy or aid in sleeping then?

[Athena]

I did not know where to post this and did not want to open yet another thread but I found this article to be very interesting written by a former Globe employee who quit because his conscience got the better of him:

"Ghost of Christmas Past" ~ Jeffrey Scott Shapiro

I had developed a cozy professional relationship with Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter, who allowed me routine access to his office and frequently confided in me his views of the case. The top prosecutor told me he was concerned that the police were too convinced of John and Patsy Ramsey's guilt, and, as a result, no one was chasing other leads. I had already spent a year investigating the Ramseys, working undercover in the family's church, interviewing their friends and even traveling to John Ramsey's hometown to piece together his childhood. I still had my suspicions about Patsy, the former Miss West Virginia, but based on many months of research, I wasn't convinced she could have committed this brutal and ritualistic killing.

But now, I felt I owed it to JonBenet to look elsewhere. My search for her killer led me to isolated cabins burrowed deep in some of Colorado's rockiest canyons, through dark alleyways and into the heart of greater Denver's seedy sexual underground. Little by little, my case files began to shine a light into a dark corner of society that I never knew existed.


http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/122001/coverstory.html

[reprise]

What is Klonopin (clonazepam) ?
• Klonopin (clonazepam) is in a class of drugs called benzodiazepines. Klonopin (clonazepam) affects chemicals in your brain that may become unbalanced and cause seizures or symptoms of panic disorder.
• Klonopin (clonazepam) is used to treat seizures and panic disorder.
• Klonopin (clonazepam) may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.

http://www.drugs.com/klonopin.html

Other uses for clonazepam are listed at

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clonazepam)

[Athena]

Originally posted by reprise


Absolutely. There have been massive advances in forensic science since the time this murder took place, and it should be used to re-examine whatever evidence wasn't hopelessly compromised by BPD in the early hours of the investigation.

Likewise, re-interviewing witnesses can reveal information that the original officers considered insignificant and failed to record. Relationships can also change dramatically and people can become willing to give information they would not have at the time of the original crime.

That said, how do you justify the cost of re-investigating this particular crime from square one. Manpower and scientific testing cost money which may well be wasted if re-examining this case produces no new leads or evidence.

I hear you reprise. It is just totally mind-boggling the mistakes made in this investigation and to think there will never be justice for this precious little six-year-old child. :rose:

[msgatorslayer]

Originally posted by reprise


Absolutely. There have been massive advances in forensic science since the time this murder took place, and it should be used to re-examine whatever evidence wasn't hopelessly compromised by BPD in the early hours of the investigation.

Likewise, re-interviewing witnesses can reveal information that the original officers considered insignificant and failed to record. Relationships can also change dramatically and people can become willing to give information they would not have at the time of the original crime.

That said, how do you justify the cost of re-investigating this particular crime from square one. Manpower and scientific testing cost money which may well be wasted if re-examining this case produces no new leads or evidence.

I agree with ya, repise. How much money through the years was spent trying to capture the Green River Killer and BTK. JonBenet deserves the same.

And with Gary Ridgeway, he was someone who was a suspect early on, passed lie detector tests, had his home searched, and they still couldn't pin anything on him. And it was advances in DNA techno that finally got him.

There was even a victims boyfriend/pim* who seen what type of vehicle he was in and when the girl didn't come home, he drove around and found GR's house. Called LE. The responding officer filed a report but the Green River Task force never seen it, or, never put 2+2 together.

Without a doubt, what this case needs is a fresh pair of eyes or two and some new insight.

As far as cost, not sure what the crime rate currently is in Boulder, but if it's still a relatively crime free area like it was back in 1996 with the only murder being JBR, I say they can afford to spend their resources on this case. JMO

[Athena]

Another interesting archived article where Newsweek retracts some of their early beliefs based on faulty leaks to the media. In addition to that I did not know that other veteran homicide investigators from other cities interrogated the Ramseys. I posted the link to page 4 but you can read the entire article.

The Door the Cops Never Opened
Did mistakes in the early hours of the JonBenet investigation keep police from making a case?
By Daniel Glick, Sherry Keene-Osborn and Andrew Murr


"Recently, the Ramseys decided to fight back. They agreed to sit for interviews with prosecutors. Last April, John Ramsey wrote a letter to Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter at home and offered to meet. The only ground rule: no Boulder police would be allowed in the room. The interviews, conducted by veteran homicide detectives from other cities, went on for 42 hours. At times, the questioning was rough, as the interrogators tried to break the Ramseys down. Hunter and his staff stood by in a nearby room, watching the proceedings on a bank of closed-circuit monitors."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14394982/site/newsweek/page/4/

[Devotion]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
i agree with everything you said, i think its called PTSD. The only thing i dont agree with, patsy was medicated before the murder of her daughter. According to her husband, she was on antidepressants and so was he. Paxel and Quanopin.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm
:shrug: IMO: I read P's cancer was in remission...WHY was J. on antidepressants?..jmo

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by Devotion

:shrug: IMO: I read P's cancer was in remission...WHY was J. on antidepressants?..jmo

Probably because his daughter had been murdered and most of the country was being told either he killed her or he was molesting her.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Devotion

:shrug: IMO: I read P's cancer was in remission...WHY was J. on antidepressants?..jmo

Maybe he was a nervous or depressed person by nature. Maybe he had stress at work. Maybe he had trouble sleeping. Maybe his doctor just over-prescribed medication.

There could have been hundreds of reasons.

JMO

[Devotion]

Originally posted by reprise


http://www.drugs.com/klonopin.html

Other uses for clonazepam are listed at

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clonazepam)

IMO: As I read this, it seems that the R's were taking alot of different medicines at the same time for the same thing..jmo...klonopin and Ativan??

Ativan® is indicated for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), panic disorder, and anxiety associated with depression. Ativan® (lorazepam) is sometimes used as a sleeping agent, anti-convulsant, and alcohol detoxification.

[Devotion]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


I think that is referring to his current medications. It's all in the present tense.

"TT: That you are (inaudible). . . are you taking any other medications right now?
JR: I have been on Paxel, and Quanopin, which are both prescription anti-depressants.
TT: Okay, and the second one is?
JR: Quanopin.
TT: OK. I’m not familiar with that one.
JR: It like, kind of like Adavan, I’m not an expert but . . .
TT: . . . Okay. How much Paxel where you taking?
JR: Uh, well one tablet a night, I don’t know how, but I can get the prescription from (inaudible) the size of it, whatever it is.
TT: Is it the same prescription that Patsy is on or. . .
JR: Basically, yeah, probably exactly the same thing.
TT: And the second medication, you take that once a night?
JR: Right.
TT: Right before bedtime?
JR: Yep.

:shrug: IMO: Quanopin is a Boy Scout badge or pin??jmo

[trt]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Well, that makes entirely too much sense. We can't possibly believe that. ;)

Not really, because he was taking them before she died, he mentioned that in the transcript.

[Devotion]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Probably because his daughter had been murdered and most of the country was being told either he killed her or he was molesting her.
:shrug: IMO: It's had to understand why some people assume, guess, or just play dumb instead of doing some reading.
The transcripts clearly state he was taking the medicine BEFORE JonB's murder...jmo

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by Devotion

:shrug: IMO: It's had to understand why some people assume, guess, or just play dumb instead of doing some reading.
The transcripts clearly state he was taking the medicine BEFORE JonB's murder...jmo

We've been discussing this since last night. Could you please post the quote from the interview that shows that? Perhaps it was in a different interview from the 1997 one.

[deputydi]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
What's absolutely appalling to me is that the DA wasn't overseeing things & making sure everything that should have been done WAS being done. Hunter's handling of this case was a real disgrace.
I'm not arguing your point -- I just pointed out that it wasn't the DAs function to oversee any investigation. You are absolutely right in that it benefits everyone involved in the investigation if these two offices can work WITH each other. I truly believe that is one of the two primary reasons this case will never be solved. The other is the sloppy way the investigation began. I would imagine these guys are taught in Investigation 101 that the first thing you do is secure a crime scene. Then, I can't imagine what Linda Arndt was thinking when she sent Fleet and John by themselves to look for "anything that might look out of place" and -- guess what -- they found a body! I know full well that it was the only murder in Boulder that year, and everyone believed it was a kidnapping -- not a murder -- but, wouldn't common sense tell you that a serious crime had been committed and certain basic procedures must be followed?????

[trt]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


We've been discussing this since last night. Could you please post the quote from the interview that shows that? Perhaps it was in a different interview from the 1997 one.

Well, after reading it, I do see your point that he could have only been talking about after the murder, but he was also asked what dosage "*where*(SIC) you taking" and he replied. He also stated that "I have..." which would indicate before to me. However, it can go either way.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by trt


Well, after reading it, I do see your point that he could have only been talking about after the murder, but he was also asked what dosage "*where*(SIC) you taking" and he replied. He also stated that "I have..." which would indicate before to me. However, it can go either way.

I think the "where" should be were and refers back to the Paxel, and Quanopin(sic).

JR: I have been on Paxel, and Quanopin, which are both prescription anti-depressants.
TT: Okay, and the second one is?
JR: Quanopin.
TT: OK. I’m not familiar with that one.
JR: It like, kind of like Adavan, I’m not an expert but . . .
TT: . . . Okay. How much Paxel where you taking?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by deputydi

I'm not arguing your point -- I just pointed out that it wasn't the DAs function to oversee any investigation. You are absolutely right in that it benefits everyone involved in the investigation if these two offices can work WITH each other. I truly believe that is one of the two primary reasons this case will never be solved. The other is the sloppy way the investigation began. I would imagine these guys are taught in Investigation 101 that the first thing you do is secure a crime scene. Then, I can't imagine what Linda Arndt was thinking when she sent Fleet and John by themselves to look for "anything that might look out of place" and -- guess what -- they found a body! I know full well that it was the only murder in Boulder that year, and everyone believed it was a kidnapping -- not a murder -- but, wouldn't common sense tell you that a serious crime had been committed and certain basic procedures must be followed?????

Thanks, deputydi.

I guess we're both frustrated about the same thing.

I just get aggravated when Ramsey supporters blame the police investigation ONLY because they didn't agree with the intruder theory but never seem to blame the officials & others responsible for not allowing the Ramseys to ever be excluded as suspects.

If not for stupid mistakes at the beginning PLUS the Ramsey lawyers not advising their clients to cooperate from the onset, I think it was very possible the Ramseys would have been excluded like the majority of parents are excluded in the first week.


As upset as they were after JB's death, I think the Ramseys sealed their fate when they left for Atlanta BEFORE going in for official interviews. The police were left in Boulder to wonder what they hoped to accomplish by appearing on CNN.

This case just went from bad to progressively worse & nobody knew how to get it on track.

[trt]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


I think the "where" should be were and refers back to the Paxel, and Quanopin(sic).

JR: I have been on Paxel, and Quanopin, which are both prescription anti-depressants.
TT: Okay, and the second one is?
JR: Quanopin.
TT: OK. I’m not familiar with that one.
JR: It like, kind of like Adavan, I’m not an expert but . . .
TT: . . . Okay. How much Paxel where you taking?

Right, I understand, that's my point. That they use past tense which some of us believe speaks to a time before the murder, the same time he was taking the sleeping pills. But as I said, after rereading and reading the objections here, I can understand how it can be either or.

[trt]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


??

I referenced this up top in a post to Louise, that after rereading the transcript and reading the objections here, I could see how it could be either way, that it doesn't necessarily mean that he was speaking of a time before the murder. But that the phrases *I have* and *where(sic)*(which I'm assuming was *were*) could reference a time before the murder. But again, that it could go either way.

[deputydi]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
<snip>As upset as they were after JB's death, I think the Ramseys sealed their fate when they left for Atlanta BEFORE going in for official interviews. The police were left in Boulder to wonder what they hoped to accomplish by appearing on CNN.

This case just went from bad to progressively worse & nobody knew how to get it on track.
You are so right. This is exactly why so many people (myself included) wondered what they were hiding. I have since come to doubt they were involved, but it took a long time and a lot of soul searching to come to that conclusion. I still can't say I'm 100% sure one or both of the Ramseys were not involved. They got some really bad legal advice from an attorney who was inexperienced in criminal matters and the PR firm they hired was a big mistake (IMO, of course). I do understand their reasoning. Hiring an attorney is never a bad idea when you are the only focus in a murder investigation and as upset as they were, appointing (not hiring) a family spokesperson is also understandable. They made some bad choices that have haunted them for 10 years.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by deputydi

You are so right. This is exactly why so many people (myself included) wondered what they were hiding. I have since come to doubt they were involved, but it took a long time and a lot of soul searching to come to that conclusion. I still can't say I'm 100% sure one or both of the Ramseys were not involved. They got some really bad legal advice from an attorney who was inexperienced in criminal matters and the PR firm they hired was a big mistake (IMO, of course). I do understand their reasoning. Hiring an attorney is never a bad idea when you are the only focus in a murder investigation and as upset as they were, appointing (not hiring) a family spokesperson is also understandable. They made some bad choices that have haunted them for 10 years.


My feelings exactly.

They might not be guilty but so many things they did & said made them APPEAR less than honest that there's always a doubt in your mind.

It's really quite sad because I think more than anything they were basically naive about the world & got some terrible advice from friends & lawyers.

[hohum]

Originally posted by Devotion

:shrug: IMO: It's had to understand why some people assume, guess, or just play dumb instead of doing some reading.
The transcripts clearly state he was taking the medicine BEFORE JonB's murder...jmo

Before??????????

[DixieChick]

Whether cleared or not, Fleet White is #1 suspect in my mind.
He turned against his friends. He was jealous of them and had a key to their home.

[sunsplashed]

And why was Fleet jealous of them?

I've never heard that.

I know Patsy said Priscilla did not approve of pageants, but I read nothing in the police interviews that indicated Fleet was jealous in any way. Patsy did not seem to think he was.

Why do you think he was?

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



My feelings exactly.

They might not be guilty but so many things they did & said made them APPEAR less than honest that there's always a doubt in your mind.

It's really quite sad because I think more than anything they were basically naive about the world & got some terrible advice from friends & lawyers.

Actually, if my theory is correct, I think they got pretty good advice. Not good PR, but good advice.

JMO

[hohum]

Originally posted by sunsplashed
And why was Fleet jealous of them?

I've never heard that.



MONEY. He was jealous of the MONEY. And Priscilla was jealous of Patsy. Guess you never heard about that either.

Too much time spent on the pigtails. :lol:

[watson]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and just post a new and to some, radical view of this crime that IMO is based on the evidence and not on the early and incorrect interpretations of LE and the media, which have colored the case since. I think the reason this case never got solved was that these early mis-interpretations and assumptions sent this case off in the wrong dircetions and have led people to think of it only in those terms ever since. So, here goes, I'd be happy to back up or discuss any of these conclusions with proof among the evidence.
1.) The killer was planning on killing JB for some time prior to Dec.25th.
2.) The ransom letter was written hours, days, weeks, BEFORE the murder, as pre planned staging.
3.) JB's murder was actually a planned, ruthless execution of this little girl.
4.) The killer probably didn't plan to committ the crime that night but later the same week.
5.) There is no sign AT ALL that a pedophile did this crime.
6.) There is no sign AT ALL of the crime begin done in anger.
7.) The murder was cold blooded, passionless, deliberate, premeditated and well planned and thought out BEFORE the crime.
8.) Clear indications in the evidence have gone on mostly missed by everyone for 10 years, such as the murder cord was in fact a pair of shoe laces, and the so called 'garotte' was indeed a slip knot noose.
9.) The killers plan of execution murder covered by a fake kidnapping was ruined when the police arrived with the body still on the scene, this was NOT part of the killers plan.
Like I said, I'd be happy to discuss or prove any of these conclusions (space limited here).

[nutmeg22]

watson, just a couple of quick questions..if the note was written so far in advance, do you mean he brought it with him and wrote it again on the Ramsey's notepad?
WHat makes you think he planned to kill her later in the week. The family was traveling out of town...was he going to follow them or do you mean their travel plans meant he had to move up his plan to the night of the 25th/morning of 26th?
Why do you think it was done so dis-passionately? What clues are there to this fact?
No one has mentioned the cord was actually shoelaces?
thanks.

[watson]

To Nutmeg
Why was the note written before the crime? Because there is no indication at all that it was written after, and indications it was written before. Those indications.....it's very long 3 page length and the time it would take to write, it's more likely this would be done before the crime, then in the limited time after, the wording and writing of the letter (big vocabulary, a lot of extra stuff, done carefully and neatly) doesn't show panic, a shaky hand etc. as you'd expect right after a murder (I believe both the FBI and Secret Service doc examiners and Lou Smit all agreed on this).
That despite being set up in business leter form (the set up of the letter, salutation, even a signature) the killer carefully omits a date on the letter, and gives no date references(not even the day he's supposed to pick up the money), except one...."if you wish her to see 1997", meaning the crime was supposed to happen before 1-1-97 but that's all the killer gives as to WHEN it was written, with such a careful killer, this would have to be on purpose. An airtight case the letter was written before the murder? No, but the evidence indicates that it was, while there are no indications in the evidence that it was written after the murder. So many people believe it was written after because of LE's bad guesses early on, it could have been, but what evidence there is, actually indicates it was written before the murder as above, and since there is no date reference or way to date the letter, it could have been hours or even weeks before.

[nutmeg22]

Ok, understood...then he took a pad from their home earlier at some point? Or do you not think it was written on a pad from the Ramseys?

[watson]

Could be either depends where the evidence leads. We know the pad and pen came from the home, if a family member did it, or someone close to the family they could have used the pad and pen days or weeks before, if an intruder probably on the day of the crime hours before.

[nutmeg22]

Ok...what makes you think the killer planned to do this later in the week, not on the night it was done?
Who has come to the conclusion that the cord was actually shoe laces...it does look like shoe laces in those photos, though, but I have not heard that stated.
Why do you say this was done "without anger or passion"? because few mistakes were made? How could the killer have counted on the incompetence of the Boulder PD?

[watson]

Why was this done dis-passionately?.....Again this just comes from the evidence and not from what the media and Boulder PD said right after the crime. What does the evidence we all know actually say about how this murder was done. The killer took a lot of time in tying and carefully wrapping a loop noose with stick handle. There's 6 looped wrapped knots on the handle alone, 3 on each side of the long leader that goes to the loop. This took time and lots of contemplation while carefully looping and wrapping. What was the killer thinking while doing this? There is only one use for what the killer is making. From the knot at the middle of the back of the victims neck, we know the killer chose to be directly behind the victim, where he does not have to look at her and she doesn't have to look at the killer. Placing the loop over the victims head, then holding what can only be a slip knot against the back of the neck with one hand the killer pulls the handle with the other, tighteng the loop all around the victims neck equally (the ME reported the line equal all around the neck). By the time the crime is finished the handle is 17" (ME report) from the victim, meaning the killer was no closer than 1 1/2 feet behind the victim and touching her with only one hand during the strangulation. Given the facts there is no other way the strangulation could have been done. From the back, at a distance, with hardly any physical contact after lots of preperation and contemplation........... is not a crime of passion, anger, lust etc. It's almost clinical. In addition on the other side, there is no dis-order to the victims clothes, no defensive wounds, no hands on strangulation of the victim to indicate passion, lust, anger etc.

[watson]

To Nutmeg
Why shoelaces? As you say the cord DOES look like shoe laces. But more important almost everything in this crime came from a home environment, so why not the murder cord? What's found in the home, white, flat, 1/4" wide and comes in pairs (2 cords were used in the crime).....shoe laces. As the kicker, the length FITS, if you measure a mans size shoe lace, allowing for the knots, with the length of the cords as measured by the ME. Can we in the public 'prove' that it's shoe laces? No because we don't have them, but investigators could've and should've. It's just the sort of obvious clue that if true (and it sure seems to be) should have been noticed early on and could've taken the case to a solution.

[nutmeg22]

Watson, I enjoy reading your posts and you have a good grasp(pardon me) on the garotte angle. Yes, it would seem obvious that someone should have noticed shoe laces!!
I would like to hear more...I have to run to a meeting now...talk later.

[Paisley]

Originally posted by watson
To Nutmeg
Why shoelaces? As you say the cord DOES look like shoe laces. But more important almost everything in this crime came from a home environment, so why not the murder cord? What's found in the home, white, flat, 1/4" wide and comes in pairs (2 cords were used in the crime).....shoe laces. As the kicker, the length FITS, if you measure a mans size shoe lace, allowing for the knots, with the length of the cords as measured by the ME. Can we in the public 'prove' that it's shoe laces? No because we don't have them, but investigators could've and should've. It's just the sort of obvious clue that if true (and it sure seems to be) should have been noticed early on and could've taken the case to a solution. Were you not aware that Patsy was proficient at sewing? 1/4 cord could be found in her sewing room as well.... shoelaces are not the only item in a home that could be flat and 1/4 wide....

What may seem like an "obvious" clue to you may be characterized as conjecture by someone else.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by watson
I'm going to go out on a limb here and just post a new and to some, radical view of this crime that IMO is based on the evidence and not on the early and incorrect interpretations of LE and the media, which have colored the case since. I think the reason this case never got solved was that these early mis-interpretations and assumptions sent this case off in the wrong dircetions and have led people to think of it only in those terms ever since. So, here goes, I'd be happy to back up or discuss any of these conclusions with proof among the evidence.
1.) The killer was planning on killing JB for some time prior to Dec.25th.
2.) The ransom letter was written hours, days, weeks, BEFORE the murder, as pre planned staging.
3.) JB's murder was actually a planned, ruthless execution of this little girl.
4.) The killer probably didn't plan to committ the crime that night but later the same week.
5.) There is no sign AT ALL that a pedophile did this crime.
6.) There is no sign AT ALL of the crime begin done in anger.
7.) The murder was cold blooded, passionless, deliberate, premeditated and well planned and thought out BEFORE the crime.
8.) Clear indications in the evidence have gone on mostly missed by everyone for 10 years, such as the murder cord was in fact a pair of shoe laces, and the so called 'garotte' was indeed a slip knot noose.
9.) The killers plan of execution murder covered by a fake kidnapping was ruined when the police arrived with the body still on the scene, this was NOT part of the killers plan.
Like I said, I'd be happy to discuss or prove any of these conclusions (space limited here).

If the note was written hours, days, or weeks before the crime, how do you explain the practice note that was found?

[trt]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


If the note was written hours, days, or weeks before the crime, how do you explain the practice note that was found?

I agree, why would someone return the practice note as well as the *live* ransom note if they had stolen the pad and pen. Why even return the pad and pen, for risk of some DNA or fiber transfer from wherever it was being written?

[Tubaleer]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


If the note was written hours, days, or weeks before the crime, how do you explain the practice note that was found?

The pracitice note, then there were 4 pages missing from the note pad (more practice?), than the actual ransom note. (the 4 missing pages were never found)

[watson]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paisley
[B]Were you not aware that Patsy was proficient at sewing? 1/4 cord could be found in her sewing room as well.... shoelaces are not the only item in a home that could be flat and 1/4 wide....

What may seem like an "obvious" clue to you may be characterized as conjecture by someone else.

Conjecture? Yep, but it's conjecture that fits the evidence. It seems odd to me that after 10 years we know so little about this cord, it would be very easy for LE to get a forensic analysis about what it's made of, likely sources, and the same on the knots it's tied into. Anyone know of any forensic investigation report on the cords or knots. This seems like something LE held back, but IMO shoe laces seem most likely, but only LE could say for sure.
P.S. I know about Patsy's sewing....but thread 1/4" wide, that would have to be some needle to use with it.

[watson]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


If the note was written hours, days, or weeks before the crime, how do you explain the practice note that was found? [QUOTE]

I don't see a problem. Someone had started the note before in the same pad. There may have been other attempts (as someone said pages were missing). If someone in, or close to the family wrote the note they could have done it any time before the crime (days or weeks before), if an intruder wrote the note it could have been written the same day in the hours before the crime. I don't think any intruder took the pad then brought it back. [U]

[msgatorslayer]

Originally posted by watson
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paisley
[B]Were you not aware that Patsy was proficient at sewing? 1/4 cord could be found in her sewing room as well.... shoelaces are not the only item in a home that could be flat and 1/4 wide....

What may seem like an "obvious" clue to you may be characterized as conjecture by someone else.

Conjecture? Yep, but it's conjecture that fits the evidence. It seems odd to me that after 10 years we know so little about this cord, it would be very easy for LE to get a forensic analysis about what it's made of, likely sources, and the same on the knots it's tied into. Anyone know of any forensic investigation report on the cords or knots. This seems like something LE held back, but IMO shoe laces seem most likely, but only LE could say for sure.
P.S. I know about Patsy's sewing....but thread 1/4" wide, that would have to be some needle to use with it.

This is something that everyone should be able to agree on. Proficient testing on the cords and knots. IMO. None available that I'm aware of. 10 years later, the media and general public for the most part still consider it a garrotte.

All that is available is self proclaimed experts and people who are familiar with knots giving opinoins from photographs. Someone in the FBI should have been given the real deal to examine. They could have duplicated them to save the actual evidence.

[bullmoose]

I myself see the ransom note as being very clever deliberate misdirection by the killer to forever throw suspician on the Ramseys; I too think it was done before the murder, but I think it was done before the Ramseys came home that night. Watson, you have a good point on the garrotte, it does indeed look like shoelaces. bullmoose

[harz]

First of all, about the ransom note, it did not have any JonBenet’s name written on it. The killer referred JonBenet “her” or “your daughter”. That the clue the killer doesn’t know her name, or could not pronounced her name in writing if the killer heard it from one of pageant shows, he might be hearing impaired as well, or maybe John Ramsey never said his daughter’s name to his colleagues at work or other places, that he might had always referred her as “my daughter” to them. The killer referred the name of John Ramsey’s on the ransom note, but why not JonBenet’s?

I have a 7 years old daughter; I always referred her name in my letters, emails, or instant messaging to others whom I trust. Even said her name to people I know or trust except to strangers, colleagues, or on this forum for example. So the killer who wrote ransom note cannot be one of Ramseys. Ramsey have other daughter, they would want to be clear which one were kidnapped if they wrote the note.

So the killer did not know JonBenet’s name but knew her probably from pageant or he saw her at Ramsey’s opening house for Christmas decorates show. So it means he knew Ramsey’s house and thought thoroughly how to get in and out after he decided for JonBenet to be his sex slave. The killer wrote the ransom note just for one reason, his fear of being caught as pedophile. He would rather be caught as kidnapper or burglary, but not as pedophile. Probably he had wife, children, and a good job, or would feel so shameful if his name was to broadcast on radio, news, television that his relatives or friends at college see him as pedophile. I did think that one of student at Boulder University just a few minutes away from Ramsey’s house is possible the killer. He might have completed all of his terms before he killed JonBenet and moved back to his home town that he doesn’t live in Boulder anymore.

I am pretty sure the killer wrote the ransom note before he murdered JonBenet. His intention was to take JonBenet with him somewhere, maybe his home or a secret location for his sexual fantasy. But it looked like his pedophile urges took over him during JonBenet’s present in front of him at Ramsey’s when he sex assaulted her after he left his ransom note on the stairs. He might be feared that he would not have a chance to complete his sexual fantasy by bring her with him somewhere else without been seen by other people, so he had to do it at Ramsey’s. His murder motives possible are; JonBenet could identify him and tell others what he did, she called for help or tried get away, or the killer felt rejected by her. Because she was already dead, seemed there was no point for him to bring her along, so he hides the body at remotest location in the basement in hopes she won’t be found sooner while he got away. As in his ransom note told Ramseys not to call the police or JonBenet would be killed, he knew Ramsey would call anyway so he still left his ransom note just to despite them.

[bullmoose]

Harz, those are very good ideas. The sex slave idea, wasn't there a girl in Austria that escaped her captor a week or two ago, after being held for eight years? The pervert then upon finding her gone and realizing the game was up threw himself in front of a train. The idea that it could have been someone at the CU is intriguing. John Ramseys' picture had been in the local paper as the successful head of a company that had done a billion dollars of business the year before; that certainly would aggravate a college student wacko and give him/them a reason to do what happened. bullmoose:hat:

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I myself see the ransom note as being very clever deliberate misdirection by the killer to forever throw suspician on the Ramseys; I too think it was done before the murder, but I think it was done before the Ramseys came home that night. Watson, you have a good point on the garrotte, it does indeed look like shoelaces. bullmoose

I see the ransom note as very, very clever misdirection by the killer as well, but not to throw suspicion on the Ramseys. I see it as something the killer absolutely had to have. What the note says makes perfect sense and, to the killer's satisfaction, it worked.

[msgatorslayer]

"Her hands are above her head, tied together with a shoestring-like cord" John Ramsey - DOI - pg. 51

[Athena]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I see the ransom note as very, very clever misdirection by the killer as well, but not to throw suspicion on the Ramseys. I see it as something the killer absolutely had to have. What the note says makes perfect sense and, to the killer's satisfaction, it worked.

Hi Sun - what about the note do you think makes perfect sense?

[hohum]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I myself see the ransom note as being very clever deliberate misdirection by the killer to forever throw suspician on the Ramseys; I too think it was done before the murder, but I think it was done before the Ramseys came home that night. Watson, you have a good point on the garrotte, it does indeed look like shoelaces. bullmoose

Do Hitech shoes require shoe laces? I had never heard of Hitech's until the murder of JB. Are they athletic shoes? Hiking boots?

[harz]

Originally posted by Athena


Hi Sun - what about the note do you think makes perfect sense?

I wondered about that too. His or her post in other tread that he or her believe the ransom note was written after the crime. I believe it was done before because the killer would need an excuse in case the Ramseys woke up and caught the killer carry JonBenet. So he wrote the note before to avoid being identified as pedophile if he was arrested.

[Athena]

Watson: Interesting - I agree with most of your points and have a couple of questions:

1 - Agree
2 - My belief it was hours before
3 - Agree
4 - What makes you think it was to be done later in week?
5 - Agree
6 - I believe there was harbored anger at JR
7 - Strongly agree
8 - Just read something similar recently
9 - Agee

Do you believe it was someone known to the Ramseys? Do you believe it may have been someone within their circle?

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by msgatorslayer
the FBI should have been given the real deal to examine. They could have duplicated them to save the actual evidence. [/B]

I am with you msgatorslayer...here we are
10 yrs. later and we have really nothing actually PROVEN, nothing concrete on which to base a good case...this is such a mess. Every agency is relying on someone else's "opinion" on which to base their own. Too much time has flown by and too many people have made terrific mistakes performing their duties. It's always "someone said" or "someone thought".....then nothing happens. I guess I am venting! JMO

[hohum]

Originally posted by Tubaleer


The pracitice note, then there were 4 pages missing from the note pad (more practice?), than the actual ransom note. (the 4 missing pages were never found)

Guess the killer took those 4 pages with him as a souvenier.

[hohum]

Originally posted by harz


I wondered about that too. His or her post in other tread that he or her believe the ransom note was written after the crime. I believe it was done before because the killer would need an excuse in case the Ramseys woke up and caught the killer carry JonBenet. So he wrote the note before to avoid being identified as pedophile if he was arrested.

Nothing about that ransom note makes any sense except to a deranged killer.

[watson]

To Harz,
Nice story about a pedophile doing it ,it's 1 of the stories long since told to the public by the media, but it just doesn't wash with the evidence. From this Karr guy we all now know what a real pedophile is like.....his obsession with knowing all about the victim, wanting to have sex with the victim, his obsession with sex and 'love' involving the victim, BUT is there any evidence of such a killer at our JB crime scene?
Was the victim found unclothed......no.
Did the killer have a lot of sex with the victim....no, the sexual abuse was slight.
Any evidence the killer was stalking JB, left any 'love' letter etc....no.
Did the killer take any souviniers from his 'love'.....none.
Did the killer talk a lot about sex in his long 3 page letter and his 'love' 'lust' for the victim.....not at all, and as you point out he didn't even mention her name.
Could a pedophile have done this crime, sure but why should we think so, when there is no evidence of one being involved?

[watson]

Post error.

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by harz


I wondered about that too. His or her post in other tread that he or her believe the ransom note was written after the crime. I believe it was done before because the killer would need an excuse in case the Ramseys woke up and caught the killer carry JonBenet. So he wrote the note before to avoid being identified as pedophile if he was arrested.


Now, that's an angle I had not thought of.

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by hohum


Do Hitech shoes require shoe laces? I had never heard of Hitech's until the murder of JB. Are they athletic shoes? Hiking boots?

hohum, I think they are more like hiking boots. I also wouldn't think the laces would be so light colored..white. I would think they would be brown or black. I could be wrong.

[nutmeg22]

Watson, why do you think the killer really planned the killing for later in the week? I still think the note is the biggest clue here, and wish some brilliant person could decipher it correctly (well, maybe they have right here, who knows). I have a feeling we might just never really know for sure.JMO

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by watson
To Harz,
Nice story about a pedophile doing it ,it's 1 of the stories long since told to the public by the media, but it just doesn't wash with the evidence. From this Karr guy we all now know what a real pedophile is like.....his obsession with knowing all about the victim, wanting to have sex with the victim, his obsession with sex and 'love' involving the victim, BUT is there any evidence of such a killer at our JB crime scene?
Was the victim found unclothed......no.
Did the killer have a lot of sex with the victim....no, the sexual abuse was slight.
Any evidence the killer was stalking JB, left any 'love' letter etc....no.
Did the killer take any souvenirs from his 'love'.....none.
Did the killer talk a lot about sex in his long 3 page letter and his 'love' 'lust' for the victim.....not at all, and as you point out he didn't even mention her name.
Could a pedophile have done this crime, sure but why should we think so, when there is no evidence of one being involved?

Actually the truth could very well be that yes it was done by a pedophile. We simply don't know his motivation. Only he knows.

I do agree with you this murder seems very cold and matter of fact. One done as seeing JB only as a instrument to accomplish the destruction of this family for the rest of their lives.

I do think he may have taken the other part of the paintbrush as a souvenir. Something he can see and touch. Maybe he twirls it in his hands as he watches all the hullabaloo about the case. I think this person is cold as ice and still has the paintbrush broken part.

But I do not agree that the ransom note couldn't have been done by a pedophile. Imo if he is one he is one sharp, crafty and cunning one...pedophile or not. He would never drop his guard and point his way even the slightest. Imo, whomever wrote this was distancing themselves as far as they could get to avoid any detection as to who he may be. And it worked just like he thought it would.

But imo the sexual overtones left behind where done only to further shatter the ones who would see JB that way. He wanted them to hurt and hurt deeply.

I don't think it bothered him one bit to do this to this child. He saw her as merely "collateral damage" to complete his planned mission.

IMO

Ocean

[watson]

Originally posted by Athena
Watson: Interesting - I agree with most of your points and have a couple of questions:

1 - Agree
2 - My belief it was hours before
3 - Agree
4 - What makes you think it was to be done later in week?
5 - Agree
6 - I believe there was harbored anger at JR
7 - Strongly agree
8 - Just read something similar recently
9 - Agee

Do you believe it was someone known to the Ramseys? Do you believe it may have been someone within their circle? [QUOTE]

To answer your #4 above first. Just a hunch. Whether it was someone in the family (or just as close) or an intruder, Xmas night wouldn't be very convenient for anyone. It's probably the worst night of the year for crime, busy for everyone, the Ramsey's were gone most of that day and were leaving very early the next morning. On the other hand, starting Dec. 26 the Ramsey's would be far away from their home, on a winter vacation in North MIchigan...would JB have been easier to get at there? Would the police presense been less? Would the Ramsey's have an excuse to leave the state of Michigan soon after the crime to go back to CO? Would family members or those as close been familiar with N. MI in the wintertime? The answers are all yes......it just seems logical the killer may have been planning the crime for there on that vacation, and the ransom letter does mention New Years 1997.

As to who may have done it the evidence IMO does and always has pointed very strongly to someone who knew JB very well, was very comfortable in the Ramsey household, was a family member or so close as a family member that they'd be suspected immediately (thus the pre staging and planning).
P.S. I agree completely the person who did do it harbored anger and murderous intent at JB for sometime prior to the crime, I just meant that from the evidence the killer did not show much anger while killing her.

[harz]

Originally posted by watson
To Harz,
Nice story about a pedophile doing it ,it's 1 of the stories long since told to the public by the media, but it just doesn't wash with the evidence. From this Karr guy we all now know what a real pedophile is like.....his obsession with knowing all about the victim, wanting to have sex with the victim, his obsession with sex and 'love' involving the victim, BUT is there any evidence of such a killer at our JB crime scene?
Was the victim found unclothed......no.
Did the killer have a lot of sex with the victim....no, the sexual abuse was slight.
Any evidence the killer was stalking JB, left any 'love' letter etc....no.
Did the killer take any souviniers from his 'love'.....none.
Did the killer talk a lot about sex in his long 3 page letter and his 'love' 'lust' for the victim.....not at all, and as you point out he didn't even mention her name.
Could a pedophile have done this crime, sure but why should we think so, when there is no evidence of one being involved?

Well the different between real killer and Karr, the killer doesn’t want the kind of attention as being pedophile that Karr is receiving. If you see the whole 3 pages of ransom notes trying to convince people believing JonBenet was kidnapped for ransom only. It doesn’t need 3 pages to explain away his kidnapping purpose just for ransom. Karr’s obsessions over JonBenet flourished after media frenzy on this case but JonBenet was already dead and he was not responsible. Either Karr is just being delusional believing he loved JonBenet or just enjoying being in the center of attentions to media and everybody. Maybe there are more reasons than we know. Karr see JonBenet as lover and not ashamed about it, the killer see JonBenet as his sex object or slave, it would be such disgrace if anyone knew who this real killer, I believe that’s was his true fear. If it was Karr who presented when JonBenet died, he probably would have left a “love letter” or took some souvenirs with him belonging to JonBenet. Of course, the killer doesn’t want to mention his lust in the note because he doesn’t want anybody to know what JonBenet was to him. That’s why it wasn’t mentioned in note, and he was so desperate that he had to throw “two gentlemen watching over Ramsey’s daughter” crap in the note. He doesn’t need to know JonBenet’s name when he saw her as a part to his pedophile fantasy. Not every pedophile wants to know or find out their victims’ names before or after carrying out their sexual fantasy on their victims.

I believe JonBenet was sexual assaulted once unidentified white male’s DNA, which is the killer, was left under her fingernails and in her underpants, also autopsy described her vagina making it looked like she was sexual assaulted or disturbed. Anyone who sexual assaulted toward children in any form is a pedophile in my book. Have you see a website with graphic evidences in pictures of JonBenet’s body by police plus smokingun site of her autopsy reports yet?

What do you mean the killer’s evidences being left at the scene? Well I know there’s DNA, shoeprint, body of JonBenet, ransom note, string, and I forgot what else. But I know some what wasn’t left there or taken with the killer are; taser, duct tape roll, scratch four pages from notepad, can’t remember what else. But the body of JonBenet does help a lot including taser mark on her neck; rapist or pedophile used taser on their other victims like knock out pills used in college. If killer’s purpose was to kidnap JonBenet just for ransom, he would have taken her with him alive, probably not to write the ransom note, then call Ramseys for ransom to make trading deals. I believe not everything went smoothly as the killer’s planned during his sneaking in Ramsey’s house, but it looked like it turned out that he got lucky when everyone were focused on Ramseys for a decade. If the killer had so much hate against John Ramsey that he had to kill JonBenet in such heinous way, how come Ramseys haven’t picked up vibes or suspected one who does?

[Magnolia01]

The issues you address are very interesting.

I followed this case in the beginning but I got VERY busy with my own child (4 at the time of JB's death) so I was not able to follow the case as I would have liked to.

I've found myself suddenly interested again now that I have some free time. I have been reading the forums here and followed a few links that have been posted and I must say I'm as confused as ever!! :confused:

At this point, I don't know WHAT to believe but want to thank you for your fresh perspective :seeya:

[samsong]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
The issues you address are very interesting.

I followed this case in the beginning but I got VERY busy with my own child (4 at the time of JB's death) so I was not able to follow the case as I would have liked to.

I've found myself suddenly interested again now that I have some free time. I have been reading the forums here and followed a few links that have been posted and I must say I'm as confused as ever!! :confused:

At this point, I don't know WHAT to believe but want to thank you for your fresh perspective :seeya:

You are one of many. There a a lot of people posting here that aren't sure what happened.

Each piece of evidence and every action can cut both ways. It is hard to know what really happened.

[Magnolia01]

I do believe you have hit the proverbial nail on the head!! It seems every piece of evidence tends to cut both ways and it becomes impossible to discern "what's what".

Will this case EVER be solved?

[Magnolia01]

Hi everyone :)

I started this post yesterday on the other board but now it's archived again. :tongue:

I'd love to hear each posters' theory as to who is responsible for this tragic murder and why you believe that theory. Short, concise, to the point. (and all in one place for my easily confused mind!)

I've been reading the boards and links but it seems I end up MORE confused than ever before! I intend to read up more on the case but it appears I'm just following hit and miss leads/links right now and can't get my thoughts organized.

I see this has become a volatile subject around here and I don't want to stir up trouble or arguments. I just want to pick your collectively brilliant brains before reading more on the subject.

(BTW: I am not a newbie.... I've been around since M. Peterson's trial, and what a wild ride that was!....I just had to reregister for some reason :shrug: )


ADDITION BY FRESHWATER

In constructing a valid theory the elements (or building blocks) of theory must be consistent with known facts, if applied fit the time line of a case, and speculations be logically deduced from known facts of the case, criminological profiling, investigative teachniques, and stated assumptions about the nature of human motivation. Taken together if these basic steps are taken a plausible theory can be constructed and then debated on the merrits of the blocks that built the theory.

FH20

[docg]

Here's my theory: http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1244&forum=DCForumID61

docG

[Magnolia01]

Thanks docG!! Exactly the kinds of things I'm looking for :)

Reading it again right now.

[rosebud]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Magnolia01
[B]Hi everyone :)

I'd love to hear each posters' theory as to who is responsible for this tragic murder and why you believe that theory. Short, concise, to the point. (and all in one place for my easily confused mind!)

REPLY: I am forced to admit that the killer lived in the house mainly because the theory of an outside intruder makes no sense and does not fit the facts. I have seen a comparison of Patsy's handwriting to the ransom note (somewhere there is a link to it on this board) and I found the similarities compelling. I can see why some think she wrote the note. I am not an expert on handwriting, but so do I.

Despite the lack of motive, and lack of any evidence of any previous violence by a parent on JBR, and despite not being able to explain exactly what happened that led to JBR's death, I think Patsy is responsible.

I think Sherlock Holmes said something about "when all the possible explanations have been proven wrong, then the only thing left, no matter how improbable, is the answer." That kind of fits JBR's murder for me.

[Magnolia01]

Fascinating read! Thanks again for posting and I hope more do the same :)

Many aspects of your theory fall in line with some of my thoughts. Other aspects you mentioned I'd not even thought of. For instance: JR planning to take the body later in the day and then "finding" it while delivering ransom money. Interesting....that is what you were saying right?

[cantaloupe]

But wasn't John Ramsey the one who told Patsy to call 911?

Oops, read to the bottom of your theory---you covered that. Sorry.

[paperbackreader]

My theory is that this was the deed of someone outside the family, and he's either incarerated for completely different type of crime today or dead.

[lost indie]

Oh...please don't flame me. This is a theory and not meant to accuse anyone!

Ever since the Johnny Gosch case, I've been doing some reading. Fleet White (I know he was cleared) has been implicated in a porn/sex slave ring. He and Pricilla had every reason to be jealous of John and Patsy. All the Ramseys ate at the Whites. Pricilla even made a special plate of cracked crab for JonBenet. Maybe ALL of their food contained a time released sedative. That could account for both their not hearing anything and their strange behavior afterward. Have you ever had something truly horrible happen to you. Your brain naturally captures it almost frame by frame. There was so much they didn't remember.

There probably was someone (John Karr-ish) already in the house when the Ramseys returned. I am guessing there was more than one. They were smart and careful. They wrote the ransom note as a hoot. Something to murky the waters, perhaps. They knew exactly when the Ramseys would be home. One of the White's called them.

Everyone goes to sleep. Fleet enters the house. JonBenet loved Mr Mom and trusted him. He said he has a Christmas surprise. Be real quiet and I will give you pineapple! Then the surprise in the basement.

Once she was down there, the Karr-ish characters took over. One for the actual work with the garrote and the other filming it. They heard something...maybe the scream. It wasn't JonBenet but they knew they had to get out of there. She wasn't dying easily, so they grabbed a flashlight to get it over with.

I truly believe that there is a film or pics of the murder out there somewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if Lacy is still hoping to smoke out some of these with her arrest of Karr. Hoping to make people squirm and crack.

Just a theory.

[Magnolia01]

REPLY: I am forced to admit that the killer lived in the house mainly because the theory of an outside intruder makes no sense and does not fit the facts. I have seen a comparison of Patsy's handwriting to the ransom note (somewhere there is a link to it on this board) and I found the similarities compelling. I can see why some think she wrote the note. I am not an expert on handwriting, but so do I.

Despite the lack of motive, and lack of any evidence of any previous violence by a parent on JBR, and despite not being able to explain exactly what happened that led to JBR's death, I think Patsy is responsible.

I think Sherlock Holmes said something about "when all the possible explanations have been proven wrong, then the only thing left, no matter how improbable, is the answer." That kind of fits JBR's murder for me. [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks!! I too am leaning towards it being SOMEONE living in that house. I'm just so confused as to which "someone" think it could be. I've read that note over and over, and looked at the handwriting comparisons......seems plausible to me that either JR or PR wrote it really. I do think it was a cover up for someone in the family. Guess I should say at this point I've not discounted Burke's (the brother) involvement either.

There are only a few reasonable explanations as to why they lawyered up so quickly. Fear of LE for some reason? or fear that someone in the family did the deed?

[Magnolia01]

Originally posted by paperbackreader
My theory is that this was the deed of someone outside the family, and he's either incarerated for completely different type of crime today or dead.

Are you thinking John Karr? Still a bit on the fence with him.

[rosebud]

Thanks!! I too am leaning towards it being SOMEONE living in that house. I'm just so confused as to which "someone" think it could be. I've read that note over and over, and looked at the handwriting comparisons......seems plausible to me that either JR or PR wrote it really. I do think it was a cover up for someone in the family. Guess I should say at this point I've not discounted Burke's (the brother) involvement either.

There are only a few reasonable explanations as to why they lawyered up so quickly. Fear of LE for some reason? or fear that someone in the family did the deed? [/B][/QUOTE]


REPLY: When I decided that Burke, a nine year old boy, could not have withstood questioning alone on the day his sister was found nor while being questioned alone the following month nor being questioned alone about six months later, I ruled out Burke as the killer, and also ruled out another family member being in the house undetected by police that night. I don't think Burke would have been able to keep their presence a secret. I think Burke's brother and sister were in Atlanta just as police believe they were.

JMO, and some disagree with that. But I think John R would have made sure Burke was not available to the police if he had something incriminating to say.

[Magnolia01]

Thanks lost indie......interesting theory for sure! I won't flame you for that and hope noone else does :)

That's kind of why I wanted a new thread as to who believes what, without the flaming and bashing. I believe everyone on this site has at least a good idea or two that fits into the puzzle and I'm just trying to extract it all and see if I can come up with a theory that fits.

I think it would be helpful to have a "sticky" thread with each persons theory and a link or links that explain why they believe what they do. It would make reading alot easier you know "the facts, just the facts" without the ensuing arguments;) There are some smart people around here!

[irishlady]

Originally posted by docg
Here's my theory: http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1244&forum=DCForumID61

docG what an excellent theory,i found it compelling.here's mine for what it's worth.
Patsy is woken by jb as she has wet her bed again...patsy is very tired from all the Christmas festivities and she's had a couple glasses of wine at the white's party...she also has to be up early next day so she's not in a very good mood when jb wakes her...she takes the little girl to the bathroom to clean her up,probably half dragging her there,she pushes her to sit her on a chair/toilet seat...jb slips and bangs her head...panic ensues cos patsy's sure she's killed her baby...enter jb...what to do ...what to do...ok cover up....my reason for blaming patsy is (a)a gut feeling that i've had for ten years now and (b)i cannot get away from the handwriting it's just too like p's ...jmo

[Magnolia01]

Irishlady....thanks for that perspective.

I've always wondered about that head injury too. Whether it came before or after strangulation noone seems to really know and the ME didn't say. I saw the autopsy photo of this poor child's skull :( and was amazed at the size of that fracture. It makes sense to me that an accident of some sort would have caused the initial injury and rendered JB unconscious. All the other pieces fit into place with this theory. I'm still on the fence on WHO fractured her skull though :confused: