Take the IDI & RDI consistancy challenge ! [Archive] - Page 2

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by lucky13
Way to go Wally!! Thank you for starting a thread that I've many times considered starting myself.

Athena, You say that JB was struggling & attempted to remove the cord from her neck?? Why aren't there scratches on her neck where she was trying to get that cord off then?
-Unless the Ramseys NEVER read the newspaper & NEVER watched their local news....they would know that there had been a LOT of local robberies recently. Why take a chance, at Christmas time, when you have Cmas presents, other valuables, & 2 small children to protect? Plus, he admits to breaking the basement window previously- leaving a free entry for a robber. Was he really that stupid or naive? I doubt it, he was running a billion dollar business.
-The pineapple...whether it was pineapple or some other fruit( it was pineapple!! c'mon) it was still there, alone, away from the cracked crab, etc. that she had eaten earlier. If it was all eaten at the same time, it would all be digested at the same time. (right?) - IMO, it was just a slip-up by the Ramseys- forgetting to remove it before the investigation started. "I don't know, I can't remember"- famous words of guilty persons.....

Some people are smart in one way and not in others. Some people are very naive about some things about not about others. Crab digests much faster than fruit or veggies because we have many enzymes for animal products but none for cellulose.

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

If that had been the case, the coroner would have noted & notated MORE than he did. He specifically identified what was in the upper portion of her intestine as belonging to the fruit/vegetable family.

I hope you realize that CRAB does not belong in the fruit/veggie category.

Bottom line - any IDI theory MUST answer the question of how she ate something in the fruit/veggie family - whether you want to claim it is pineapple or anything else - when it was not ingested at the party held at the White's home. We know she ate cracked crab & shrimp there. We also know the cracked crab & shrimp was eaten long enough before she died that it was no longer present in her stomach or the upper portion of her small intestine (where the pineapple was found).

And as soon as you can answer when she ate it - you will recognize that the story her parents claimed - how she fell asleep in the vehicle & was carried to bed still asleep - is not plausible. She DID EAT something that was not served at the Christmas party.

You can't conveniently ignore the facts when they don't support the theory. No matter how enamored you may personally be of the parents.

MOO

Enamored with the parents. That is a very strange thing to say. I do not believe that they killed their child. It has nothing to do with them as people. Other than the fact that it makes no sense. Children beaten to death in a fit of rage are usually much younger, there are previous signs of abuse, and there is no sexual staging involved. This case is strange to the extreme but, just because I cannot answer every aspect does not mean the parents did it.

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

And that isn't kind of suspicious? Not only did they not know what they did or did not own, they also didn't know which light switches turned what on in JB's bedroom...including if the fan had a light kit on it or not. But yet, they are so sure of other facts that support their innocence. They know what they wore to the Whites party, what JB wore there and to bed two nights in a row but nobody knows what Burke wore at any time.
It sure is amazing how they only remember what it is important for them to remember in order for their story to work.

I know what my daughter has worn to bed all week but, not what my son has worn because he dresses himself.

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I have no problem with Meyer's conclusion of cause of death. His autopsy states JonBenet's brain was swollen (sulci narrowed and gyri flattened - that means her brain was pressing up against the inside of her skull), indicating the head wound occurred while she was alive, says there are three layers of pooled blood in her brain, and that the strangulation was the ultimate cause of death.

I agree with all of that. Someone hit her on the head, the head wound had a chance to develop, then someone tied a cord around her neck which strangled her to death.

No, I do not agree. The head wound came when her blood pressure was low. IMO

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

They stun gun people looked at photos....

The coroner looked at her SKIN. Do you really think he was not capable of recognizing BURNS?

I don't think so.

MOO

How many stun gun burns do you think the coroner of Boulder would see in his career??

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Since you RDIs seems to put so much stock in what the ME says/said....I will, too...he believed it was a good possibility those marks were caused by a stun gun...as hard as those photos are to look at...you cannot explain those marks away....as far as the Ramseys reaction to exhuming their daughter's body....you bury a child and then come back to this board and tell me you would do anything different than they did!

Exactly! It really shows me that they are more concerned with their daughter than proving their innocents. I think it is funny how they spent so much time and money trying to find their daughters killer and no one gives them credit whereas in other cases not doing this is the reason another person is suspect. MOO

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by harz

Why not? Stun gun could be a part in staging to point directly against the intruder or if she was stunned before her death, one of Ramsey, probably Patsy, stunned her in rage or for some reasons. Were you surprised Andrea Yates drowned her 5 boys? Maybe Patsy was upset about JB not liking her dolls with strings she got as Christmas gift from Patsy. Maybe something snapped Patsy somehow which may explain why the staging. Or who knows that Burke found the stun gun and used it on JB. IMO

Why? What would make people all the sudden turn into the type of people who would stun gun, slam head, and strangle their daughter? It makes no sense.

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Well we can rule out the parents of Polly Klaas - they both took polygraphs ASAP so the police could move beyond suspecting them & finding the murderer.

Jennifer Wilbanks was certainly not a child, but in the early days of her disappearance from her home (& before we found out she was a runaway bride) - her fiance took a polygraph so the police could move past investigating him as the cause for her disappearance.

John Walsh & his wife took one in less than 12 hours so they could be eliminated as a suspects.

Elizabeth Smart's father took a polygraph within 6 days when she was abducted from her home so HE could be eliminated as a suspect.

Jessica Lunsford's father took a voice stress test & a polygraph so HE could be eliminated as a suspect.

David Smith took a polygraph within 2 days after his little sons went missing so HE could be eliminated as a suspect.

Danielle van Dams parents both took polygraphs in less than a week's time so the police could eliminate them as suspects.

And the list goes on of how INNOCENT parents & other parties in the home behave to help the police in murder and/or abduction crime investigations.

Why in court tv world do polygraphs mean so much when in real life they mean nothing. I would not take a polygraph especially if I was innocent.

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

Does the name Scott Peterson mean nothing to you? What was his precursive behavior?

How about Jeffrey MacDonald? What was his precursive behavior?

Your theory that precursive behavior MUST be present in the murderer is without merit. There are plenty of killers who have murdered their own spouses and/or children & half of their friends, family & acquaintances have fallen over themselves with the shock & disbelief. We read about & see the protests of "but s/he couldn't have done that - s/he was a perfect spouse/parent."

Now - back to you - your turn to name a case where an intruder broke in, murdered someone & left the corpse in the home, wrote out some idiotic ransom note, the parents or other family members were there, they refused to cooperate with the police investigation AND when it was all said & done the parents/family members turned out to be innocent as the day is long.

We'll all be as old as Methuselah before you can find anything remotely similar to the cock-and-bull story presented by Camp Ramsey of intruder/kidnapper/pedophile/murderer/revenge-seeking perp.

MOO

Umm, SP was having an affair and there is too much precursive behavior to list for JM without going into OT IMO

nuisanceposter

10-18-2006, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by FurthurBB

No, I do not agree. The head wound came when her blood pressure was low. IMO

How do you know that?

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Ames

I am not Athena....obviously....but, I think that the IDI folks don't believe our theory, because they cannot believe (for some reason) that the Ramsey's killed their own child, even though...it happens (sadly) time and time again. IMO

I do not believe that the Ramseys did it and I know for a fact that parents all over the world kill their children every day. I mean come on prohibition against infanticide is not even a human universal. It has nothing to do with not being able to believe it. It has to do with the staging of the crime leaving clues that we do not understand. It has to do with reasonable doubt that they would kill their daughter in a rage and then stage something like this. It would take a disgusting person to do that. It makes no sense to me. There must be something that we are missing.

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

How do you know that?

I do not know since I was not the one examining the body but, the autopsy report leads me to believe it. IMO

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Ames

And I will say this YET again...I think that it was something that happened out of rage. One of the Ramsey's snapped...I do not think that they intentionally set out to kill their child. IMO

then it would be extremely a-typical. A normal parent snaps and kills their child then goes to extreme and digusting lengths to cover it up when parents who abuse their children regularly and then lose control wrap them up lovingly and put them to bed? I am not saying it is impossible but, it is highly improbable. It does not add up in mind. IMO

thewhitewitch1

10-18-2006, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by FurthurBB

Exactly! It really shows me that they are more concerned with their daughter than proving their innocents. I think it is funny how they spent so much time and money trying to find their daughters killer and no one gives them credit whereas in other cases not doing this is the reason another person is suspect. MOO

What you percieve as spending time and money trying to find their daughters killer, I percieve as spending time (how much time did they actually spend) and money hiring people to search for a phantom intruder to point the finger of guilt away from them.
How does not exhuming her body show that they are more concerned about their daughter? Exhuming her may have given more clues to the murderer...which I believe is exactly why they didn't want her exhumed. IMO
Also, yes, we take stock in what the ME has to say and when what has been said is stated as a fact, we believe it. A speculation is not a fact. The original ME did not think it was from a stun gun, did he? And he is the only ME that saw the actual body and not a picture.
I will say again...if there had not been the big rush to bury JB, her body could have been studied more closely and maybe the stun gun theory could have been proven for a fact or excluded entirely.
IMO

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Harz, I really don't understand what you're getting at here....we have flashlights, too...and on the rare occasions that we need one...my hubby makes the same comment John did...the batteries are probably dead.....so, what's the point you are trying to make, cause I don't get it? :seeya:

LOL! My husband says that every time the power goes out and he is usually right.

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Why would it be "stupid" to deny knowledge of the pineapple? Couldn't it be characterized as prudent? They'd been caught in a contradition. They said JB was asleep before the got home and was carried to bed. Then the police mention the pineapple. Like most people, the Rs weren't foresnics buffs and hadn't considered the pineapple. They could have made up a different story - such as she got up in the night and ate pineapple, but then there would have been more questions - did you hear her get up? Why did you leave the pineapple out on the table? If you didn't leave it out, JB would have had to get it out hereself, why are JB's prints not on the bowl ?

All in all, it just easier not to remember serving pineapple in a bowl that belongs to you and happense to be full of pineapple, and happens to be sitting on the family table.

No, the Rs aren't stupid at all.

I still think someone could have served that pineapple the day everyone was over looking for JB. IMO

LadyFisher

10-18-2006, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by FurthurBB

I still think someone could have served that pineapple the day everyone was over looking for JB. IMO I was thinking JB and Burke might have gotten a bite of pineapple at home before they left for the party..I'm certain those kids helped themselves to whatever was in their frig, just like all kids do! :seeya:

LadyFisher

10-18-2006, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by FurthurBB

No, I do not agree. The head wound came when her blood pressure was low. IMO I have to agree with that, I do think the strangulation came first, the petechial hemorrhages in the eyelids, surface of each lung, & the anterior of the heart convince me...I think the head blow was to finish her off....it was a cruel vicious murder! imho

LindaA

10-18-2006, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by FurthurBB

I do not believe that the Ramseys did it and I know for a fact that parents all over the world kill their children every day. I mean come on prohibition against infanticide is not even a human universal. It has nothing to do with not being able to believe it. It has to do with the staging of the crime leaving clues that we do not understand. It has to do with reasonable doubt that they would kill their daughter in a rage and then stage something like this. It would take a disgusting person to do that. It makes no sense to me. There must be something that we are missing.

:beer: Yes!! Finally!!

MyrDawn

10-18-2006, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by FurthurBB

No, I do not agree. The head wound came when her blood pressure was low. IMO

That's what I believe, too. Either she was dead, or very likely her heart rate had slowed down because she was very near death from strangling. Otherwise, I believe the contusion on her scalp would have bled much more. As it was, Meyer, who did the autopsy, didn't even notice any blood there at first. He noted in the autopsy report:

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

No scalp trauma is identified. The external auditory canals are patent and free of blood.

Then he later amended it with Upon reflection of the scalp there is found to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area. This encompasses an area measuring approximately 7x4 inches.

IMO, it would be expected if a blow that hard came while her heart was beating normally, there should have been a lot of blood on her scalp and hair...enough that it would have obvious right away, without further "reflection" that necessitated him ammending the autopsy report.

I've seen many head wounds, most of them much less serious than JonBenet's, and have never seen one with so little blood.

MOO

harz

10-18-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

That's what I believe, too. Either she was dead, or very likely her heart rate had slowed down because she was very near death from strangling. Otherwise, I believe the contusion on her scalp would have bled much more. As it was, Meyer, who did the autopsy, didn't even notice any blood there at first. He noted in the autopsy report:

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

No scalp trauma is identified. The external auditory canals are patent and free of blood.

Then he later amended it with Upon reflection of the scalp there is found to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area. This encompasses an area measuring approximately 7x4 inches.

IMO, it would be expected if a blow that hard came while her heart was beating normally, there should have been a lot of blood on her scalp and hair...enough that it would have obvious right away, without further "reflection" that necessitated him ammending the autopsy report.

I've seen many head wounds, most of them much less serious than JonBenet's, and have never seen one with so little blood.

MOO

Umm, if JB was already killed by garrote at first, then how did she got head blow? Perhaps, she was dropped on floor or stairs while she was being carried or dragged. Strange, if she was already dead, then why head blow, a mercy killing? If head blow was an accident after her death, then the person wasn’t strong enough to handle or carry her. Just a thought. JMO

nuisanceposter

10-18-2006, 01:40 PM

I used to think the head wound came after JonBenet was being strangled, but now I'm not so sure.

I've heard it theorized that there's such little blood because she was in shock from the head wound, and her heart had slowed down because she was about to enter a coma state. I've heard sometimes head wounds just don't bleed as would be expected to. There actually is quite a bit of blood, three layers, one of them covering almost the entire hemisphere.

The main reason I think the head wound came first, and I can ferret out links if needed, is because the head wound is fully developed, and that takes ten minutes to an hour, possibly two, to develop. Her brain was swollen to the point of pressing up against the inside of her skull. Her brain showed temporal lobe bruising, as in shaken baby syndrome.

I don't think the head wound would have been as developed as it was if it had occurred as JonBenet was being strangled and at the point of death. Its development shows the head wound occurred when JonBenet's heart was beating and that her heart continued to beat afterwards, for at least ten minutes.

I don't believe the strangler was using EA on JonBenet, there isn't enough damage to her neck, and there are no defensive wounds on her hands, arms, or feet, as if she never struggled against her strangler at all - I take that to mean she was already unconscious from the head wound. Strangulation victims often bite their tongue and the insides of their cheeks - none of that on JB. We know she was strangled face-down because her undies and long johns are urine-stained in the crotch and in the front, and that would only happen if JonBenet was lying on her belly.

So how is someone strangling her face-down with no signs of a struggle from her on her neck, tongue, cheeks, hands, arms, and feet? She's already unconscious from the head wound.

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I used to think the head wound came after JonBenet was being strangled, but now I'm not so sure.

I've heard it theorized that there's such little blood because she was in shock from the head wound, and her heart had slowed down because she was about to enter a coma state. I've heard sometimes head wounds just don't bleed as would be expected to. There actually is quite a bit of blood, three layers, one of them covering almost the entire hemisphere.

The main reason I think the head wound came first, and I can ferret out links if needed, is because the head wound is fully developed, and that takes ten minutes to an hour, possibly two, to develop. Her brain was swollen to the point of pressing up against the inside of her skull. Her brain showed temporal lobe bruising, as in shaken baby syndrome.

I don't think the head wound would have been as developed as it was if it had occurred as JonBenet was being strangled and at the point of death. Its development shows the head wound occurred when JonBenet's heart was beating and that her heart continued to beat afterwards, for at least ten minutes.

I don't believe the strangler was using EA on JonBenet, there isn't enough damage to her neck, and there are no defensive wounds on her hands, arms, or feet, as if she never struggled against her strangler at all - I take that to mean she was already unconscious from the head wound. Strangulation victims often bite their tongue and the insides of their cheeks - none of that on JB. We know she was strangled face-down because her undies and long johns are urine-stained in the crotch and in the front, and that would only happen if JonBenet was lying on her belly.

So how is someone strangling her face-down with no signs of a struggle from her on her neck, tongue, cheeks, hands, arms, and feet? She's already unconscious from the head wound.

If she was going into shock that would be from a loss of blood, low blood pressure causes shock. There was not enough blood loss from the head wound to cause shock imo.

MyrDawn

10-18-2006, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by harz

Umm, if JB was already killed by garrote at first, then how did she got head blow? Perhaps, she was dropped on floor or stairs while she was being carried or dragged. Strange, if she was already dead, then why head blow, a mercy killing? If head blow was an accident after her death, then the person wasn’t strong enough to handle or carry her. Just a thought. JMO

The head blow was on purpose was consistant with a blunt object being struck very hard on her head, rather than a glancing blow from her head striking a stationary object, such as a floor, toilet or bathtub. It was a VERY forcefull blow. It was a blow hard enough to fell a 300 pound adult. She'd have had to fall or be dropped from very high for a blow like that to be caused, or hit extremely hard by a very strong adult in order to strike an object with enough force to do that much damage to her head. Hard enough to leave a hand or fist print where she was struck, IMO.

Based on the evidence, I think the blow was intentionally given, after she was strangled, when she was dead or very near death, to make certain she was dead. Not a mercy killing or an accident. Just plain murder.

MOO

nuisanceposter

10-18-2006, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by FurthurBB

If she was going into shock that would be from a loss of blood, low blood pressure causes shock. There was not enough blood loss from the head wound to cause shock imo.

That answers shock...but what about there being no signs of a struggle? Why wasn't she fighting her killer at all? And don't tell me because her wrists were tied - those restraints wouldn't have held her sufficiently, and there is no bruising at all on her wrists indicating she struggled against the restraints. Her feet were also free. Why didn't she kick the crap out of whoever was choking her to death? Why is there such little damage to the interior of her neck, as if she just laid there while she was being strangled? What about the lack of damage to the inside of her mouth?

nuisanceposter

10-18-2006, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

The head blow was on purpose was consistant with a blunt object being struck very hard on her head, rather than a glancing blow from her head striking a stationary object, such as a floor, toilet or bathtub. It was a VERY forcefull blow. It was a blow hard enough to fell a 300 pound adult. She'd have had to fall or be dropped from very high for a blow like that to be caused, or hit extremely hard by a very strong adult in order to strike an object with enough force to do that much damage to her head. Hard enough to leave a hand or fist print where she was struck, IMO.

<snip>

MOO

What about leverage? Isn't it possible the person who attacked JonBenet's head was a grown adult, and as such, much taller than her and able to bring down an instrument at a greater velocity than it would have if it were two adults?

MyrDawn

10-18-2006, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

That answers shock...but what about there being no signs of a struggle? Why wasn't she fighting her killer at all? And don't tell me because her wrists were tied - those restraints wouldn't have held her sufficiently, and there is no bruising at all on her wrists indicating she struggled against the restraints. Her feet were also free. Why didn't she kick the crap out of whoever was choking her to death? Why is there such little damage to the interior of her neck, as if she just laid there while she was being strangled? What about the lack of damage to the inside of her mouth?

How hard would it be for a 150 or 200 pound adult to push am unsuspecting 45 pound 6 year old girl to the ground, straddle her, and strangle her? And who says she didn't kick the crap out of her killer? He may have had many bruises.

Victims of strangulation don't always bite the insides of their mouth.

IMO, the blow was a coup de grace.

MOO

MyrDawn

10-18-2006, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

What about leverage? Isn't it possible the person who attacked JonBenet's head was a grown adult, and as such, much taller than her and able to bring down an instrument at a greater velocity than it would have if it were two adults?

I definitely believe it was an adult that killed JonBenet. But, the blow itself was hard enough to fell a 300 pound adult. It was much harder than was needed to stike down a 45 pound child.

nuisanceposter

10-18-2006, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

How hard would it be for a 150 or 200 pound adult to push am unsuspecting 45 pound 6 year old girl to the ground, straddle her, and strangle her? And who says she didn't kick the crap out of her killer? He may have had many bruises.

Victims of strangulation don't always bite the insides of their mouth.

IMO, the blow was a coup de grace.

MOO

But JonBenet didn't have defensive bruises. If she had kicked the crap out of her killer, fighting for her life and the burning desire to catch another breath, her feet would be bruised from the force of it. Probably her legs, too, at least down by the shins. You'd also think she'd at least be trying to push away, strike out at the killer, claw at her throat (and we know she didn't claw at her throat because there wasn't any of her skin under her nails) causing bruises to her hands and/or arms.

They don't always bite the insides of their mouths and tongue, but that's still a standard. They can't help it when they're struggling in survival mode to draw another breath.

There's also very little damage to the interior of her neck - hyoid bone intact, no damage to thyroid and cricoid cartileges, no hemorrhaging of the strap muscles, larnyx intact. If she had struggled, the inside of her neck would indicate so.

I think she was unconscious when strangled.

MissOtisRegrets

10-18-2006, 02:33 PM

How to cover up the accidental murder of your daughter:

1. hit her again, if you're not sure she's actually dead (don't bother with making a garrotte, particularly if you've never made one before)

2. open the refridgerator door and place her body in front of it

3. make sure back door and storm door are unlocked

4. unlock one basement window

5. go back to bed

MyrDawn

10-18-2006, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

But JonBenet didn't have defensive bruises. If she had kicked the crap out of her killer, fighting for her life and the burning desire to catch another breath, her feet would be bruised from the force of it. Probably her legs, too, at least down by the shins. You'd also think she'd at least be trying to push away, strike out at the killer, claw at her throat (and we know she didn't claw at her throat because there wasn't any of her skin under her nails) causing bruises to her hands and/or arms.

They don't always bite the insides of their mouths and tongue, but that's still a standard. They can't help it when they're struggling in survival mode to draw another breath.

There's also very little damage to the interior of her neck - hyoid bone intact, no damage to thyroid and cricoid cartileges, no hemorrhaging of the strap muscles, larnyx intact. If she had struggled, the inside of her neck would indicate so.

I think she was unconscious when strangled.

If she was on her stomach, I think the only part of her that coule reach her attacker might be her heels. But, depending on how he was positioned, they might not have reached him with enough force to cause bruising on her heels.

As for her hands, it's possible her hands were beind her back using the cord that was found there. It would be enough to keep her from doing much with her hands, if they were behind her back.

I wonder if that garrotte was fashioned in a way that it could be tightened with one hand, while her attacker used his other hand to subdue her. As you can see, I know nothing about garrottes!

I just know it's much harder to defend oneself, or flail around in any way, when your on your stomach, than it is when you're on your back, and from the position of the paintbrush handle in the garrotte, it certainly seems as though she would have been on her stomach.

By the way, don't laugh tooooo hard, but I just got on my stomach down on the floor to see how far I could reach with my hands and feet. My little girl decided it looked fun, so she jumped rather hard and unexpectedly right on top of me to play horsie. :eek:

MOO

thewhitewitch1

10-18-2006, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

If she was on her stomach, I think the only part of her that coule reach her attacker might be her heels. But, depending on how he was positioned, they might not have reached him with enough force to cause bruising on her heels.

As for her hands, it's possible her hands were beind her back using the cord that was found there. It would be enough to keep her from doing much with her hands, if they were behind her back.

I wonder if that garrotte was fashioned in a way that it could be tightened with one hand, while her attacker used his other hand to subdue her. As you can see, I know nothing about garrottes!

I just know it's much harder to defend oneself, or flail around in any way, when your on your stomach, than it is when you're on your back, and from the position of the paintbrush handle in the garrotte, it certainly seems as though she would have been on her stomach.

By the way, don't laugh tooooo hard, but I just got on my stomach down on the floor to see how far I could reach with my hands and feet. My little girl decided it looked fun, so she jumped rather hard and unexpectedly right on top of me to play horsie. :eek:

MOO

If her hands were tied behind her back, how did they come to be over her head? You can't get your hands over your head if they are tied behind you. I question whether her hands were ever even tied together. Along with JRs many other inconsistancies, he's stated that the ties were tight; that he tried to get the cord off her hands but couldn't; that he untied her left hand and we all know that only her right wrist still had the cord tied on it when he brought her upstairs. Since he is the only one who actually saw her at the murder scene, it's hard to know which of his versions is the truth.
I think she was unconscious and near death too when she was strangled and that her hands were only tied after the fact to add to the staging. IMO

harz

10-18-2006, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
How to cover up the accidental murder of your daughter:

1. hit her again, if you're not sure she's actually dead (don't bother with making a garrotte, particularly if you've never made one before)

2. open the refridgerator door and place her body in front of it

3. make sure back door and storm door are unlocked

4. unlock one basement window

5. go back to bed

I dont think one or both of Ramseys ever went back to bed, unless one wasn't involved. JMO

thewhitewitch1

10-18-2006, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
How to cover up the accidental murder of your daughter:

1. hit her again, if you're not sure she's actually dead (don't bother with making a garrotte, particularly if you've never made one before)

2. open the refridgerator door and place her body in front of it

3. make sure back door and storm door are unlocked

4. unlock one basement window

5. go back to bed

You forgot #6...get busted. Their staging and cover up were a lot more well thought out than your scenerio. Just curious....why open refridgerator door and put her body in front of it?

thewhitewitch1

10-18-2006, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I was thinking JB and Burke might have gotten a bite of pineapple at home before they left for the party..I'm certain those kids helped themselves to whatever was in their frig, just like all kids do! :seeya:

Then why the huge denial from Patsy? You mean to tell me she didn't even know what foods they had in their house? Where are JBs prints on the bowl and why are Patsys on it?
I'm sorry but she didn't even allow for the possibility of the kids getting the pineapple themselves...she denied everything about that bowl entirely except that it was hers.
As someone said already, if pineapple was served with or on anything at the Whites, I am certain someone who attended that party would remember it.
You can't deny the pineapple if you are serious about trying to find the answer to the murder. IMO

MissOtisRegrets

10-18-2006, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

You forgot #6...get busted. Their staging and cover up were a lot more well thought out than your scenerio. Just curious....why open refridgerator door and put her body in front of it?

Because it would be assumed that JonBenet had come downstairs in the middle of the night for a snack and had surprised a burglar.

harz

10-18-2006, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Because it would be assumed that JonBenet had come downstairs in the middle of the night for a snack and had surprised a burglar.

Pretty unlikely since JB was 6 yrs old. My daughter never gone downstairs in middle of night for a midnight snack. I read somewhere, housekeeper said JB afraid of going down alone or in dark. If she was really hungary, she would woke up her parents. She had plenty food at Fleet, so can't see JB going downstairs alone for a snack in middle of night. JMO

MissOtisRegrets

10-18-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

You forgot #6...get busted. Their staging and cover up were a lot more well thought out than your scenerio. Just curious....why open refridgerator door and put her body in front of it?

Maybe having her in front of an open refridgerator is too "stagey". IMO she should be at the bottom of the spiral stairs facing as though she were about to go back upstairs.

MissOtisRegrets

10-18-2006, 03:30 PM

harz

10-18-2006, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

OK. We'll have her under the tree looking at her new doll. I think it was the basement she was afraid to go to alone.

Alternatively, she can be in the hall on her own floor. On her way to Burke's room.

Maybe, but how does fibers from cord found in her room fit in then?

MissOtisRegrets

10-18-2006, 03:38 PM

My point is no one would cover an accident with the exotica employed in this "cover-up". Surprising a burglar and getting knocked on the head with his flashlight is the way to go. Burglaries of homes are frequent at Christmas. There was no history of prior abuse in this family, so none would be suspected. And it is because there is no history of prior abuse in this family that the popular theory is that it began with an accident. There is, also, no indication whatsoever of an accident in this case, so the accident, itself, has to be covered up with the murder. It is too much IMO. It was murder pure and simple IMO.

MissOtisRegrets

10-18-2006, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by harz

Maybe, but how does fibers from cord found in her room fit in then?

There wouldn't be any in my cover-up. My cover-up is very clean. No frills.

MyrDawn

10-18-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

If her hands were tied behind her back, how did they come to be over her head? You can't get your hands over your head if they are tied behind you. I question whether her hands were ever even tied together. Along with JRs many other inconsistancies, he's stated that the ties were tight; that he tried to get the cord off her hands but couldn't; that he untied her left hand and we all know that only her right wrist still had the cord tied on it when he brought her upstairs. Since he is the only one who actually saw her at the murder scene, it's hard to know which of his versions is the truth.
I think she was unconscious and near death too when she was strangled and that her hands were only tied after the fact to add to the staging. IMO

The intruder could have put her hands over her head after she was dead. Take a look at the pictures of the cord on her right wrist. It looks like it's tight enough to depress her shirt sleeve and disallow for it to be slipped off over her hand. And, the knots in the cord on that wrist don't look all that easy to untie. Maybe John was able to until the left wrist, but not the right one. I don't imagine he wanted to delay too long before bringing her upstairs, in case there was any chance she was still alive and could be helped.

Or maybe the intruder untied her left wrist in order to bring her hands over her head from behind her back.

Warning, graphic autopsy photos:
http://zyberzoom.com/JonBenet.html

MOO

MyrDawn

10-18-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Maybe having her in front of an open refridgerator is too "stagey". IMO she should be at the bottom of the spiral stairs facing as though she were about to go back upstairs.

Yes, they could easily have just heaved her over the railing to the bottom of the spiral stairs. No need to hit her again. It would have looked like she woke up and ended falling on her own.

Kids do strange things during the night. When my son was about 2, he got up during the night and got a box of peanut butter Captian Crunch out of the cupboard, then climed into bed with my daughter and tried to "feed" it to her. She slept throught the whole thing. I found him curled up in her bed in the morning with her, and she had peanut butter Captian Crunch smashed all over her face and hair. She hadn't a clue how it got there!

Our neighbor girl managed to get out of their house during the night when she was about 3. Luckily, she went to a neighbors house and started crying. Her crying woke them up, so they found her and safely return her home. I shudder to think what might have happened!

cantstandnuts

10-18-2006, 04:36 PM

cantstandnuts

10-18-2006, 04:37 PM

harz

10-18-2006, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

She barely ate at the Fleet's according to what posters here have said.

If she was hungary, that explains the pineapple found left in her stomach from a bowl on dining table with Burke & Patsy fingerprints on it. Strange if it was actually IDI, waiting all night for JB to get hungary, that she would need to come down to kitchen, after wrote the ransom note which IDIs believe it was written before assaulting & murdering JB instead of going into JB's room to grab her. JMO

LadyFisher

10-18-2006, 05:43 PM

LadyFisher

10-18-2006, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

There wouldn't be any in my cover-up. My cover-up is very clean. No frills. I like your cover-up better than the Ramseys...at least you didn't have to run all over the city looking for DNA from an unidentified white male!

MyrDawn

10-18-2006, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I like your cover-up better than the Ramseys...at least you didn't have to run all over the city looking for DNA from an unidentified white male!

Or write a 2 and a half page ransom note, or try to find the one piece of tape in your house that wasn't used on ANYTHING else, and for which there was no roll left in your house, or break a basement window then say your broke it months before, yet forget to unlock a door and even say that you checked the doors and they were all locked, or forget to change your clothes before calling 911, or lie about pineapple for no earthly reason...

...whew, I'm out of breath! :D

Treat cover-up, Miss O!

MissOtisRegrets

10-18-2006, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I like your cover-up better than the Ramseys...at least you didn't have to run all over the city looking for DNA from an unidentified white male!

:lol: Always a plus!!! Yes, LadyFisher, it is economical as well as effective. Which is probably why it is the most popular. And it takes under ten minutes. No staying up all night faking stun gun marks with potholder looms and jewelry.

Go Cards!!! Bring that Championship home (if possible before the Project Runway finale starts)!

TIA

:seeya:

MissO

Louisadelmar

10-18-2006, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by harz

Pretty unlikely since JB was 6 yrs old. My daughter never gone downstairs in middle of night for a midnight snack. I read somewhere, housekeeper said JB afraid of going down alone or in dark. If she was really hungary, she would woke up her parents. She had plenty food at Fleet, so can't see JB going downstairs alone for a snack in middle of night. JMO

I think it was a babysitter who made the afraid of the basement comment. Patsy says she wasn't afraid in one of the interviews. Since Burke and his friends played with his train down there I would be surprised if JonBenet had a problem with the basement. BUt if I were deciding how to cover up an accidental killing I would go with the accident on the spiral stairs. Off the balcony would be more difficult because of the necessity of prints on the doorknob and footprints on the balcony etc.

I don't think I have ever read a synopsis of what she ate at the White's. We know Priscilla made up the plate but not if JonBenet ate it or preferred to play and just snack. I have also wondered if they had fresh pineapple in their fridge and if Daphne and JonBenet could have eaten some of it on their own.

LadyFisher

10-18-2006, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

:lol: Always a plus!!! Yes, LadyFisher, it is economical as well as effective. Which is probably why it is the most popular. And it takes under ten minutes. No staying up all night faking stun gun marks with potholder looms and jewelry.

Go Cards!!! Bring that Championship home (if possible before the Project Runway finale starts)!

TIA

:seeya:

MissO And you didn't have to watch reruns of all those movies to just remember the lines of the kidnappers! ;) Yes, I am in agreement! GO CARDINALS! WOOHOO!!!

Athena

10-18-2006, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

:lol: Always a plus!!! Yes, LadyFisher, it is economical as well as effective. Which is probably why it is the most popular. And it takes under ten minutes. No staying up all night faking stun gun marks with potholder looms and jewelry.

Go Cards!!! Bring that Championship home (if possible before the Project Runway finale starts)!

TIA

:seeya:

MissO

O/T -- Long Islander here!!!!

[B][B]GO METS GO!!

LadyFisher

10-18-2006, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Athena

O/T -- Long Islander here!!!!

[B][B]GO METS GO!! Did you notice in MissO's cover up, she didn't even have to buy a cheap bottle of wine for a poor homeless man's pubic hair! He got the best deal imho! :chicken:

WallyCleaver

10-18-2006, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Or write a 2 and a half page ransom note, or try to find the one piece of tape in your house that wasn't used on ANYTHING else, and for which there was no roll left in your house, or break a basement window then say your broke it months before, yet forget to unlock a door and even say that you checked the doors and they were all locked, or forget to change your clothes before calling 911, or lie about pineapple for no earthly reason...

...whew, I'm out of breath! :D

Treat cover-up, Miss O!

The piece of tape probably was used on something else.

Athena

10-18-2006, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

The piece of tape probably was used on something else.

I still wonder about that tape as well. According to the BPD they believe that tape was placed there as part of the framing after death and showed a perfect lip print, yet they also said her mouth was covered in mucous -- so how it would stick after the fact? And if as you said it was used on something else the "sticky" quality would have been compromised as well. :confused:

Louisadelmar

10-18-2006, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

The piece of tape probably was used on something else.

But it had to have been put on the "something else" fairly recently bacause of the manufacture date.

harz

10-18-2006, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

I think it was a babysitter who made the afraid of the basement comment. Patsy says she wasn't afraid in one of the interviews. Since Burke and his friends played with his train down there I would be surprised if JonBenet had a problem with the basement. BUt if I were deciding how to cover up an accidental killing I would go with the accident on the spiral stairs. Off the balcony would be more difficult because of the necessity of prints on the doorknob and footprints on the balcony etc.

I don't think I have ever read a synopsis of what she ate at the White's. We know Priscilla made up the plate but not if JonBenet ate it or preferred to play and just snack. I have also wondered if they had fresh pineapple in their fridge and if Daphne and JonBenet could have eaten some of it on their own.
Well I could have the cover up done differently, but I am not Ramseys or if I could do better at the last minute. Too late for many things that either Ramseys or intruder cannot undo. I was surprised that intruder didn't cover JB's bed & pillows with comformer & sheets them making it look like JB was still in bed in case Ramseys woke up to check JB room.
http://crimeshots.com/BEDjbr.jpeg
If it was RDI, then they simply didn't thought about that. It just strange if intruder spent a length amount of time in the house, including with JB in the basement but he risked leaving her bed uncover without any signs of JB in or on it. If I was intruder, I would be worry if one of Ramseys woke up noticing JB wasn't in bed, and then they would be calling out and searching the house for JB.
Also the blanket in wine cellar that covered JB, I read somewhere that it was took out of dryer that night of JB's death, not from JB's bed, if you see picture again, how come comforter & clothes are still on her bed, the blanket would have be under comforter or clothes as they would be push off to the floor.
About what JB last ate at Fleet, I think it was crab or crab dip, something like that. The body was found after 1pm, then the coroner arrive Ramsey’s house after 8pm, I don’t know what time exactly the autopsy took place, interesting that pineapple didn’t get digested among with other food she ate at Fleet or dissolve enough in the amount of those times, since it came coinciding of that bowl with pineapples on dining table, but of course I don’t believe in coincides. JMO

WallyCleaver

10-18-2006, 08:07 PM

Athena

10-18-2006, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

If it was similar to duct tape it might have plenty of sticky left on it.

Valid point and just want to be clear that was really a question. I know the silver duct tape is very adhesive but the black duct tape (at least the one I'm familiar with) usually loses its adhesiveness after the first use. I don't know what kind of duct tape this was so can't even speak to it - just confusing.

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

That answers shock...but what about there being no signs of a struggle? Why wasn't she fighting her killer at all? And don't tell me because her wrists were tied - those restraints wouldn't have held her sufficiently, and there is no bruising at all on her wrists indicating she struggled against the restraints. Her feet were also free. Why didn't she kick the crap out of whoever was choking her to death? Why is there such little damage to the interior of her neck, as if she just laid there while she was being strangled? What about the lack of damage to the inside of her mouth?

I do not know. That is a question I would like to know but, it does not change the fact that the head blow most likely came after IMO. Perhaps she was incapacitated in some other way.

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

What about leverage? Isn't it possible the person who attacked JonBenet's head was a grown adult, and as such, much taller than her and able to bring down an instrument at a greater velocity than it would have if it were two adults?

Yes, but then we are talking about cold blooded murder. In your mind what would have driven one of her family members to kill her in cold blood?

FurthurBB

10-18-2006, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
My point is no one would cover an accident with the exotica employed in this "cover-up". Surprising a burglar and getting knocked on the head with his flashlight is the way to go. Burglaries of homes are frequent at Christmas. There was no history of prior abuse in this family, so none would be suspected. And it is because there is no history of prior abuse in this family that the popular theory is that it began with an accident. There is, also, no indication whatsoever of an accident in this case, so the accident, itself, has to be covered up with the murder. It is too much IMO. It was murder pure and simple IMO.

I absolutely agree that this was no accident. I think that there was staging but, not to cover up a crime. The staging was more like theater or a movie scene. I think that it might have even left certain clues along with the note. I have never thought it was actually a ransome note.

MyrDawn

10-19-2006, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

The piece of tape probably was used on something else.

When I said wasn't used on anything else, I meant no matching piece of tape was still attached to something else. I guess they bought a piece of duct tape only a couple inches long in the first place, and used it on one thing, then took it off and used it on JonBenet.

Or, do you think they bought a roll of duct tape, used it on several things until the roll was gone, then by the time JonBenet was murdered, everything else in the house was gone that any of the tape had been used on but one item?

MyrDawn

10-19-2006, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by Athena

I still wonder about that tape as well. According to the BPD they believe that tape was placed there as part of the framing after death and showed a perfect lip print, yet they also said her mouth was covered in mucous -- so how it would stick after the fact? And if as you said it was used on something else the "sticky" quality would have been compromised as well. :confused:

Even if it had come from "something else", wouldn't it have originally been on a roll? Do RDI's think that only one item in their house had duct tape on it, and the Ramseys searched the house that night to find one lone little piece of duct tape to use on JonBenet's mouth? Did they run around the house turning over all the picture frames in hope of finding a piece of duct tape on the back of one? :shrug:

WallyCleaver

10-19-2006, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

When I said wasn't used on anything else, I meant no matching piece of tape was still attached to something else. I guess they bought a piece of duct tape only a couple inches long in the first place, and used it on one thing, then took it off and used it on JonBenet.

Or, do you think they bought a roll of duct tape, used it on several things until the roll was gone, then by the time JonBenet was murdered, everything else in the house was gone that any of the tape had been used on but one item?

You're getting really close now. They could have used the tape on various things until the roll was gone. But there could still be several things in the house with tape on them. Why do you think it had to be the last item in the house with any tape on it?

I have a piece of duct tape on the bottom of my keyboard. It holds the battery cover in place. The roll was used up long ago. You wouldn't be able to find the "missing" roll. And yet, there are other things in the house with duct tape on them.

WallyCleaver

10-19-2006, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Even if it had come from "something else", wouldn't it have originally been on a roll? Do RDI's think that only one item in their house had duct tape on it, and the Ramseys searched the house that night to find one lone little piece of duct tape to use on JonBenet's mouth? Did they run around the house turning over all the picture frames in hope of finding a piece of duct tape on the back of one? :shrug:

No, we don't think only one item had duct tape on it. We think the pictures and the American Girl doll and maybe other items had tape on them. The Rs didn't have to hope to find tape, they knew what had tape on it.

sweetcharlotte

10-19-2006, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

No, we don't think only one item had duct tape on it. We think the pictures and the American Girl doll and maybe other items had tape on them. The Rs didn't have to hope to find tape, they knew what had tape on it.

Was tape on these items matched to the tape on JonBenet's mouth?

LadyFisher

10-19-2006, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
My point is no one would cover an accident with the exotica employed in this "cover-up". Surprising a burglar and getting knocked on the head with his flashlight is the way to go. Burglaries of homes are frequent at Christmas. There was no history of prior abuse in this family, so none would be suspected. And it is because there is no history of prior abuse in this family that the popular theory is that it began with an accident. There is, also, no indication whatsoever of an accident in this case, so the accident, itself, has to be covered up with the murder. It is too much IMO. It was murder pure and simple IMO. I don't believe for a second this was an accident covered up/staged by the parents, either.....it was a brutal murder! Have a great day folks! :seeya:

MyrDawn

10-19-2006, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

You're getting really close now. They could have used the tape on various things until the roll was gone. But there could still be several things in the house with tape on them. Why do you think it had to be the last item in the house with any tape on it?

I have a piece of duct tape on the bottom of my keyboard. It holds the battery cover in place. The roll was used up long ago. You wouldn't be able to find the "missing" roll. And yet, there are other things in the house with duct tape on them.

Why do I think it was the last item in the house with tape? Because the police didn't find any matching tape on anything else in the house.

The tape wasn't from a roll used up "long ago". It was identified by the FBI lab as having been manufactured in November of 1996 in Hickory, North Carolina. That was only the month before JonBenet was murdered. Not so very "long ago" from her death!

MOO

Mimi428

10-19-2006, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Why do I think it was the last item in the house with tape? Because the police didn't find any matching tape on anything else in the house.

The tape wasn't from a roll used up "long ago". It was identified by the FBI lab as having been manufactured in November of 1996 in Hickory, North Carolina. That was only the month before JonBenet was murdered. Not so very "long ago" from her death!

MOO

Link please to the info about what the FBI lab found. TIA

MyrDawn

10-19-2006, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Link please to the info about what the FBI lab found. TIA

It's been discussed for ages on the internet. A lot of the messages are still available if you care to search.

I heard it long ago, I believe on TV. Although, it may have been the CBI rather than the FBI that identified it, but I know they sent duct tape to the FBI...tape from the back of pictures in the Ramsey's house.

Steve Thomas also talks about it in his book. He's the one that found the tape in McGuckins hardware store.

MOO

Mimi428

10-19-2006, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

It's been discussed for ages on the internet. A lot of the messages are still available if you care to search.

I heard it long ago, I believe on TV. Although, it may have been the CBI rather than the FBI that identified it, but I know they sent duct tape to the FBI...tape from the back of pictures in the Ramsey's house.

Steve Thomas also talks about it in his book. He's the one that found the tape in McGuckins hardware store.

MOO

If discussion on the internet is sufficient proof - then, by your own measure, there is no responsibility to provide links for anything claimed as fact. Last I read, the moderator doesn't agree.

I've read many competing posts about the origin of the duct tape, but I haven't seen any links to verify that the manufacture of the tape was determined to have taken place in the month prior to the murder. Since it is your claim, the burden is upon you to provide the proof. TIA

MyrDawn

10-19-2006, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

If discussion on the internet is sufficient proof - then, by your own measure, there is no responsibility to provide links for anything claimed as fact. Last I read, the moderator doesn't agree.

I've read many competing posts about the origin of the duct tape, but I haven't seen any links to verify that the manufacture of the tape was determined to have taken place in the month prior to the murder. Since it is your claim, the burden is upon you to provide the proof. TIA

Oh, get a grip. Haven't you been here enough to know that MOO stand for "My Opinion Only? Other posters know it does. They also understand JMO stands for "Just My Opinion, and IMO stands for "In My Opinion". I'm sure the moderators do, too.

I specifically put MOO in my post about the tape identification because it's impossible to link to a TV show from years ago.

MOO

Ames

10-19-2006, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

No, we don't think only one item had duct tape on it. We think the pictures and the American Girl doll and maybe other items had tape on them. The Rs didn't have to hope to find tape, they knew what had tape on it.

Exactly....something that an intruder would not have known. IMO

Ames

10-19-2006, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by harz

I dont think one or both of Ramseys ever went back to bed, unless one wasn't involved. JMO

Back to bed? I don't think that one or both...nor JB...ever MADE it to bed that night, in the first place. IMO

harz

10-19-2006, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Back to bed? I don't think that one or both...nor JB...ever MADE it to bed that night, in the first place. IMO

Yeah, I believe Ramseys never went sleep that night. I remember reading your or other posts about Ramsey's bed was neatly covered or made. I haven't thought about that and it was new to me. Since they have to leave for Michigan, I wonder would their housekeeper make their bed for them then? But housekeeper wasn't there that time, so that seems to be one of clues that Ramseys didn't went to bed that nite. I like to know all duties the housekeeper usually do daily and her schedules, but I haven't see any information about them anywhere yet. :(

bullmoose

10-19-2006, 02:22 PM

When my wife and I get up and go downstairs at our house, even if we go down at the same time exactly, as far as I can tell, when I return the bed is always neatly made. My wife claims she does it, but I think it must be the bed fairy[tooth fairy's sister] since I never see her do it. My point: The fact that the bed was made proves absolutely zilch about whether John and Patsy slept in it; I have never seen where Patsy said that she did/didn't make the bed, but I know my wife does it instinctively immediately upon rising, so I do not think that there is any significance to the made bed, housekeeper or not. I think I read in PT-PM that Mrs Pugh? wasn't due at the house until the following day, when she was to be loaned 2000 dollars for her rent.

harz

10-19-2006, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
When my wife and I get up and go downstairs at our house, even if we go down at the same time exactly, as far as I can tell, when I return the bed is always neatly made. My wife claims she does it, but I think it must be the bed fairy[tooth fairy's sister] since I never see her do it. My point: The fact that the bed was made proves absolutely zilch about whether John and Patsy slept in it; I have never seen where Patsy said that she did/didn't make the bed, but I know my wife does it instinctively immediately upon rising, so I do not think that there is any significance to the made bed, housekeeper or not. I think I read in PT-PM that Mrs Pugh? wasn't due at the house until the following day, when she was to be loaned 2000 dollars for her rent.

Well Ramsey’s bed neatly made struck me when everything else in their house was disorganized. Maybe making their bed was only the most organizing thing they could do. I thought their housekeeper could take care of their bed and the house after Ramsey left for Michigan trip. JMO

WallyCleaver

10-19-2006, 02:50 PM

I don't have much time today, but this weekend I'm writing a fairly long post about this "tracing back" to the intruder.

Briefly, what strikes me is that IDIs want to say the intruder used as many things from the house as possible that way they couldn't be traced back to him. Yet, w/o brining in something, IDI's would almost have to admit there was no intruder.

So, suppose the intruder brought everything used, not just some things. How would the police even begin to trace the paper, the pen, a wooden stick, a blue rag, a length of cord, a piece of tape, and a blue rag back to someone? Where do we begin? Who's house do we search?

These are ordinary mass produced items which would be found in nearly every home in boulder.

Second, why didn't the intruder simply leave the missing roll of tape and cord in the house. Sure the Rs would deny it was theirs, but the presumption would be it was theirs because it was in their house.

Assume no fingerprints were left by the intruder - just as in the actual case.

bullmoose

10-19-2006, 02:54 PM

I have a wealthy[ to me, anyways] cousin that we go to visit from time to time; we would probably go more often if it wasn't so mentally exhausting to be around them. My cousin's wife is a wonderful gal[ bless her heart] but is very disorganized, going in a hundred directions at once, it seems to me. But then I am used to the pace of my life[slow] in Idaho. Nobody in my cousin's family is bothered by the the disorder and constant clamor, as that is the way their house works. Their house is also a disaster area for disorder, I imagine somewhat like the Ramsey home was, yet oddly my cousin's wife always makes the bed. As my cousin told me, it was because her mother had drummed that into her head: to always make your bed. That is why I simply do not believe that a made bed is proof of not having used it.

bullmoose

10-19-2006, 03:08 PM

If this was a deliberate, planned murder by somebody from outside the house, as I believe, then to me it would be logical that whoever he/they were brought in the items they knew they would need in a bag or kit including gloves so as to not leave fingerprints and to have everything handy that they planned to use. Why didn't the intruder/s leave these items behind so that the police could source them to the home? Simply because that was not their MO; as I think everybody here will agree,the cops botched the investigation either side you are on, so I do not think it significant that the tape and cord were not found. I think that either way, the cops were going to zero in on the Ramseys, because of their 'hunches' and because of their tunnelvision.

Louisadelmar

10-19-2006, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

If discussion on the internet is sufficient proof - then, by your own measure, there is no responsibility to provide links for anything claimed as fact. Last I read, the moderator doesn't agree.

I've read many competing posts about the origin of the duct tape, but I haven't seen any links to verify that the manufacture of the tape was determined to have taken place in the month prior to the murder. Since it is your claim, the burden is upon you to provide the proof. TIA

PMPT ppbk p 499

"The FBI had determined that the tape allegedly removed from Jonbenet's mouth had first been manufactured in November 1996 under the brand name Suretape."

harz

10-19-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

PMPT ppbk p 499

"The FBI had determined that the tape allegedly removed from Jonbenet's mouth had first been manufactured in November 1996 under the brand name Suretape."

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/ram1014k.htm

Duct tape, taken from JonBenét's mouth by her father when he found the body. The tape was analyzed by FBI and detectives purchased identical tape from McGuckin Hardware in Boulder. An Atlanta-area hardware store clerk told investigators that she had helped Patsy Ramsey find duct tape in the store sometime in December 1996.

I wonder if duct tapes in Atlanta were also made from same company that both stores got them in stock at sametime?

Louisadelmar

10-19-2006, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by harz

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/ram1014k.htm

Duct tape, taken from JonBenét's mouth by her father when he found the body. The tape was analyzed by FBI and detectives purchased identical tape from McGuckin Hardware in Boulder. An Atlanta-area hardware store clerk told investigators that she had helped Patsy Ramsey find duct tape in the store sometime in December 1996.

I wonder if duct tapes in Atlanta were also made from same company that both stores got them in stock at sametime?

Dunno. The distributor for the tape found on JonBenet was Bron. Wonder who the distributor for the Atlanta store was? Nothing ever came of this woman's claim and I would think it would have been easy enough to verify through credit cards if Patsy had been in the store buying things. I believe she was asked about this in one of the interviews.

MyrDawn

10-19-2006, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

PMPT ppbk p 499

"The FBI had determined that the tape allegedly removed from Jonbenet's mouth had first been manufactured in November 1996 under the brand name Suretape."

Thanks Louisadelmar and Harz. I hadn't lied when said that the FBI (or CBI) had analyzed and sourced the tape. I no longer have PMPT, so I couldn't look it up to see if it was in that book. And, naturally, I couldn't link to the TV show I also heard it on so long ago.

I was rather surprised that Mimi became so incensed about it, because I thought all the regular posters knew that it had been identified a long time ago...not the person that bought it, but the manufacturer and date of manufacture.

MOO

bullmoose

10-19-2006, 04:32 PM

I find this reference from a clerk at a hardware store in Atlanta saying Patsy Ramsey, in December of 1996 needed help to find Duct tape but that the article with this information was printed in 1999 to be hard to swallow. I would like to know when exactly was the clerk asked about his or her helping of Patsy to find an easily found item and their seemingly remarkable powers of recall to be able to remember her. At the time the article was printed, the Anti- Ramsey Campaign in this natio's press was in full swing. I would be interested to find out who it was informed the reporter of such seemingly damning information that absolutely could not be proven to true. I don't have any problem with the origin of the duct tape, but to tie Patsy to it you need more than innuendo from the paper. I'm sure the duct tape was brought ,used and then then removed from the house by the killer/s. There is no evidence in that newspaper article of any Ramsey buying duct tape, just a seemingly remarkable recollection by a store clerk that is totally uncorrobarated by any evidence of any kind.

Mimi428

10-19-2006, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Thanks Louisadelmar and Harz. I hadn't lied when said that the FBI (or CBI) had analyzed and sourced the tape. I no longer have PMPT, so I couldn't look it up to see if it was in that book. And, naturally, I couldn't link to the TV show I also heard it on so long ago.

I was rather surprised that Mimi became so incensed about it, because I thought all the regular posters knew that it had been identified a long time ago...not the person that bought it, but the manufacturer and date of manufacture.

MOO

IIRC, no one suggested you lied. You were simply asked for a link to something you asserted to be a fact - that the duct tape had been manufactured shortly before the murder.

As to my being "incensed" - your conclusion is completely erroneous. Nothing that anyone has ever written on a message board has "incensed" me in any way, shape or form.

Ames

10-19-2006, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
When my wife and I get up and go downstairs at our house, even if we go down at the same time exactly, as far as I can tell, when I return the bed is always neatly made. My wife claims she does it, but I think it must be the bed fairy[tooth fairy's sister] since I never see her do it. My point: The fact that the bed was made proves absolutely zilch about whether John and Patsy slept in it; I have never seen where Patsy said that she did/didn't make the bed, but I know my wife does it instinctively immediately upon rising, so I do not think that there is any significance to the made bed, housekeeper or not. I think I read in PT-PM that Mrs Pugh? wasn't due at the house until the following day, when she was to be loaned 2000 dollars for her rent.

I see exactly what you are saying....that P could have slept in in, and then made it up, when she got out of it. My point is, though...look at JBs bed, its all turned down too. Who did that? The nonexistant "intruder"? I think that both beds look as if they had never been slept in that night...just my opinion, though. IMO

MyrDawn

10-19-2006, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I see exactly what you are saying....that P could have slept in in, and then made it up, when she got out of it. My point is, though...look at JBs bed, its all turned down too. Who did that? The nonexistant "intruder"? I think that both beds look as if they had never been slept in that night...just my opinion, though. IMO

I think it would have been easier for an intruder to flip back JonBenet's covers like that to remove her from her bed, than to try to get her out of bed without taking them off her, and possibly getting her tangled in them. I don't believe it was for "generosity", either, I believe it was for expendiency.

MOO

MyrDawn

10-19-2006, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

IIRC, no one suggested you lied. You were simply asked for a link to something you asserted to be a fact - that the duct tape had been manufactured shortly before the murder.

As to my being "incensed" - your conclusion is completely erroneous. Nothing that anyone has ever written on a message board has "incensed" me in any way, shape or form.

Yet, you never say a word about posting links to any RDIs when they use MOO, IMO or JMO in their posts when they make one about something they said they saw on TV and or read in a book about the case, and don't provide a link. Let alone come back at them a second time with a post about "...then, by your own measure, there is no responsibility to provide links for anything claimed as fact.. " AND go on to bring up the moderator not agreeing.

FurthurBB

10-19-2006, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by harz

Well Ramsey’s bed neatly made struck me when everything else in their house was disorganized. Maybe making their bed was only the most organizing thing they could do. I thought their housekeeper could take care of their bed and the house after Ramsey left for Michigan trip. JMO

When I am really busy nothing gets done around here expect making the bed. It is just a habit. My mother's house is always a mess and her bed is always made.

FurthurBB

10-19-2006, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I don't have much time today, but this weekend I'm writing a fairly long post about this "tracing back" to the intruder.

Briefly, what strikes me is that IDIs want to say the intruder used as many things from the house as possible that way they couldn't be traced back to him. Yet, w/o brining in something, IDI's would almost have to admit there was no intruder.

So, suppose the intruder brought everything used, not just some things. How would the police even begin to trace the paper, the pen, a wooden stick, a blue rag, a length of cord, a piece of tape, and a blue rag back to someone? Where do we begin? Who's house do we search?

These are ordinary mass produced items which would be found in nearly every home in boulder.

Second, why didn't the intruder simply leave the missing roll of tape and cord in the house. Sure the Rs would deny it was theirs, but the presumption would be it was theirs because it was in their house.

Assume no fingerprints were left by the intruder - just as in the actual case.

I would not care if everything was from the house and things that do not belong in a house can be traced back to their origin without a house to search. If things were left that definitely did not belong they would have sent them to a lab to find out where they came from originally. IMO

Athena

10-19-2006, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

You're getting really close now. They could have used the tape on various things until the roll was gone. But there could still be several things in the house with tape on them. Why do you think it had to be the last item in the house with any tape on it?

I have a piece of duct tape on the bottom of my keyboard. It holds the battery cover in place. The roll was used up long ago. You wouldn't be able to find the "missing" roll. And yet, there are other things in the house with duct tape on them.

P106 PM/PT

The search warrant had been extended three times; and over 800 items were taken into custody. Detective Byfield found similar tape on the back of paintings but the BPD would later learn that the tape in the house DID NOT match the tape Ramsey ripped off of JBR's mouth.

WallyCleaver

10-19-2006, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by FurthurBB

I would not care if everything was from the house and things that do not belong in a house can be traced back to their origin without a house to search. If things were left that definitely did not belong they would have sent them to a lab to find out where they came from originally. IMO

How would anyone know whether the things belonged or not?

It's not important to find out where they came from - which factory, which distributor. It's important to find out who they belonged to. Who, brought them to that house.

How could the police even begin to trace them back to the intruder?

They could look at a person such as Chris Wolfe, because his girlfriend said he became agitated about the news reports of the murder, and he was out all night the 25/26th, so they might be able to get a search warrant. But then, when it turns out not to be him, where do they go towards tracing the items to the actual killer?

I don't think the killer used items from the home because they couldn't be traced back to him - I think he used them because they were available, close at hand, and they were needed immediately.

WallyCleaver

10-19-2006, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Athena

P106 PM/PT

The search warrant had been extended three times; and over 800 items were taken into custody. Detective Byfield found similar tape on the back of paintings but the BPD would later learn that the tape in the house DID NOT match the tape Ramsey ripped off of JBR's mouth.

OK, that's interesting. That lends some credibility to the IDI theory. That along with the manufacturing date.

harz

10-20-2006, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

Dunno. The distributor for the tape found on JonBenet was Bron. Wonder who the distributor for the Atlanta store was? Nothing ever came of this woman's claim and I would think it would have been easy enough to verify through credit cards if Patsy had been in the store buying things. I believe she was asked about this in one of the interviews.

That duct tape from JB’s mouth was manufactured in November, then distributed to local stores say in a week to few weeks. So basically the duct tape was brought at McGuckin hardware in about 50 days, FBI should have gone through all receipts or records of whom brought the duct tapes. So how many people brought duct tape from that store in 50 days in a small town? I wonder if FBI recognized any receipts of McGuckin’s customers relating to this case that one did purchased such as relatives or friends? If not, they still should visit any customers who purchased it between these times to ask them permission to examine their rolls, even pay them twice its cost until they found someone, who turn out suspicion, after not accepting the offers, or trace its owner to friends or relatives if the owner is innocent. I can’t believe they didn’t do that since they are “FBI” with great deal of experiences at investigating the leads. At least, I learned something new about duct tape can be trace to a roll, time of manufactured, and which manufacturer the duct tape came from. IMO

bullmoose

10-20-2006, 04:25 AM

harz: McGuckin's hardware store had receipt records of their sales and the price of each item; however they did not list what the items being sold were. This made it impossible to know who bought the tape or when, as they had literally hundreds of items in each department priced identically. Also the FBI were not involved in the investigation, as they were not asked to.

Athena

10-20-2006, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

OK, that's interesting. That lends some credibility to the IDI theory. That along with the manufacturing date.

Somehow I actually missed this when I was reading it cause it sure didn't stick out in my mind. I was actually looking for something else and found that tidbit. Now I'm looking for something on the cord. LOL

FurthurBB

10-20-2006, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by bullmoose
harz: McGuckin's hardware store had receipt records of their sales and the price of each item; however they did not list what the items being sold were. This made it impossible to know who bought the tape or when, as they had literally hundreds of items in each department priced identically. Also the FBI were not involved in the investigation, as they were not asked to.

how could you expect them to do anything when they did not even secure the crime scene. Even if they were working on under the assumption that it was a kidnapping the could have recovered evidence without everyone walking around contaiminating it. It is the craziest thing I have ever heard. IMOO

Coloradokares

10-20-2006, 01:00 PM

Same situation Patsy Ramsey made purchases from McGuckins Hardware in the exact amounts of the cord and the tape from those exact departments. However since McGuckins did not at that time specifically write on the reciepts cord or tape it is a matter for the court to decide. What makes this particularly
interesting is because the purchase was made a full week and a half prior to the murder would it have shown premeditation. The Ramseys tried to explain away the cord and tape by saying it was used to make slings for transporting pictures. This to me was one of the more compelling points as to why an Office of Special Prosecutor needs to reopen and take over the investigation of this murder. Its been 10 years....its way past time.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Athena

Somehow I actually missed this when I was reading it cause it sure didn't stick out in my mind. I was actually looking for something else and found that tidbit. Now I'm looking for something on the cord. LOL [/QUOTE]

Athena

10-20-2006, 01:13 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Coloradokares
Same situation Patsy Ramsey made purchases from McGuckins Hardware in the exact amounts of the cord and the tape from those exact departments. However since McGuckins did not at that time specifically write on the reciepts cord or tape it is a matter for the court to decide. What makes this particularly
interesting is because the purchase was made a full week and a half prior to the murder would it have shown premeditation. The Ramseys tried to explain away the cord and tape by saying it was used to make slings for transporting pictures. This to me was one of the more compelling points as to why an Office of Special Prosecutor needs to reopen and take over the investigation of this murder. Its been 10 years....its way past time.QUOTE

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from but the Ramseys NEVER acknowledged that tape and cord. They have maintained they have no idea where it came from nevermind saying they used it for transporting pictures. Also please read further back for the EXACT tape and manufacturer of the tape is posted in this thread. They had nothing in the house that matched the tape or the cord. Please note I posted links/source jmo

If they made that statement, please provide a link/source. Board Rules.

TIA

harz

10-20-2006, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
harz: McGuckin's hardware store had receipt records of their sales and the price of each item; however they did not list what the items being sold were. This made it impossible to know who bought the tape or when, as they had literally hundreds of items in each department priced identically. Also the FBI were not involved in the investigation, as they were not asked to.

Ah McGuckin's hardware didn't have scanners to run the barcodes on products, which they do the old fashion way doing their inventory in papers, not using the computers? But they accept credit cards? I assumed FBI got involved on duct tape since they did investigate its sources as an article stated in the link above. JMO

WallyCleaver

10-20-2006, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Athena
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Coloradokares
Same situation Patsy Ramsey made purchases from McGuckins Hardware in the exact amounts of the cord and the tape from those exact departments. However since McGuckins did not at that time specifically write on the reciepts cord or tape it is a matter for the court to decide. What makes this particularly
interesting is because the purchase was made a full week and a half prior to the murder would it have shown premeditation. The Ramseys tried to explain away the cord and tape by saying it was used to make slings for transporting pictures. This to me was one of the more compelling points as to why an Office of Special Prosecutor needs to reopen and take over the investigation of this murder. Its been 10 years....its way past time.QUOTE

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from but the Ramseys NEVER acknowledged that tape and cord. They have maintained they have no idea where it came from nevermind saying they used it for transporting pictures. Also please read further back for the EXACT tape and manufacturer of the tape is posted in this thread. They had nothing in the house that matched the tape or the cord. Please note I posted links/source jmo

If they made that statement, please provide a link/source. Board Rules.

TIA

Whoa! Who says there needs to be any matching cord?

thewhitewitch1

10-20-2006, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Whoa! Who says there needs to be any matching cord?

The people who keep insisting that there does. The people who keep refusing to consider that there just may not have been any.
:shrug:

MyrDawn

10-20-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Whoa! Who says there needs to be any matching cord?

Didn't Steve Thomas claim Patsy bought a package of the cord at McGuckins hardware store via that CC receipt of hers from there with an item for the same amount and department number as the cord, as well as one for the same amount and department number as the duct tape?

I've seen a post on the web that claims it was identified as Stansport 1/4" flat nylon cord, sold in 50' and 100' packages at McGuckins. If true, that would make around 45' or 95' missing.

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=830613

MOO

MyrDawn

10-20-2006, 05:02 PM

Ah yes, Steve Thomas in his book. Page 234:

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t9005.html

"I retrieved one sample package, a fifty-foot length of white Stansport 32-strand, 3/16-inch woven cord that I had bought. Van Tassell pulled the cord out, frayed an end, held it against the end of the neck ligature, and said, "Look." The soft white braid and inner weave appeared identical. "I think this is the same cord," he said.

If a hole had appeared in the earth, Trujillo would have let it swallow him. He had not submitted any of my evidence for comparison. Beckner ordered him to get it to the lab immediately.

My file for May 21, 1997, detailed my purchase of white nylon cord
from the sporting goods section of McGuckin's, some of which was
identical in brand and model to the cord I bought at the army store. The price was $2.29. On December 2, 1996, Patsy Ramsey purchased an item from the McGuckin's sporting goods section. The price was $2.29.

WallyCleaver

10-20-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Didn't Steve Thomas claim Patsy bought a package of the cord at McGuckins hardware store via that CC receipt of hers from there with an item for the same amount and department number as the cord, as well as one for the same amount and department number as the duct tape?

I've seen a post on the web that claims it was identified as Stansport 1/4" flat nylon cord, sold in 50' and 100' packages at McGuckins. If true, that would make around 45' or 95' missing.

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=830613

MOO

I doubt ST said PR bought cord because he couldn't prove it. The sales recipt isn't detailed enough. She bought something that cost the same as the cord. Possibly cord, possibly something else.

I guess we need Athena because I don't recall it stated that the cord sold in 50' or 100' packages.

Assuming the cord and tape were purchased at the same time (if cord and tape were purchased) that leaves a few weeks to use items. I don't find it all that odd that 45' of cord (if it was that much) could get used up. A few weeks later, the length of cord used could have been all that was in the house.

I'd like to ask once again why the killer wouldn't leave the cord and tape in the house, even if he had brought them. It would appear to belong to the Rs, and though they'd deny it, it would be impossible to prove it wasn't theirs. If the intruder took it home with him, then he'd be at risk if his house were searched. Presumably he dispossed of the items post haste. But why not just leave them at the scene?

WallyCleaver

10-20-2006, 05:13 PM

BTW, if PR did buy tape and cord a few weeks before the murder, it doesn't prove it was planned ahead of time. She may have had benign reasons for the purchases.

Coloradokares

10-20-2006, 05:14 PM

Unfortunately that is true. No barcodes. Department numbers only. Yes they had a credit card authoirization phone number at the time. I know McGuckins quite well I have shopped there who knows how many times being from very near Boulder. At the time it was the place to go get anything. Boulder you would find was opposed to growth progress and change. If you can't find it anywhere else go to McGuckins they have it. Unfortunately now 10 years on down the road they are getting their first Home Depot, Lowes cannot be far behind. I do deeply apologize My links are tied up at the moment I stored them on another forum. Where we contributed to a special section for them. I have requested all that I furnished be returned to me. I left due to aruguments on that board. Also its public knowledge about the receipts that it was from McGuckins charged on American Express that was used by Patsy Ramsey. In those exact amounts and exact departments. Would the Ramseys admit that. I doubt it. Although Pam Paugh said at the time when questioned those materials were utilized to make the slings that transported pictures. Including pictures she herself removed from the home. That hit the Boulder Daily Camera shortly and RMNews wasn't far behind. I believe its also discussed in Schillers book Perfect Murder Perfect Town. Also in Steve Thomas's book. I know this will be hard for you to understand. The first I heard about JonBenets murder was on breaking news. I lived less than 10 miles from the murder and indeed have friends that lived right in that neighborhood. So when I quote something till I get all my links returned to me. Just bear with me okay. I think in the end you'll find I have at least an average range of knowledge on the case. And have a ton of links that should be making their way back to me shortly. I have read 4 books on this matter also bes Schillers Perfect Murder Perfect Town. Death of Innocence. John Ramsey Presumed Guilty Stephen Singular and JonBenet Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation. Most of what I will post won't be speculation. I promise okay.

Originally posted by harz

Ah McGuckin's hardware didn't have scanners to run the barcodes on products, which they do the old fashion way doing their inventory in papers, not using the computers? But they accept credit cards? I assumed FBI got involved on duct tape since they did investigate its sources as an article stated in the link above. JMO

harz

10-20-2006, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares
Unfortunately that is true. No barcodes. Department numbers only. Yes they had a credit card authoirization phone number at the time. I know McGuckins quite well I have shopped there who knows how many times being from very near Boulder. At the time it was the place to go get anything. Boulder you would find was opposed to growth progress and change. If you can't find it anywhere else go to McGuckins they have it. Unfortunately now 10 years on down the road they are getting their first Home Depot, Lowes cannot be far behind. I do deeply apologize My links are tied up at the moment I stored them on another forum. Where we contributed to a special section for them. I have requested all that I furnished be returned to me. I left due to aruguments on that board. Also its public knowledge about the receipts that it was from McGuckins charged on American Express that was used by Patsy Ramsey. In those exact amounts and exact departments. Would the Ramseys admit that. I doubt it. Although Pam Paugh said at the time when questioned those materials were utilized to make the slings that transported pictures. Including pictures she herself removed from the home. That hit the Boulder Daily Camera shortly and RMNews wasn't far behind. I believe its also discussed in Schillers book Perfect Murder Perfect Town. Also in Steve Thomas's book. I know this will be hard for you to understand. The first I heard about JonBenets murder was on breaking news. I lived less than 10 miles from the murder and indeed have friends that lived right in that neighborhood. So when I quote something till I get all my links returned to me. Just bear with me okay. I think in the end you'll find I have at least an average range of knowledge on the case. And have a ton of links that should be making their way back to me shortly. I have read 4 books on this matter also bes Schillers Perfect Murder Perfect Town. Death of Innocence. John Ramsey Presumed Guilty Stephen Singular and JonBenet Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation. Most of what I will post won't be speculation. I promise okay.

Thank you for info and details. It good to have someone living in or by Boulder on this forum sharing discussions with us. I plan to look for these books at Barnes & Nobles since my library doesn't have any in stock for several weeks. Feel free to share any of your speculations here if you wish, you don't have to. I thought McGuckin hardware would want to upgrade technology using scanners for barcodes base on LE investigations in this case, maybe they don't have money for it or they want to avoid "Big Brother". JMO

bullmoose

10-20-2006, 06:44 PM

To coloradokares: I too am looking foward to your input on this board, as harz says its good to have someone from the Boulder area posting here. Maybe I'll disagree totally with you but I look foward to your posts.

Louisadelmar

10-20-2006, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares
[B]Same situation Patsy Ramsey made purchases from McGuckins Hardware in the exact amounts of the cord and the tape from those exact departments. However since McGuckins did not at that time specifically write on the reciepts cord or tape it is a matter for the court to decide. What makes this particularly
interesting is because the purchase was made a full week and a half prior to the murder would it have shown premeditation. The Ramseys tried to explain away the cord and tape by saying it was used to make slings for transporting pictures. This to me was one of the more compelling points as to why an Office of Special Prosecutor needs to reopen and take over the investigation of this murder. Its been 10 years....its way past time.

She made purchases for the correct amounts but the wrong departments. ST claims the purchases were rung up on the wrong department.

I have not seen anything with the Ramseys claiming the tape and cord were used to make picture slings. However, many years ago a poster found an article in a magazine explaining how to make such a sling and there was much speculation by the RDI that Patsy might have done so. Perhaps that is what you are remembering.

Louisadelmar

10-20-2006, 10:10 PM

Read ST p 136 ppbk for the exact quote. Here is the gist.

Duct tape was sold in the Paint Dept for $1.99.

Sometimes during busy seasons cashiers hit an adjacent key and would credit a purchase to the wrong department.

On Dec 9 Patsy bought an item from the Builder's Hardware Dept for $1.99

On Dec 2 she bought something from the Garden Dept for $1.99.

Thomas doesn't tell us how the department keys are laid out on the registers. However, he does try and get some mileage out of the fact that the Paint and Hardware departments are physically next to each other. But the fact he will not go so far as to say the cash register keys are next to each other makes me think they aren't and therefore his talk about register keys etc is just more Thomas twist.

Anyway - she did not make purchases from McGuckin's Hardware in the exact amounts of the cord and the tape from those exact departments.

How many things in McGuckins sell for $1.99? 100? 1,000? 3,000?

harz

10-20-2006, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
Read ST p 136 ppbk for the exact quote. Here is the gist.

Duct tape was sold in the Paint Dept for $1.99.

Sometimes during busy seasons cashiers hit an adjacent key and would credit a purchase to the wrong department.

On Dec 9 Patsy bought an item from the Builder's Hardware Dept for $1.99

On Dec 2 she bought something from the Garden Dept for $1.99.

Thomas doesn't tell us how the department keys are laid out on the registers. However, he does try and get some mileage out of the fact that the Paint and Hardware departments are physically next to each other. But the fact he will not go so far as to say the cash register keys are next to each other makes me think they aren't and therefore his talk about register keys etc is just more Thomas twist.

Anyway - she did not make purchases from McGuckin's Hardware in the exact amounts of the cord and the tape from those exact departments.

How many things in McGuckins sell for $1.99? 100? 1,000? 3,000?

So what did Patsy brought?

LadyFisher

10-21-2006, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by harz

So what did Patsy brought? I would bet it wasn't duct tape or cord! :)

harz

10-21-2006, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I would bet it wasn't duct tape or cord! :)

Umm, let wager some bets then :)

Louisadelmar

10-21-2006, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by harz

So what did Patsy brought?

Dunno. Why didn't Thomas ask her in the interview?

If he thought it meant enough to include in his book as 'evidence' against Patsy, one would think he would show her a list of $1.99 items from the relevant departments and try and get to the bottom of this.

Coloradokares

10-21-2006, 12:29 PM

Actually my info is recalled from the Boulder Daily Camera and RMN articles. I remember distinctly reading the newpaper and thinking O M G. Not saying of course that intentional disinformation was not occuring but I stayed away from the tabloid sensationalism as to us locals it was very serious. Remember we had Patsy Ramsey point her finger telling us there was a killer on the loose in Boulder. Not that the mayor didn't contradict that. As to McGuckins in 96 they apparently didn't have the barcode. I am sure they are up to speed now. You'd have to live in the area to know just how much Boulder strived for zero growth and to keep our small little eutopia atmosphere. I do want to be clear since 96 we moved so I am still within 20 miles of Boulder at the time I lived outside of Boulder but within 10 miles of the murder. So Boulder was our working commuinty etc. Thank you all for saying you'd appreciate my input. Also I want to mention that as you read various accounts they will differ. Schiller's book would indicate as the news accounts did that the amounts were the exact and the departments exact. Duct Tape was on sale for $1.99 that day.

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
Read ST p 136 ppbk for the exact quote. Here is the gist.

Duct tape was sold in the Paint Dept for $1.99.

Sometimes during busy seasons cashiers hit an adjacent key and would credit a purchase to the wrong department.

On Dec 9 Patsy bought an item from the Builder's Hardware Dept for $1.99

On Dec 2 she bought something from the Garden Dept for $1.99.

Thomas doesn't tell us how the department keys are laid out on the registers. However, he does try and get some mileage out of the fact that the Paint and Hardware departments are physically next to each other. But the fact he will not go so far as to say the cash register keys are next to each other makes me think they aren't and therefore his talk about register keys etc is just more Thomas twist.

Anyway - she did not make purchases from McGuckin's Hardware in the exact amounts of the cord and the tape from those exact departments.

How many things in McGuckins sell for $1.99? 100? 1,000? 3,000?

Coloradokares

10-21-2006, 12:36 PM

Actually I think Patsy tried to go the innocent route who knows its not listed what I bought. However her sister Pam Paugh when asked said well slings were being made from the cord and
duct tape for transporting pictures. Take that however you wish. Of course Patsy would try to go the you can't prove it way out. However in my humble opinion, it is some of those denials that made Patsy look like something was there to hide. I think if you went to our cupboard over the washer I have duct tape. Go out to the garden storage shed and I know we have cord. What does that say.... Not that we are murderers I hope. Just we are normal people. Its the proximity of time in relation to the murder and the purchases that make this questionable. I don't know if all you read is accurate information or not. Depends I would quess if you think the Ramseys had any knowledge or guilt in the murder of JonBenet or not.

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

Dunno. Why didn't Thomas ask her in the interview?

If he thought it meant enough to include in his book as 'evidence' against Patsy, one would think he would show her a list of $1.99 items from the relevant departments and try and get to the bottom of this.

Athena

10-21-2006, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares
Actually I think Patsy tried to go the innocent route who knows its not listed what I bought. However her sister Pam Paugh when asked said well slings were being made from the cord and
duct tape for transporting pictures. Take that however you wish. Of course Patsy would try to go the you can't prove it way out. However in my humble opinion, it is some of those denials that made Patsy look like something was there to hide. I think if you went to our cupboard over the washer I have duct tape. Go out to the garden storage shed and I know we have cord. What does that say.... Not that we are murderers I hope. Just we are normal people. Its the proximity of time in relation to the murder and the purchases that make this questionable. I don't know if all you read is accurate information or not. Depends I would quess if you think the Ramseys had any knowledge or guilt in the murder of JonBenet or not.

I can't find anything that says Pam Pough said that and it is NOT in PMPT. I really would appreciate a link. jmo

shill

10-23-2006, 02:50 AM

IMO the cord looks like shoe laces.
I have never seen a spool of cord for sale that is flat like shoe laces.

Hardware stores quite often have sale bins with numerous items in them at one set price.

Did anyone go through the store and tally up how many items sell for a $1.99?

And if they did buy black duct tape and cord, how convienient.

So how did they get rid of this alleged evidence; a roll of black duct tape, a roll of cord, the paint brush handle, towel/s that wiped JB's private area, and 9 pages of the note pad?

Why didn't they get rid of the body while they where getting rid of this evidence. Seems like they had hours and hours to do that.

First thing I would have done is get rid of the body, and then I would have staged the crime with what time I had left (or take all day, They could have said they spent that time waiting for the kidnapper to contact them and where afraid to call the police because of the threats in the note thay allegedly created, they could have written that the call would be at 6pm to buy more time if they needed). After I felt I had tied up all the loose ends to make it look like an IDI, I would then make the 911 call. But that's just me, and I'm not a killer.

bullmoose

10-23-2006, 03:51 AM

Isn't there a little girl that was reported as a runaway by her parents or father down in the greater Denver area this year; her neighbors didn't even know that a little girl was supposed to be living, they'd never seen her? The last time she was seen was months before, at another address? I don't know if I'm remembering the account right, but if I remember correctly, although there was great suspicion upon the father, but with no body, there was no proof of a crime. Like Natalie Halloway. Yet we are supposed to believe that the Ramseys would viciously murder their 6-year old daughter by bashing and ligature strangulation, then make up that unbelievable note, dipose of the duct tape, cord, the rest of the paint handle,wipe-down towels, the pages of the notepad torn out from the pad so that none of it could ever be found, but leave her body in the basement, calling the cops at 5:15 or whatever in the morning when they could have disposed of the body any time before the cops got there, but never after. I find the whole premise to be flawed beyond any hope of redemption; this to me is the work of an evil psychopath who knew how the cops would react towards the Ramseys, who is getting his jollies over the whole sorry mess.

WallyCleaver

10-23-2006, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by bullmoose
Isn't there a little girl that was reported as a runaway by her parents or father down in the greater Denver area this year; her neighbors didn't even know that a little girl was supposed to be living, they'd never seen her? The last time she was seen was months before, at another address? I don't know if I'm remembering the account right, but if I remember correctly, although there was great suspicion upon the father, but with no body, there was no proof of a crime. Like Natalie Halloway. Yet we are supposed to believe that the Ramseys would viciously murder their 6-year old daughter by bashing and ligature strangulation, then make up that unbelievable note, dipose of the duct tape, cord, the rest of the paint handle,wipe-down towels, the pages of the notepad torn out from the pad so that none of it could ever be found, but leave her body in the basement, calling the cops at 5:15 or whatever in the morning when they could have disposed of the body any time before the cops got there, but never after. I find the whole premise to be flawed beyond any hope of redemption; this to me is the work of an evil psychopath who knew how the cops would react towards the Ramseys, who is getting his jollies over the whole sorry mess.

There's a case where I live where adoptive parents hit their little boy in the head hard enough that he went into shock. They put him in his room and he died. They burried his body in a shallow grave out in the country, then spent a year pretending he'd been kidnapped.

However, the police didn't treat them with kid gloves and the prosecutor isn't friends with the defense attornies, nor is he afraid to go to trial - so they are at trial.

As for the unbelievable note, why would an intruder make it up? We know it's not a real kidnapping. Why would any other intruder leave a ransom note. Why does the handwritting look so much like PR's ? - with many distinct characteristics of her writting?

You don't know that duct tape and cord were dispossed of. It's a reasonable premise, but it's just as reasonable to suppose the items were already in the house.

The handle may already have been broken. There would only be one wipe down towel, as far as I know. They had a washer/dryer. It's possible the blue cloth used was washed and dryed before police were called.

The pages from the pad could have been ripped out days/months before. Why would the intruder leave one of his "pracitce" pages if he took the other pages? Why would an intruder "practice" a ransom note at the crime scene?

I'd say asking why they didn't dispose of the body is very reasonable. They had a car, which they could put her in, drive her somewhere secluded and dump the body. Why didn't they? I don't know. Maybe she didn't die until say 3am and it took the rest of the morning to stage the scene (and it was staged - staging within staging) and they just didn't have time to dispose of the body. Or perhaps didn't want to dispose of it. Maybe they thought they'd staged a psycho killer scene well enough that they didn't need to dump her in the woods.

I find the whole intruder theory deeply flawed and implausible.

bullmoose

10-23-2006, 05:14 AM

I've read that the cord and duct tape were being sold at the hardware store at a price, along with maybe thousands of other things at an identical price that matches the price Patsy paid for some things at that store; this of course connects no one to anything, I too Im sure bought things at my Idaho Hardware store for the identical price in the weeks or months before the murder, but that , like Patsy's purchases, is just a coincidence. If the duct tape and the flat cord were not disposed of, then you are saying that these two unique clues, found in no quantity in or around the house were just simply on hand in just the quantity found. What an unbelievable coincidence!Whoever wrote that note knew exactly what they were doing, I agree, it was no kidnapping at all, it was a deliberate and successful attempt to put a strong cloud of suspicion on the Ramseys. As for the handwritng, it could not be excluded by one of the five who examined it; neither could a fairly large number of others who were asked to give handwriting samples be excluded; they were cleared by the DNA. You can find the intruder theory flawed and implausible but I find it much easier to believe than the RDI.

Coloradokares

10-23-2006, 03:35 PM

Athena I will find that. I will go to the Library Wed. I'll check out the book again. Sorry till I do that I can't provide you with a page number.

Originally posted by Athena

I can't find anything that says Pam Pough said that and it is NOT in PMPT. I really would appreciate a link. jmo

Coloradokares

10-23-2006, 04:19 PM

Athena till I can get to the Library look on page 81 for information regarding the tape on the paintings making a sling. Also on page 240 regarding the amounts for the tape and rope at McGuckins. Now this is according to my handwritten notes. So till I get the book in hand....I am not sure what my notes refer to even. What a blonde I'd make if my hair wasn't so brunette.

Originally posted by Coloradokares
Athena I will find that. I will go to the Library Wed. I'll check out the book again. Sorry till I do that I can't provide you with a page number.

MissOtisRegrets

10-23-2006, 04:29 PM

It is said that a person would had to have seen the basement window from the inside to know that it was broken. Was the window broken before the basement was painted? Was the interior of entire house painted at that time or just the basement? What about the Christmas trees that were brought from the Access Graphics warehouse and stored in the wine cellar? I know that they were brought before the painting occurred, but were they brought before or after the window was broken? Were all of these people checked out? Had any previously been arrested for burglary?

TIA

:seeya:

MissO

WallyCleaver

10-23-2006, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
I've read that the cord and duct tape were being sold at the hardware store at a price, along with maybe thousands of other things at an identical price that matches the price Patsy paid for some things at that store; this of course connects no one to anything, I too Im sure bought things at my Idaho Hardware store for the identical price in the weeks or months before the murder, but that , like Patsy's purchases, is just a coincidence. If the duct tape and the flat cord were not disposed of, then you are saying that these two unique clues, found in no quantity in or around the house were just simply on hand in just the quantity found. What an unbelievable coincidence!Whoever wrote that note knew exactly what they were doing, I agree, it was no kidnapping at all, it was a deliberate and successful attempt to put a strong cloud of suspicion on the Ramseys. As for the handwritng, it could not be excluded by one of the five who examined it; neither could a fairly large number of others who were asked to give handwriting samples be excluded; they were cleared by the DNA. You can find the intruder theory flawed and implausible but I find it much easier to believe than the RDI.

There is nothing odd about having a piece of cord that length. That's just the nature of cord. You buy some, you cut some, you use the part you cut, you save the rest. It's just there. I didn't have to be any exact length. I could have been 3" shorter, or 12" longer - or whatever. Nothing at all weird or coincidental about that length of cord being present in the home, IMO.

The tape is another matter. It does make sense to aske where the missing role is. It's possible for it to have been pulled off something else, but we know it hadn't been in the house long, as it was manufactured only the month prior to the murder. That doesn't mean it couldn't have been there, but it apparently didn't match any other tape on other items. So I think there is a very reasonable question about where the tape came from.

If it was a deliberate attempt to frame the Rs, why not leave the reamining cord (if any - and there is certainly no need that there be any) and the remaining role of tape in the house? I've asked before, and no IDIs seem to want to answer. It would cast even more suspicion on them, as it would be all but impossible for them to prove the cord and tape didn't belong to them.

The handwritting "experts" are all over the board. PR hasn't been eliminated. I've seen the comparisson between the note and her exemplars. Much looks like it was written by PR.

If you want to talk coincidence, what a whopping coincidence that an intruder has several habbits in common with PR in terms of how he makes letters and how he runs certain letter combinations together.

Athena

10-23-2006, 06:36 PM

WallyCleaver

10-23-2006, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Athena

You know not for anything but Patsy painted -- I would guess there would have been a multitude of painting tools that could have been bought for those prices. Plus it was near Christmas time - so who knows what she bought. It could have been wrapping paper, or ribbon, or gift tags. The fact that the store did not offer itemized receipts does nothing to assist in trying to determine what she bought. jmo

That's true, we have no idea what she bought, but it's just as possible it was tape and cord as paint tools or wrapping paper.

Athena

10-23-2006, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

That's true, we have no idea what she bought, but it's just as possible it was tape and cord as paint tools or wrapping paper.

Breaking my horns Wally? :tongue:

I realize I could have added tape and cord to the list but it's already on this page more than a couple of times so didn't feel the need to repeat it. So there! LOL

The bottom line none of us knows what she bought.

Louisadelmar

10-23-2006, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

That's true, we have no idea what she bought, but it's just as possible it was tape and cord as paint tools or wrapping paper.

But that's the point. It's not just as possible. What she bought came from either Hardware or Garden. Neither of those departments sell duct tape.

Athena

10-23-2006, 09:50 PM

Looks like Stansport who is the manufacturer of the cord used sells primarily camping gear and the cord is listed for use as emergency repair:

http://tinyurl.com/y7vp2u

LadyFisher

10-23-2006, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

That's true, we have no idea what she bought, but it's just as possible it was tape and cord as paint tools or wrapping paper. ....Good evening! :) I'll ask this once again.....where is the remainder of the tape and cord? Where is the stun gun? Although LE looked with all their might to find the remaining cord and duct tape in the Ramsey home, it just wasn't there....and I don't buy the nonsense Patsy's sister just happened to carry it off with her!

thewhitewitch1

10-23-2006, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
....Good evening! :) I'll ask this once again.....where is the remainder of the tape and cord? Where is the stun gun? Although LE looked with all their might to find the remaining cord and duct tape in the Ramsey home, it just wasn't there....and I don't buy the nonsense Patsy's sister just happened to carry it off with her!

I will answer once again....can you just for a minute entertain the possibility that there WAS NO remaining tape and cord and there WAS NO stun gun? I do not understand how that is outside of anyones realm of possibility. :confused:

Not trying to be rude to you, LF...hope you didn't take it that way.

LadyFisher

10-23-2006, 10:36 PM

Athena

10-23-2006, 11:34 PM

Athena

10-23-2006, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
....Good evening! :) I'll ask this once again.....where is the remainder of the tape and cord? Where is the stun gun? Although LE looked with all their might to find the remaining cord and duct tape in the Ramsey home, it just wasn't there....and I don't buy the nonsense Patsy's sister just happened to carry it off with her!

The items Pam Paugh removed from the home were itemized and a list made which seems to me she just wasn't allowed to walk in and just take out anything she wanted to. Found out later she had forgotten this little stuffed kitty that belonged to JBR and Linda Arndt delivered it to Priscilla White. jmo

thewhitewitch1

10-24-2006, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Works both ways TWW. Now that we know it was Stansport Cord which only comes in 50 or 100' lengths -- seems even more so to question where the rest of that cord is. Also after posting the other day that duct tape was found on paintings in the home; was tested but didn't match anything taped in the house stands to reason there is missing tape and re: the stun gun - give me a convincing alternative. jmo

You don't think it's possible that the remaining cord could have been used for something else much prior to the murder and all that was there and used was all that was left of it?
Could the tape have come off the back of one of the American dolls or the My Twinn doll? Did anyone even check that? Were Patsy and John ever body searched? How does anyone know that they did not smuggle out something? Maybe the tape was taken off of something else and it was the only piece of it in the home. All are possibilities.
I wish I could give you a better theory than the stun gun but not having ever been at the crime scene, I would have no way of knowing what objects were around that could have made those marks. That's why I wish that they had not buried her so soon. Maybe it could have been figured out.

Coloradokares

10-24-2006, 12:50 AM

Page 234 JonBenet Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation Steve Thomas Hard cover edition.

My file for May21, 1997 detailed my purchase of white nylon cord from the sporting goods section of McGuckin's, some of which was indentical in brand and model to the cord I bought at the armystore. The price was $2.29. On December 2 1996 Patsy Ramsey purchasef and item from the McGuckin's sporting goods section. The price was $2.29.

Louisadelmar it would appear that Detective Steve Thomas would not agree with your assesment regards the cord. I believe your commentary was limited to only the duct tape. But in fairness I needed to point this out.

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

But that's the point. It's not just as possible. What she bought came from either Hardware or Garden. Neither of those departments sell duct tape.

Louisadelmar

10-24-2006, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares
Page 234 JonBenet Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation Steve Thomas Hard cover edition.

My file for May21, 1997 detailed my purchase of white nylon cord from the sporting goods section of McGuckin's, some of which was indentical in brand and model to the cord I bought at the armystore. The price was $2.29. On December 2 1996 Patsy Ramsey purchasef and item from the McGuckin's sporting goods section. The price was $2.29.

Louisadelmar it would appear that Detective Steve Thomas would not agree with your assesment regards the cord. I believe your commentary was limited to only the duct tape. But in fairness I needed to point this out.

You are quite right. I was only talking about the tape.

Coloradokares

10-24-2006, 01:24 AM

Athena; According to Detective Steve Thomas on page 51-through page 53 and I shall just put some of of this here so I don't take up pages on end. Pam Paugh, one of Patsy Ramsey's sisters who had flown in from Atlanta, was staging a one woman raid on the crime scene that I could only compare to burning the damned place down. And she did it with the help of the cops. Everything I put here is word for word from the book. She spent over an hour on the first trip through the crime scene she emerged with a big coardboard box filled to the brim, which she plopped into the trunk of the car. For several hours Pam made about half a dozen trips through the home often spending an hour or more inside and hauled out suitcases boxes bags and loose items until the backseat of the patrol car was stuffed like a steamer trunk. The patrol car was loaded with zipped bags and boxes sacks and luggage the true contents are unknown. This, to my mind was madness . Once those idems were gone they weren't coming back, and the police were only in their second day of the official search of the house. Then Officer Chromiak told me her passenger said I need a Diet Coke with a lot of ice. "Right Now. On the way to a fast food restaurant. The Patrol car, stuffed with Ramsey belongings, went to a drive up window, and Pam still wearing the BPD jacket setlled down with a Happy Meal. Chromiak paid the bill. So as you see Det. Steve Thomas's account differed from thoughts regarding this matter significantly. Please read the pages for yourselves for the most accurate and detailed accounting that Det. Steve Thomas makes in his book JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation..
Originally posted by Athena

The items Pam Paugh removed from the home were itemized and a list made which seems to me she just wasn't allowed to walk in and just take out anything she wanted to. Found out later she had forgotten this little stuffed kitty that belonged to JBR and Linda Arndt delivered it to Priscilla White. jmo

WallyCleaver

10-24-2006, 04:35 AM

MyrDawn

10-24-2006, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I will answer once again....can you just for a minute entertain the possibility that there WAS NO remaining tape and cord and there WAS NO stun gun? I do not understand how that is outside of anyones realm of possibility. :confused:

Not trying to be rude to you, LF...hope you didn't take it that way.

The cord was identifed as being by Stansport accoding to Steve Thomas in his book, and that cord is only sold in 50' and 100' packages, NOT by the foot. But, that info was posted several days ago.

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=8669937&highlight=stansport#post8669937

That Suretape black duct tape is only sold in rolls.

No matching black tape or cord was found on the premises, and they DID test the tape on the back of pictures in the Ramsey's house.

There definitely has to be more of that black tape and cord, whether the entire package of cord and roll of tape was used or not. It has to be somewhere, and since they LE claim Patsy bought it the month before JonBenet was killed, why is it of the realm of possibilty that IF she bought and used it, we'd think it likely that some of them would be SOMEWHERE, on or in something, in the house. Yet, there wasn't.

MOO

LindaA

10-24-2006, 08:22 AM

In case you are thinking they were used to mail packages for Christmas, let me point out that neither item meets USPS regs for packaging. Anyway, it would be odd indeed if all the tape and cord had been used except the exact lengths used in the crime, yet nothing in the house had any of either on it. Possible, but not likely. Even the paper core from the tape was never found ??

That is might have been removed by a family member after the crime is more likely. I would like more information to reconcile the two different accounts of what Pam Paugh took from the house and how it was handled. When and whwere was the inventory done? Perhaps inside the home, judging from the amount of time it seemed to take her to remove the boxes. I think I see why so many distrust ST's book. He seems to skip over imporant details to make his point of view more valid.

JMO

MyrDawn

10-24-2006, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by LindaA
In case you are thinking they were used to mail packages for Christmas, let me point out that neither item meets USPS regs for packaging. Anyway, it would be odd indeed if all the tape and cord had been used except the exact lengths used in the crime, yet nothing in the house had any of either on it. Possible, but not likely. Even the paper core from the tape was never found ??

That is might have been removed by a family member after the crime is more likely. I would like more information to reconcile the two different accounts of what Pam Paugh took from the house and how it was handled. When and whwere was the inventory done? Perhaps inside the home, judging from the amount of time it seemed to take her to remove the boxes. I think I see why so many distrust ST's book. He seems to skip over imporant details to make his point of view more valid.

JMO

The police watched and documented everything Pam took from the house. I fact, they took her there in a patrol car, and she took all the items away from the house in the patrol car.

It is strange they allowed that to happen, considering by all accounts the police search of the house was still in progress.

MOO

LindaA

10-24-2006, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

The police watched and documented everything Pam took from the house. I fact, they took her there in a patrol car, and she took all the items away from the house in the patrol car.

It is strange they allowed that to happen, considering by all accounts the police search of the house was still in progress.

MOO

Well, we are talking about the BPD! ;)

WallyCleaver

10-24-2006, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

The cord was identifed as being by Stansport accoding to Steve Thomas in his book, and that cord is only sold in 50' and 100' packages, NOT by the foot. But, that info was posted several days ago.

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=8669937&highlight=stansport#post8669937

That Suretape black duct tape is only sold in rolls.

No matching black tape or cord was found on the premises, and they DID test the tape on the back of pictures in the Ramsey's house.

There definitely has to be more of that black tape and cord, whether the entire package of cord and roll of tape was used or not. It has to be somewhere, and since they LE claim Patsy bought it the month before JonBenet was killed, why is it of the realm of possibilty that IF she bought and used it, we'd think it likely that some of them would be SOMEWHERE, on or in something, in the house. Yet, there wasn't.

MOO

Sure it has to be somewhere in the world - that's basic physics. There's no reason it has to be in the house.

If I buy 50' of cord and my brother calls and asks if I have some cord he can borrow and I give him 40' that leaves me 10' and the other 40' is somewhere in the world, but unless you know I gave it to my brother, you'd have no idea where it is, and it wouldn't be in my house. The remaining 10' would be in my house, and that's it.

If I used it to tie up some boxes and took them to the mini storage, that would use up some cord too, yet it wouldn't be in my house. I can generate examples all day, but I think that's sufficient.

I don't think we can say whether or not it was likely there'd be more cord unless we knew what the cord was being used for. (Did the cops really check the type of cord used for picture slings?)
For some people 50' is a lifetime supply. For others, it might not last the week.

The tape I think is a stronger point. It's unlikely it was given to someone else, less the small piece used to tape JB's mouth. Of course it's possilbe that the one piece was the first piece off the roll, was put on something, then the rest of the roll was given/lent to someone. But I'd say it's quite reasonable to ask where the remaining tape is.

So while it's reasonable to ask where is the rest of the tape, and cord, there isn't any reason to assume that someone MUST have brought it into the house that night. It's certainly possible an intruder brought it, but it's also possible it was already there.

I don't think either side gets much mileage out of this, as it can't be determined. Like most everything in the case, the way one sees it depends on whether one is IDI or RDI.

Finally, I'll ask yet again, why didn't the intruder leave the tape and cord, since part of his motive apparently (or at least according to many IDIs) was to implicate the Ramseys? They'd find it almost impossible to prove it didn't belong to them. They could deny owning the cord and tape 'till the cows come home but who'd believe them? (I mean, other than IDIs :-)

Leaving it in the house would also have reduced the risk that the police might find it if they searched someone's home (assuming they had a warrant) and it eliminates the need to dispose of it.

Louisadelmar

10-24-2006, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
[...] I think I see why so many distrust ST's book. He seems to skip over imporant details to make his point of view more valid.

JMO

Bingo!

With McGuckins he talks about the harried clerks hitting the wrong key and crediting a sale to an adjacent department. But that would mean adjacent on the cash register not in the building. He never says the Paint Dept is adjacent on the keyboard to either Hardware or Garden but a superficial read in his book gives the impression it is because he says the departments are next to each other.

Same thing with Patsy's handwriting. He starts with an all-encompassing "out of everyone tested" and ends up with Patsy was the only one who couldn't be eliminated (of the three in the house). Well, if he is only talking about the 3 in the house then the others don't matter. But in reader's minds the whole thing morphed into Patsy was the only one who couldn't be eliminated.

I think it is wrong for a detective to write a book about an active, open case. But what I find even more offensive is his book isn't written in an honest manner that simply lays out the facts without manipulating the way they are presented.

bullmoose

10-24-2006, 03:20 PM

Steve Thomas book could have been an honest, unbiased account of his experience on the Ramsey case. But, starting with him illegally taking his notes on the case when he quit the BPD, to better write his tell all book; and continuing in his book with the innuendos and twisting of facts; it has made me extremely distrustful of his book. I do not believe it be honest in its premise of telling the real story: hence his nickname Twisting Thomas. I have read his book, don't get me wrong, there is information in there, but he reminds me of Idaho State Police officers I have come in contact with over the years. To this kind of a cop, lying, even under oath is no big deal, to make their case stronger. Just twisting the facts, as Twisting Thomas does, is something that an officer does on a daily basis. Thomas' close friendship with Jeff Shapiro, the Globe reporter during the investigation makes me wonder if a book deal was in his mind all along. It all damages his credibility beyong repair, in my opinion

Athena

10-24-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Sure it has to be somewhere in the world - that's basic physics. There's no reason it has to be in the house.

If I buy 50' of cord and my brother calls and asks if I have some cord he can borrow and I give him 40' that leaves me 10' and the other 40' is somewhere in the world, but unless you know I gave it to my brother, you'd have no idea where it is, and it wouldn't be in my house. The remaining 10' would be in my house, and that's it.

If I used it to tie up some boxes and took them to the mini storage, that would use up some cord too, yet it wouldn't be in my house. I can generate examples all day, but I think that's sufficient.

I don't think we can say whether or not it was likely there'd be more cord unless we knew what the cord was being used for. (Did the cops really check the type of cord used for picture slings?)
For some people 50' is a lifetime supply. For others, it might not last the week.

The tape I think is a stronger point. It's unlikely it was given to someone else, less the small piece used to tape JB's mouth. Of course it's possilbe that the one piece was the first piece off the roll, was put on something, then the rest of the roll was given/lent to someone. But I'd say it's quite reasonable to ask where the remaining tape is.

So while it's reasonable to ask where is the rest of the tape, and cord, there isn't any reason to assume that someone MUST have brought it into the house that night. It's certainly possible an intruder brought it, but it's also possible it was already there.

I don't think either side gets much mileage out of this, as it can't be determined. Like most everything in the case, the way one sees it depends on whether one is IDI or RDI.

Finally, I'll ask yet again, why didn't the intruder leave the tape and cord, since part of his motive apparently (or at least according to many IDIs) was to implicate the Ramseys? They'd find it almost impossible to prove it didn't belong to them. They could deny owning the cord and tape 'till the cows come home but who'd believe them? (I mean, other than IDIs :-)

Leaving it in the house would also have reduced the risk that the police might find it if they searched someone's home (assuming they had a warrant) and it eliminates the need to dispose of it.

He didn't leave them because they are part of his toolkit. It's like a plumber leaving his wrench. JMO

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

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

WallyCleaver

10-24-2006, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Athena

He didn't leave them because they are part of his toolkit. It's like a plumber leaving his wrench. JMO

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

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

But doesn't the fact that he used PR's paintbrush handle indicate he was disorganized? Therefore he didn't bring the tool kit.

Also, I disagree with the plumber analogy. Tape and cord, by their nature, are used up, unlike a wrench. And they only cost $1.99

bullmoose

10-24-2006, 05:13 PM

To me the use of Patsy's paintbrush handle was very deliberate, he was throwing suspicion most assuredly on Patsy by doing so plus he took the missing piece as a trophy for his special collection of momentos. It may also have also been an act of disrespect for Patsy; to me it was not because of disorganization. He/they knew exactly what they were doing.

WallyCleaver

10-24-2006, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To me the use of Patsy's paintbrush handle was very deliberate, he was throwing suspicion most assuredly on Patsy by doing so plus he took the missing piece as a trophy for his special collection of momentos. It may also have also been an act of disrespect for Patsy; to me it was not because of disorganization. He/they knew exactly what they were doing.

Then why not leave the cord and tape? It would help in implicating the Rs ?

You don't know that the intruder took the missing part of the brush.

Let's face it, there is a basic conflict in saying that some items were taken away and some from the house used deliberately. You can't pretend that he's organized because he brought tape/cord and yet he doesn't bring a handle for the garrotte. You can't pretend that the tape and cord were taken away to avoid being traced to the killer when there is virtually no way to trace generic items to the individual, short of finding them in the individual's house or on his person. You can't pretend he use the paintbrush to implicate Patsy yet he fails to leave the tape and cord, which the Rs couldn't possibly prove didn't belong to them, to implicate them even further.

Athena

10-24-2006, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Then why not leave the cord and tape? It would help in implicating the Rs ?

You don't know that the intruder took the missing part of the brush.

Let's face it, there is a basic conflict in saying that some items were taken away and some from the house used deliberately. You can't pretend that he's organized because he brought tape/cord and yet he doesn't bring a handle for the garrotte. You can't pretend that the tape and cord were taken away to avoid being traced to the killer when there is virtually no way to trace generic items to the individual, short of finding them in the individual's house or on his person. You can't pretend he use the paintbrush to implicate Patsy yet he fails to leave the tape and cord, which the Rs couldn't possibly prove didn't belong to them, to implicate them even further.

The handle wasn't necessarily part of the plan. He couldn't pull the cord tight enough so he broke the brush to tie the cord around the handle to pull it tighter or to free up his other hand. The brush was convenient and available and I do agree he took the othe part with him. It was a fact that the brush was broken on the spot because splinters of wood were found from it. So where is the other part of the brush? JB also had animal hairs in her hand indicating she may have pulled on it as he was breaking it. jmo

nuisanceposter

10-24-2006, 09:14 PM

It wasn't a fresh piece of tape right off the roll. The piece of tape showed signs of having been used somewhere previous to being put across JonBenet's mouth. Why didn't the killer bring a roll of tape and put a piece from the roll on JonBenet's mouth? If his goal was to silence her, then a fresh piece would have been much better than one that wasn't.

And on top of that, there was bloody mucus from JonBenet's nose or mouth on the tape, and a perfect set of lip prints, indicating it was put there after she was dead. Why would the killer tape her mouth after she dead, other than for staging?

Athena

10-24-2006, 09:23 PM

WallyCleaver

10-24-2006, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Athena

The handle wasn't necessarily part of the plan. He couldn't pull the cord tight enough so he broke the brush to tie the cord around the handle to pull it tighter or to free up his other hand. The brush was convenient and available and I do agree he took the othe part with him. It was a fact that the brush was broken on the spot because splinters of wood were found from it. So where is the other part of the brush? JB also had animal hairs in her hand indicating she may have pulled on it as he was breaking it. jmo

If it was an adult man then there'd be no reason at all he couldn't pull tight enough. Even if he wanted better grip, simply wrapping the cord once around the pulling hand would have given him all the grip he needed. This also works against your prior theory of him being organized. He didn't know he'd need a handle?

We know the brush was broken on the spot. We don't know it was broken twice on the spot. What if he had selected a brush already broken at the end?

WallyCleaver

10-24-2006, 09:41 PM

nuisanceposter

10-24-2006, 09:42 PM

Just the fact that it was there and known to have been on her face serves its purpose in the staging. But how did the fibers from Patsy's jacket get on it, if it was from the killer? And why didn't the killer use a fresh piece of tape? And why tape the mouth of a child after she's dead, unless it's for staging?

WallyCleaver

10-24-2006, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Why would JR pull the tape off before anyone saw it if it had any significance to the staging? I always thought that did not make sense.

For starters, FW probably saw the tape on her mouth when he caught up with JR at the wine cellar. How would it look if he left it on? And how would it look to police if he left it on ?

It can go either way - pulling the tape off is a normal reaction, so it would be done whether IDI or RDI.

thewhitewitch1

10-24-2006, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Why would JR pull the tape off before anyone saw it if it had any significance to the staging? I always thought that did not make sense.

Maybe because, as Nuisanceposter said, the tape had been used on something previously and therefore was not as sticky as it should have been. If someone else had removed the tape, they may have noticed it. Every description JR gives when describing how he removed the tape is as he "ripped it off her mouth". Almost an emphisis on how tightly it was adhered to her mouth.
The only staging that was corrupted from that was the visual from LE. The tape was still there with her lip prints on it.
Again, just my thoughts....as a possibility.

nuisanceposter

10-24-2006, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I believe you, but do you have a source for the claim that the tape showed signs of being used on something else first?

Off the top of my head, ST's book. Let me see what's online...

Here's the transcript of a show with Dr Lee - he saw the tape and said it was used.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/03/lkl.00.html

KURTIS: Dr. Lee, didn't you take a look at some tape in the JonBenet Ramsey case, reexamine it?

LEE: Yes. Yes, I did. Yes.

KURTIS: And there was nothing became of that.

LEE: Well, that's a two-inch tape and it's been used.

Ames

10-24-2006, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Why would JR pull the tape off before anyone saw it if it had any significance to the staging? I always thought that did not make sense.

Maybe it was already loose and falling off... IMO

MyrDawn

10-25-2006, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

For starters, FW probably saw the tape on her mouth when he caught up with JR at the wine cellar. How would it look if he left it on? And how would it look to police if he left it on ?

It can go either way - pulling the tape off is a normal reaction, so it would be done whether IDI or RDI.

IMO, if John had staged the scene, he would have had Fleet White be the one that discovered her body, or would have yelled for the cops and not touched one thing he'd "staged" after he found her. Why woud he stage it then destroy part of the staging?

MOO

WallyCleaver

10-25-2006, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

IMO, if John had staged the scene, he would have had Fleet White be the one that discovered her body, or would have yelled for the cops and not touched one thing he'd "staged" after he found her. Why woud he stage it then destroy part of the staging?

MOO

It makes sense, but he'd already been waiting 7 hours for someone to find her. How'd he know Fleet would see her this time?

MyrDawn

10-25-2006, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

It makes sense, but he'd already been waiting 7 hours for someone to find her. How'd he know Fleet would see her this time?

Fleet went into the basement with him. He could have asked Fleet to check the wine cellar while he checked another area. If Fleet said it was too dark, he could have told him where the light switch was.

WallyCleaver

10-25-2006, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Fleet went into the basement with him. He could have asked Fleet to check the wine cellar while he checked another area. If Fleet said it was too dark, he could have told him where the light switch was.

I'm just giving you a hard time. I agree, it makes more sense to let someone else find the body. It might have been difficult though to steer FW to the room w/o seeming suspicious. I know what you're saying, but FW might not have been the sort of guy who trots off and does what's asked of him. Still, I suppose it would have been best to ask FW once.

MyrDawn

10-25-2006, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I'm just giving you a hard time. I agree, it makes more sense to let someone else find the body. It might have been difficult though to steer FW to the room w/o seeming suspicious. I know what you're saying, but FW might not have been the sort of guy who trots off and does what's asked of him. Still, I suppose it would have been best to ask FW once.

My kids are the experts at giving me a hard time. LOL

Most friends would do what a parent asked when helping them search for clues to their just kidnapped child, I'd think. If FW had balked, it would have been very strange under the circumstances, IMO.

WallyCleaver

10-25-2006, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

My kids are the experts at giving me a hard time. LOL

Most friends would do what a parent asked when helping them search for clues to their just kidnapped child, I'd think. If FW had balked, it would have been very strange under the circumstances, IMO.

True, plus it would give JR the perfect reason to check that room.

MyrDawn

10-25-2006, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

True, plus it would give JR the perfect reason to check that room.

Yep...I think if JR was guilty, he'd have made sure FW went in first when they checked the room.

WallyCleaver

10-25-2006, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Yep...I think if JR was guilty, he'd have made sure FW went in first when they checked the room.

I still think he's guilty, but I agree, having FW find the body would have been best.

Ames

10-25-2006, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Yep...I think if JR was guilty, he'd have made sure FW went in first when they checked the room.

I understand where you are coming from too...
My thought is, that John "found" her so that he could contribute more fibers...to be able to explain away, when his fibers were found on her. Then he would have a good reason for the fibers to be found on her...just like when Patsy threw herself on JB's body. That is how she explained the fiber evidence. (IMO)

thewhitewitch1

10-25-2006, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Yep...I think if JR was guilty, he'd have made sure FW went in first when they checked the room.

Well, why would Fleet check that room when he had already looked in it earlier? Even if John didn't know that at the time, he would still probably have to verbally ask him to look in there and that would look a little strange, wouldn't it? I think he just wanted to have her found by that point. IMO

Athena

10-25-2006, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I understand where you are coming from too...
My thought is, that John "found" her so that he could contribute more fibers...to be able to explain away, when his fibers were found on her. Then he would have a good reason for the fibers to be found on her...just like when Patsy threw herself on JB's body. That is how she explained the fiber evidence. (IMO)

There were no fibers found from John on JBRs body nor was there any conclusive scientific evidence that any fibers from Patsy were found on JBR. JMO

MyrDawn

10-26-2006, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by Ames

I understand where you are coming from too...
My thought is, that John "found" her so that he could contribute more fibers...to be able to explain away, when his fibers were found on her. Then he would have a good reason for the fibers to be found on her...just like when Patsy threw herself on JB's body. That is how she explained the fiber evidence. (IMO)

Why would they have to explain away their fibers? They were her parents. They'd put her to bed the night before. It wouldn't be at all suspicious to find their fibers on her, IMO.

Athena

10-26-2006, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
It wasn't a fresh piece of tape right off the roll. The piece of tape showed signs of having been used somewhere previous to being put across JonBenet's mouth. Why didn't the killer bring a roll of tape and put a piece from the roll on JonBenet's mouth? If his goal was to silence her, then a fresh piece would have been much better than one that wasn't.

And on top of that, there was bloody mucus from JonBenet's nose or mouth on the tape, and a perfect set of lip prints, indicating it was put there after she was dead. Why would the killer tape her mouth after she dead, other than for staging?

The only place I have read anything about "lip prints" is from Steve Thomas' book. He embellished that as far as I believe. If fingerprints couldn't be found from either JR or FW who both handled the tape AFTER it was removed I don't believe for one second there was a perfect lip print found especially with mucous on her mouth. JMO

Re: the duct tape - where did you get it was a "used" piece of duct tape. I think people are reading that incorrectly as well since the only mention of duct tape being used meant that it was cut from a roll of tape and by each end they could tell it was from a 'USED ROLL' not that the piece of it was already used.

Black Duct Tape. "The black duct tape used on JonBenet's mouth has also not been sourced to defendants. (SMF P 170; PSMF P 170.) Both ends of the duct tape found on her were torn, indicating that it came from a roll of tape that had been used before.(SMF P 171; PSMF P 171.) No similar duct tape was found in the house, nor is there evidence that defendants ever used or owned such duct tape. (SMF P 172; PSMF P 172.)" (Carnes 2003:18).

nuisanceposter

10-26-2006, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Athena

There were no fibers found from John on JBRs body nor was there any conclusive scientific evidence that any fibers from Patsy were found on JBR. JMO

Fibers from John's black shirt were found on JonBenet's pubic area and in her underwear, and fibers microscopically and chemically consistent with Patsy's jacket were found on the tape, in the paint tray, and tied into the knot. We've gone through this on this board before. Levin, as an attorney, wasn't allowed to lie about that in the interviews, and unless you can prove the police intentionally lied to Levin about it, there's no proof that the fiber evidence isn't real.

nuisanceposter

10-26-2006, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Why would they have to explain away their fibers? They were her parents. They'd put her to bed the night before. It wouldn't be at all suspicious to find their fibers on her, IMO.

It wasn't just on JonBenet...fibers from Patsy's jacket were found in the paint tray, on the tape, and tied into the knot strangling JonBenet. Not on the cord, TIED INTO the knot. Patsy said she never wore that jacket whle painting, and she said she never wore that jacket while in the basement. It's VERY suspicious to find fibers from Patsy's jacket in the crime scene like that, when by her own admission she had never been in the basement in that jacket.

nuisanceposter

10-26-2006, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Athena

The only place I have read anything about "lip prints" is from Steve Thomas' book. He embellished that as far as I believe. If fingerprints couldn't be found from either JR or FW who both handled the tape AFTER it was removed I don't believe for one second there was a perfect lip print found especially with mucous on her mouth. JMO

Re: the duct tape - where did you get it was a "used" piece of duct tape. I think people are reading that incorrectly as well since the only mention of duct tape being used meant that it was cut from a roll of tape and by each end they could tell it was from a 'USED ROLL' not that the piece of it was already used.

Black Duct Tape. "The black duct tape used on JonBenet's mouth has also not been sourced to defendants. (SMF P 170; PSMF P 170.) Both ends of the duct tape found on her were torn, indicating that it came from a roll of tape that had been used before.(SMF P 171; PSMF P 171.) No similar duct tape was found in the house, nor is there evidence that defendants ever used or owned such duct tape. (SMF P 172; PSMF P 172.)" (Carnes 2003:18).

Why would Thomas embellish that, when he'd be found out to be embellishing it for sure? The Rs sued him, and then offered him a settlement stating that he could still sell his book as it was written without any alterations. Do you really think he's making the lip prints on the tape up? In addition to the link I gave to the article about JonBenet's murder that was NOT written by Steve Thomas, here's this.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Evidence%20of%20an%20Intruder

Duct Tape. "Plaintiff also notes that the strip of duct tape 19 found on JonBenet's mouth *1332 had a bloody mucous on it and a "perfect set of child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance." (PSDMF P 53.)" (Carnes 2003:19).

Let me go read through PM/PT and see if I can find anything in there about the tape.

The tape having no signs of struggle on it matches the fact that JonBenet's body shows no signs of struggle at all either - very little damage to the interior of the neck, and no defense wounds on her hands or feet. It really looks like JonBenet was unconscious when strangled, especially since her head wound was fully developed and that takes time to happen.

Athena

10-26-2006, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Why would Thomas embellish that, when he'd be found out to be embellishing it for sure? The Rs sued him, and then offered him a settlement stating that he could still sell his book as it was written without any alterations. Do you really think he's making the lip prints on the tape up? In addition to the link I gave to the article about JonBenet's murder that was NOT written by Steve Thomas, here's this.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Evidence%20of%20an%20Intruder

Duct Tape. "Plaintiff also notes that the strip of duct tape 19 found on JonBenet's mouth *1332 had a bloody mucous on it and a "perfect set of child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance." (PSDMF P 53.)" (Carnes 2003:19).

Let me go read through PM/PT and see if I can find anything in there about the tape.

The tape having no signs of struggle on it matches the fact that JonBenet's body shows no signs of struggle at all either - very little damage to the interior of the neck, and no defense wounds on her hands or feet. It really looks like JonBenet was unconscious when strangled, especially since her head wound was fully developed and that takes time to happen.

The link you provided was from the civil suit Wolf v Ramsey. Wolf received ALL of his info from Thomas' book which is why he was questioned and had to give a Depo. Again -- the only person stating that is Thomas and I find it difficult to believe a "perfect" set of lip prints would be found on duct tape and yet no fingerprints were found. Sorry -- doesn't make sense. JMO

LindaA

10-26-2006, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I understand where you are coming from too...
My thought is, that John "found" her so that he could contribute more fibers...to be able to explain away, when his fibers were found on her. Then he would have a good reason for the fibers to be found on her...just like when Patsy threw herself on JB's body. That is how she explained the fiber evidence. (IMO)

That makes sense, except when he carried her upstairs he held her away from his body -- not touching her. Muchw as made of that by the RDIs saying it was an indicator of his guilt. If he wanted to transfer fibers it would seem to me that he would have held her body closer to him. IMO

nuisanceposter

10-26-2006, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Athena

The link you provided was from the civil suit Wolf v Ramsey. Wolf received ALL of his info from Thomas' book which is why he was questioned and had to give a Depo. Again -- the only person stating that is Thomas and I find it difficult to believe a "perfect" set of lip prints would be found on duct tape and yet no fingerprints were found. Sorry -- doesn't make sense. JMO

Okay, I see what you mean, and I understand why you doubt info from Thomas. I doubt info from the Rs the same way. Maybe the tape wasn't sticky enough anymore? We know both JR and FW both touched the tape, but you have to wonder why there'd be no prints.

As for the tape being used before and having lip prints, I'll keep looking for a non-ST source. It'll have to be later on tonight though, it's time for the kids to get home.

nuisanceposter

10-26-2006, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

That makes sense, except when he carried her upstairs he held her away from his body -- not touching her. Muchw as made of that by the RDIs saying it was an indicator of his guilt. If he wanted to transfer fibers it would seem to me that he would have held her body closer to him. IMO

I consider JR picking JB up and carrying her upstairs as more of a "pollute the crime scene and destroy evidence" tactic than a fiber transfer tactic. I hear both John and Patsy looked shocked in the video from the 2000 interviews where the fiber evidence was brought up (haven't seen that video myself, but heard from a reputable source on another board.) I don't know how much they would have thought about fiber evidence.

WallyCleaver

10-26-2006, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I consider JR picking JB up and carrying her upstairs as more of a "pollute the crime scene and destroy evidence" tactic than a fiber transfer tactic. I hear both John and Patsy looked shocked in the video from the 2000 interviews where the fiber evidence was brought up (haven't seen that video myself, but heard from a reputable source on another board.) I don't know how much they would have thought about fiber evidence.

I doubt the killer (RDI or IDI) was thinking about fiber transfer. Most people don't.

Athena

10-26-2006, 05:55 PM

I think this explains it all:

All of these, and Mr. Schiller himself, got lost in the murk. Even the real heavy hitters, the "dream team" task force that Mr. Hunter assembled late in the game, couldn't make the thousands of crime-scene pieces fit. And that's where the case seems to have broader implications for forensics. And even empiricism itself. It sometimes seems that the closer and harder one looks at the material world, the fewer answers it provides.

Henry Lee, the charismatic crime scene analyst with the air of dispassionate command — "I'm the day shift, the night shift and the graveyard shift," is his motto on Court TV's Web site for his show "Trace Evidence" — sweeps onto the screen, presumably to save the day with his micro-analysis, but nothing doing. The bits of rope, cord, tape, hair, footprint, blood, paper, ink, pineapple and no fewer than 4,000 fibers: they just don't create a coherent story. Dr. Lee almost seems to relish the evidentiary miscues. The physical world is a mysterious place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/arts/television/29rams.html?ex=1309233600&en=8930a181dc7a7b05&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Just in case:

http://tinyurl.com/vl7fm

FurthurBB

10-26-2006, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Why would Thomas embellish that, when he'd be found out to be embellishing it for sure? The Rs sued him, and then offered him a settlement stating that he could still sell his book as it was written without any alterations. Do you really think he's making the lip prints on the tape up? In addition to the link I gave to the article about JonBenet's murder that was NOT written by Steve Thomas, here's this.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Evidence%20of%20an%20Intruder

Duct Tape. "Plaintiff also notes that the strip of duct tape 19 found on JonBenet's mouth *1332 had a bloody mucous on it and a "perfect set of child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance." (PSDMF P 53.)" (Carnes 2003:19).

Let me go read through PM/PT and see if I can find anything in there about the tape.

The tape having no signs of struggle on it matches the fact that JonBenet's body shows no signs of struggle at all either - very little damage to the interior of the neck, and no defense wounds on her hands or feet. It really looks like JonBenet was unconscious when strangled, especially since her head wound was fully developed and that takes time to happen.

I still have not found convincing evidence that it was fully developed. It had started to swell that is all.

Ames

10-26-2006, 09:21 PM

thewhitewitch1

10-26-2006, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Not to be graphic...but, maybe she was too rigid for him to hold her close.

I'm sorry but every time I get a mental image of that scene it just gives me the chills. I don't know how you would carry a body in rigor mortis so I don't think any way he carried her indicates guilt but I still think he should have known she was dead and not have picked her up at all. Before I get bashed, I will add that being it was his child, I can understand why he did. Not that I am saying that I don't believe he didn't have something to do with her murder, of course. IMO

Ames

10-26-2006, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I'm sorry but every time I get a mental image of that scene it just gives me the chills. I don't know how you would carry a body in rigor mortis so I don't think any way he carried her indicates guilt but I still think he should have known she was dead and not have picked her up at all. Before I get bashed, I will add that being it was his child, I can understand why he did. Not that I am saying that I don't believe he didn't have something to do with her murder, of course. IMO

I agree, he should have just left her there...and let the police do their job. IMO

MyrDawn

10-27-2006, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Ames

I agree, he should have just left her there...and let the police do their job. IMO

I agree it would have been better for him to leave her there, too, but I don't consider his bringing her upstairs at all sign pointing to his guilt.

I have no idea what I'd do if I found my child, either dead or unconscious, in the basement, but I do know my first thought would NOT be about preserving a crime scene. I'd probably grab her and bring her upstairs where it was warm and where my friends, family and a police person were located, too. It just seems more like something I'd do than leave her down on the cold hard cement floor in the basement.

LindaA

10-27-2006, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Not to be graphic...but, maybe she was too rigid for him to hold her close.

Graphic, maybe, but I agree. Still, he could have carried her in such a way that her body had more contact with his if he wanted to transfer fibers.

Also, as someone else asked, why would he unstage what he had spent hours staging? So much here is open to interpretation and depends on what you read. I don't know how anyoen can be so sure.

LindaA

10-27-2006, 08:08 AM

Of course he should have left her there. To me his reaction was one of a parent in total shock and dismay. I think I would have done just what he did if I found my child's dead body!!

The whole chain of events is weird beyond words. What police officer would send a family member to search a crime scene?

Question for RDI's: Do you think the body was in the wine cellar all that time or do you think JR moved it at some point? Why didn't FW see it when he looked in that same room earlier?

andU

10-27-2006, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

It was pineapple. There is no doubt about it:

JohnRamsey to Lou Smit: "Are you sure it was pineapple?"
Lou Smit: "No question. No question. So that's always been the big bugaboo."

All we have is the Ramseys' words that they don't know how it got into JB's stomach. But since the contents of the stomach are a crucial element in determining the time of death, the pineapple has to be explained in any IDI theory. Of course we as posters don't 'know' how it got there, but this is about offering a theory about what could have occurred.

Athena: you tried to explain that an intruder fed JB pineapple. But then the intruder would have had to stay with JB for over an hour after she ate it, before abducting her (since your initial scenario was a kidnapping). I can't imagine an intruder staying in the house full of people without the slightest fear of being detected.
And what is more: kidnappers are usually in and out of the house in seconds - they grab their victim and are gone.
Now which kidnapper would set himself up for detection by sitting down with the victim in the kitchen?

Sorry, but Smits did not do the autopsy and the report states 'consist with...' ...
I am thinking that there may have been two people... it was done because someone was enraged with John, wanted to pay him back in a big way ... the 'fat cat' may not have known that his accomplice had pedofile tendancies.... killing her was not the original plan, but the pedofile while playing went too far with the garotte ... and she was bashed to finalize the death... IMO, of course

thewhitewitch1

10-27-2006, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by LindaA
Of course he should have left her there. To me his reaction was one of a parent in total shock and dismay. I think I would have done just what he did if I found my child's dead body!!

The whole chain of events is weird beyond words. What police officer would send a family member to search a crime scene?

Question for RDI's: Do you think the body was in the wine cellar all that time or do you think JR moved it at some point? Why didn't FW see it when he looked in that same room earlier?

Hi Linda. There is some speculation about the way Fleet was positioned in the doorway that may have allowed for less light to enter the room. It appears that JR actually stepped into the room and it allowed for more light from the hallway in. I believe they tested this out and there are some photos floating around somewhere.
I am bothered about who went into the basement first that day...Fleet or John. The first few times it came out that John had been in the basement and had seen the open window and was questioned about it, he mentioned nothing about the suitcase being there. In later interviews, he did mention it and I believe that is also when he started saying that he had immediately told Linda Arndt about the window (not sure about the suitcase, though) but he did later act as though the suitcase had been there. I am not so sure that it was.
I feel that it would be beneficial to know which one of them went into the basement first but how are we ever going to find that out? All JR would say is that he went before 10:00 a.m. but when the first officers arrived and did a quick check of the house, why didn't they see the open/broken window and the suitcase? Being cops, you'd have thought that would have definately raised a red flag. Also, as far as the officer who didn't check inside the cellar was quoted to have said that the door was latched and he was looking for points of exit and a person couldn't exit though that door and latch it behind him.
For sure the LE should have had a better grip on the movements of the people in the house but what with all of the people there, I'm sure it must have been difficult. Honestly, my feelings are that the Ramseys invited all of those people there for just that purpose. The more confusion, the more contamination of the crime scene, the better. IMO

LindaA

10-27-2006, 12:32 PM

Hi, TWW1. That last point was a good one. What better way to contaminate the scene.? The one possible flaw I find with it is that the scene was mostly in the basement and very few of the guests ever went down there. (although we don't know where parts of the crime may have been committed.)

All the story changes are troublesome as well. I can't decide if JR had a spotty memory of what happened due, possibly to shock, or if he was lying or forgetting part of his story. Not reporting the broken window immediately is hard to understand if he is totally innocent or if he is guilty and it was part of the staging. Could it merely be a coincidence? (the broken window.) The fibers in the suitcase and the placement of the suitcase near the window seem to deny this. Given the fiber evidence on JB it is hard to believe that she was not in contact with the inside of the suitcase at some point.

Athena

10-27-2006, 04:24 PM

I thought this was an interesting article re: lip print evidence. Has nothing to do with JBR except that Steve Thomas claims that there was a PERFECT lip print of JBR's left on the duct tape:

The main evidence against him consisted of a purported “lip print” photographed from a roll of duct tape found near the scene of the crime

2. Trial counsel also failed to attack the use of a purported “lip print” even though it was the only physical evidence used by the State to connect Lavelle Davis to this crime and this was the first known case in which such evidence was being used. Counsel failed to request a pretrial hearing to attack the use of such evidence, and failed to conduct even a simple investigation which would have led to the finding of experts who believe “lip print” evidence to be “junk science” and unreliable as sole evidence of guilt in a court of law.

http://forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/Lipprint_reversed.html

Athena

10-27-2006, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Athena
I thought this was an interesting article re: lip print evidence. Has nothing to do with JBR except that Steve Thomas claims that there was a PERFECT lip print of JBR's left on the duct tape:

The main evidence against him consisted of a purported “lip print” photographed from a roll of duct tape found near the scene of the crime

2. Trial counsel also failed to attack the use of a purported “lip print” even though it was the only physical evidence used by the State to connect Lavelle Davis to this crime and this was the first known case in which such evidence was being used. Counsel failed to request a pretrial hearing to attack the use of such evidence, and failed to conduct even a simple investigation which would have led to the finding of experts who believe “lip print” evidence to be “junk science” and unreliable as sole evidence of guilt in a court of law.

http://forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/Lipprint_reversed.html

IGNORE THIS POST. THAT'S WHAT I GET FOR TRYING TO FIND STUFF WHILE W0RKING. :o

thewhitewitch1

10-27-2006, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
Hi, TWW1. That last point was a good one. What better way to contaminate the scene.? The one possible flaw I find with it is that the scene was mostly in the basement and very few of the guests ever went down there. (although we don't know where parts of the crime may have been committed.)

All the story changes are troublesome as well. I can't decide if JR had a spotty memory of what happened due, possibly to shock, or if he was lying or forgetting part of his story. Not reporting the broken window immediately is hard to understand if he is totally innocent or if he is guilty and it was part of the staging. Could it merely be a coincidence? (the broken window.) The fibers in the suitcase and the placement of the suitcase near the window seem to deny this. Given the fiber evidence on JB it is hard to believe that she was not in contact with the inside of the suitcase at some point.

Linda...if there were fibers from the "blanket" that was inside the suitcase on JB, couldn't it have been that that blanket was on her at some point in time and later put in the suitcase? It doesn't necessarily mean that someone tried to put JB in the suitcase. I know this is going to sound kind of nasty too, but isn't it possible that the person who used it on JB noticed the "semen" on the blanket, and, not wanting to implicate JA, put the blanket in the suitcase and used the one from her bed instead?
Also, I saw "Who Killed the Pageant Queen" the other night and there is no way on earth that suitcase was ever going to fit through that window. A person would have to be nuts to think they could put her in a suitcase and get her out that way. If they had to stand on it to get out, if they even could get the suitcase out, what were they then supposed to stand on to get themselves out? Yep...I believe the suitcase under window was staged too; just like everything else except for the blow to the head. IMO

Athena

10-27-2006, 07:19 PM

This is a picture from the December 23rd Ramsey Christmas Party. Doesn't the bowl look like the one found on the 26th with pineapple in it? I was actually trying to find a picture of Fleet White and was just going through all of the albums on this site and noticed it. This is the blown up version of it and then I posted the page where I got it from underneath which is on the third row right end.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/doc232.jpg

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/08051998-jbramerica-pic4.htm

Ames

10-27-2006, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

I agree it would have been better for him to leave her there, too, but I don't consider his bringing her upstairs at all sign pointing to his guilt.

I have no idea what I'd do if I found my child, either dead or unconscious, in the basement, but I do know my first thought would NOT be about preserving a crime scene. I'd probably grab her and bring her upstairs where it was warm and where my friends, family and a police person were located, too. It just seems more like something I'd do than leave her down on the cold hard cement floor in the basement.

I agree with you on that one...its easy for me to sit here and say (or type) that he should have left her there, but...I bet that I would have probably done the same thing, if I had of been in his shoes. (IMO)

Ames

10-27-2006, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

Graphic, maybe, but I agree. Still, he could have carried her in such a way that her body had more contact with his if he wanted to transfer fibers.

Also, as someone else asked, why would he unstage what he had spent hours staging? So much here is open to interpretation and depends on what you read. I don't know how anyoen can be so sure.

Although I am RDI...I can sure appreciate the IDI theory. I don't think that we will EVER know the truth about who killed JB....not in OUR lifetime, anyway.

Ames

10-27-2006, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
The whole chain of events is weird beyond words. What police officer would send a family member to search a crime scene?

Question for RDI's: Do you think the body was in the wine cellar all that time or do you think JR moved it at some point? Why didn't FW see it when he looked in that same room earlier?

You can say THAT again...weird beyond words..thats a great way to describe it.

Personally, as an RDI person, I am not quite sure WHERE I think the actual murder took place. Again, I want to emphasize...that I do NOT for one second, think that one of the Ramsey's harmed her intentionally....I think it was more like a fit of rage gone bad. Anyway, I have read other RDI posts...that have stated that THEY believe that the reason that Fleet didn't see her earlier, is because she was not in the same location as she was when she was found. They believe that when JR was out of sight, for awhile, that he moved the body to where it was found, so that it would make it easier for someone to see. They say that he wanted her to be found...and realized that she wasn't going to be, because Fleet hadn't seen her the first time around, so he moved the body out more, so that she could be seen. Does that make sense? I DO like to ramble. IMO

WallyCleaver

10-28-2006, 09:49 AM

I was disappointed that the moderator added RDI theory to this thread. I'd wanted a place to talk just about IDI theory, in relation to the evidence, and with a view to developing a reasonably consistant theory. I don't really think it's possible, but the thread certainly gave IDIs a place to present their best efforts.

I'm reading several books in an attempt to learn more about the case and come up with my own theory. Since I issued the challenge, it seems only fair I should offer my own theory. This may change later, if the books I'm ready give me new info.

My theory is that one or the other of the Rs killed her.

I start with the fact that she was killed in her own home. In Wecht's book (sorry don't have a page number handy) it is stated that when a child is killed at home the odds are 12:1 the parent(s) did it.

Next is the fact that there is a RN and a dead body in the same house. This eliminates any real kidnapping theory. No kidnapper would have left the body. A kidnapper might very well kill the victim, but not leave the body.

If there was no kidnapping, why a fake ransom note? A revenge killer wouldn't leave a ransom note. A revenge killer would leave a revenge note. There is nothing in the note that speaks of revenge. The theories I've seen on these boards of some secret message being given in the "RN" are unconvincing to say the least. Not a word speaks to revenge.

If not a kidnapping or a revenge killing, what of a paedophile attack? This I could believe if there were no RN. It's extermely unlikely a paedophile would leave a note of any kind, and if he did, it would not be a ransom note.

If not a kidnapper or a revenge killer, or a paedophile, then what of a disgruntled employee?
First, the probability of someone killing JB because he was upset with JR over business dealings (whether it was an employee or some other business relationship) is EXTREMELY unlikely. Disgruntled employees sometimes go "postal" but they tend to shoot fellow employees or supervisors, not the boss's children. Even less likely than shooting the boss's child is breaking into the boss's house, garrotting the child, and leaving a fake ransom note.

So, it's not a kidnapper, or a paedo, or a revenge killer, or disgruntled employee. That pretty much leaves us with the unsettling truth that the parent(s) wrote the note as staging.

The text analysis I've read shows that the note intentionally leads away from the killer, and that many statements are intended to imply that JB is alive and well when the note writter knew that was not the case. I won't go through the text analysis here because I think most of you are familiar with it.

The 118K makes no sense at all for an intruder, as it maks the intruder as a person who knows JR and his finances. It makes sense for the Rs to put 118K in the note in an attempt to point at someone who knows JR and his finances.

PR hasn't been eliminated as the writer. The RN and her exemplars look very similar to me. There are patterns of speach in other of her writings which are similar to the RN.

IMO no IDI theory makes any sense in relation to the note. The only plausible explanation is that PR wrote it as part of the staging effort.

Next, there is no real evidence of an intruder.

No one came in or out the window in the basement. We know that by the condition of the sill, the grate being in place, the spider web being intact and the grill and hose being on top of the grate.

The DNA has not been proven, so far as I can tell, to be from a caucasian. This has been widely reported, but never substantiated. The DNA is from a male, but Dr. Lee has shown us that new panties, just out of the package can have DNA on them.

The DNA on the panties was likely older (deposited at another time) than JB's blood. We know this from the degraded condition - fewer markers. Enough for CODIS, yes, but not as many as in JB's DNA.

The boot print might have been left weeks prior to the murder, and by any of dozens of people who had access to the house.

Everything used, with the possible exception of the cord and tape, were from the home. While it's possible the cord and tape were brought in, that certainly hasn't been proven, and needn't be the case. I find it unlilkely the killer came with some things he'd need but not others.

The falshlight seems to be debated. We don't know it was the R's light for a fact. I tend to think it was because a) why would the intruder leave it ? b) if it belonged to a cop why would the batteries show no prints? and c) we know that JAR gave the Rs a flashlight like that a year or two prior as a X-mass gift.

No item in the house has been traced to any individual other than a Ramsey. (The panty DNA has already been discussed) No fibers have been traced to say FW or Chris Wolfe, or anyone else. The tape and cord aren't traceable to any individual. Prints are either traced to someone who's been cleared or unkown. With literally hundreds of people being in the house in the 6 months prior, it's no suprise the house has prints, fibers, shoe prints, and "auxilliary" hairs from people who can't be identified, or from people who've been cleared.

While no evidence links a particular intruder to any element of the crime, there is evidence linking PR. Fibers conssitant with her jacket are found in the garrotte. Also in the paint tray. Also on the tape.

The FBI CASKU (sp?) unit looked at the evidence and concluded it was unlikely an IDI. With respect to John Douglas, the FBI unit is a "group of individuals" :-) not a single person. The collective wisdom is that it's not an IDI case.

If you were hoping for a play by play sort of theory, where the killer's movements are traced and his thoughts and emotions are speculated on, I'm sorry. I don't play a psychiatrist on the internet.

If you find it unsatisfying that I havn't said which R killed her I'm sorry. I don't know. I will state that I don't think Burke did it. The killing and staging was JR or PR, or a joint effort of the two.

IMO the evidence points at a member of the family killing JB, and staging the crime scene. Staging withing staging as it's often been called. A paedophile kidnapper who knows about JR's bonus, and is satisfied with that amount when he knows JR is worth several million dollars. Doesn't add up.

I know IDIs will ask why the Rs would kill their daughter. I don't know. I see no use speculating on why, as there isn't much to go on. For me, the fake note, the lack of intruder evidence and the evidence linking the Rs makes it overwhelmingly more likely that the Rs did it than an IDI.

lucky13

10-28-2006, 10:40 AM

GREAT post, Wally!! I agree.

Ames

10-28-2006, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by lucky13
GREAT post, Wally!! I agree.

DITTO! I personally don't think that the Ramsey's killed their daughter on purpose..I think that one of them flew into a rage, for some reason, and hurt her untentionally....(ever heard of shaken baby syndrome?)....maybe shaking her and slamming her head into something, or shoving her into something. She was probably convulsing...and they started to panic....and then the staging began. JUST MY OPINION.....

Athena

10-28-2006, 03:37 PM

I have a question for the RDIs. If the strangulation did occur before the head injury what explanation would there be that the Ramseys killed JBR since an accident would be ruled out?

thewhitewitch1

10-28-2006, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Athena
I have a question for the RDIs. If the strangulation did occur before the head injury what explanation would there be that the Ramseys killed JBR since an accident would be ruled out?

If it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was strangled first, I would believe the Ramseys were innocent. I know we are not supposed to think "they couldn't have done that to their child" but I can't help it. I just don't think they could or would have, for any reason at all, murderered her in that way....or murderered her at all. This is why I believe the head injury came first. That, my "gut feeling", the inconsistancies in their stories, the fiber evidence, the pineapple, their actions on the morning of the "kidnapping", the ransom note, the fact that it happened in their home with so little evidence of an intruder...and yes, their behavior afterwards and ever since.
How can it ever be proven now which injury came first? :(

WallyCleaver

10-28-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Athena
I have a question for the RDIs. If the strangulation did occur before the head injury what explanation would there be that the Ramseys killed JBR since an accident would be ruled out?

I don't why the Rs killed her. I think it's a mistake to try to assign motive. It's always worthwile to consider motive if possible, but in this case I don't think it's possible.

If I had to take a stab at coming up with a theory - based on strangulation first- I'd say JR was sexually abusing her, and expirementing with EA. He accidentally killed her - or thought he did- and the blow to the head is the staged event.

That theory is set out in Cyril Wecht's book "Who Killed Jonbent Ramsey?" Wecht explains how EA can affect a certain nerve (the vagus nerve) and that can cause the heart to stop, as well as the lungs. p.100 That would explain the relatively small amount of blood - about the same amount as the capillaries would hold.

There were injuries consistant with prior sexual abuse. Wecht also explains how the family Dr. didn't use a certain instrument (a speculum) to examine JB's vagina -specifically the area where Meyer found injuries- because it would only be used if molestation were suspected and would require full anesthesia. p104 In essence Dr. Beuf didn't look deeply enough into her vagina to see the injuries Meyer found and described.

There is also evidence that the garrotte wasn't intended to kill. The strap muscles of the neck had not hemoraged, indicating the garrotte was just tight enough to cut off oxygen supply, but not tight enough to damage the internal muscles/organs. Wecht also notes there were no fractures of the thyroid cartilidge.

It seems then, that whoever killed JB, did so while engaged in AE activity. That doesn't automatically mean JR, but he'd be more likely than anyone else because he'd have more access to her. Although JAR would have access as well, living only a mile away and maintaining a room at home.

What I'm going to say next isn't even a theory - just something a bit errie. JR put a silk scarf in the casket with JB. The practice of Errotic Asphyxiation is often called "scarfing" by practitioners. Silk scarves are often used for the purpose.

Ames

10-28-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I don't why the Rs killed her. I think it's a mistake to try to assign motive. It's always worthwile to consider motive if possible, but in this case I don't think it's possible.

If I had to take a stab at coming up with a theory - based on strangulation first- I'd say JR was sexually abusing her, and expirementing with EA. He accidentally killed her - or thought he did- and the blow to the head is the staged event.

That theory is set out in Cyril Wecht's book "Who Killed Jonbent Ramsey?" Wecht explains how EA can affect a certain nerve (the vagus nerve) and that can cause the heart to stop, as well as the lungs. p.100 That would explain the relatively small amount of blood - about the same amount as the capillaries would hold.

There were injuries consistant with prior sexual abuse. Wecht also explains how the family Dr. didn't use a certain instrument (a speculum) to examine JB's vagina -specifically the area where Meyer found injuries- because it would only be used if molestation were suspected and would require full anesthesia. p104 In essence Dr. Beuf didn't look deeply enough into her vagina to see the injuries Meyer found and described.

There is also evidence that the garrotte wasn't intended to kill. The strap muscles of the neck had not hemoraged, indicating the garrotte was just tight enough to cut off oxygen supply, but not tight enough to damage the internal muscles/organs. Wecht also notes there were no fractures of the thyroid cartilidge.

It seems then, that whoever killed JB, did so while engaged in AE activity. That doesn't automatically mean JR, but he'd be more likely than anyone else because he'd have more access to her. Although JAR would have access as well, living only a mile away and maintaining a room at home.

What I'm going to say next isn't even a theory - just something a bit errie. JR put a silk scarf in the casket with JB. The practice of Errotic Asphyxiation is often called "scarfing" by practitioners. Silk scarves are often used for the purpose.

John could have been turning to JB, because Patsy had cancer..and couldn't perform her wifely duties (if you know what I mean). It is hard to imagine a father doing that to his own flesh and blood...but its a sick world that we live in, and it happens every single day. He could have even been drunk from the White's Party...and didn't realize exactly what he was doing. IMO

Athena

10-28-2006, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Ames

John could have been turning to JB, because Patsy had cancer..and couldn't perform her wifely duties (if you know what I mean). It is hard to imagine a father doing that to his own flesh and blood...but its a sick world that we live in, and it happens every single day. He could have even been drunk from the White's Party...and didn't realize exactly what he was doing. IMO

John Ramsey had every opportunity to be with other women. He wasn't home much from what I've read.

Another thing that bothers me is that children who are sexually abused although they may keep "secrets" are usually afraid of the one doing the abusing. By all accounts JBR cried when speaking about her father because she missed him so much. jmo

LadyFisher

10-28-2006, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I was disappointed that the moderator added RDI theory to this thread. I'd wanted a place to talk just about IDI theory, in relation to the evidence, and with a view to developing a reasonably consistant theory. I don't really think it's possible, but the thread certainly gave IDIs a place to present their best efforts.

I'm reading several books in an attempt to learn more about the case and come up with my own theory. Since I issued the challenge, it seems only fair I should offer my own theory. This may change later, if the books I'm ready give me new info.

My theory is that one or the other of the Rs killed her.

I start with the fact that she was killed in her own home. In Wecht's book (sorry don't have a page number handy) it is stated that when a child is killed at home the odds are 12:1 the parent(s) did it.

Next is the fact that there is a RN and a dead body in the same house. This eliminates any real kidnapping theory. No kidnapper would have left the body. A kidnapper might very well kill the victim, but not leave the body.

If there was no kidnapping, why a fake ransom note? A revenge killer wouldn't leave a ransom note. A revenge killer would leave a revenge note. There is nothing in the note that speaks of revenge. The theories I've seen on these boards of some secret message being given in the "RN" are unconvincing to say the least. Not a word speaks to revenge.

If not a kidnapping or a revenge killing, what of a paedophile attack? This I could believe if there were no RN. It's extermely unlikely a paedophile would leave a note of any kind, and if he did, it would not be a ransom note.

If not a kidnapper or a revenge killer, or a paedophile, then what of a disgruntled employee?
First, the probability of someone killing JB because he was upset with JR over business dealings (whether it was an employee or some other business relationship) is EXTREMELY unlikely. Disgruntled employees sometimes go "postal" but they tend to shoot fellow employees or supervisors, not the boss's children. Even less likely than shooting the boss's child is breaking into the boss's house, garrotting the child, and leaving a fake ransom note.

So, it's not a kidnapper, or a paedo, or a revenge killer, or disgruntled employee. That pretty much leaves us with the unsettling truth that the parent(s) wrote the note as staging.

The text analysis I've read shows that the note intentionally leads away from the killer, and that many statements are intended to imply that JB is alive and well when the note writter knew that was not the case. I won't go through the text analysis here because I think most of you are familiar with it.

The 118K makes no sense at all for an intruder, as it maks the intruder as a person who knows JR and his finances. It makes sense for the Rs to put 118K in the note in an attempt to point at someone who knows JR and his finances.

PR hasn't been eliminated as the writer. The RN and her exemplars look very similar to me. There are patterns of speach in other of her writings which are similar to the RN.

IMO no IDI theory makes any sense in relation to the note. The only plausible explanation is that PR wrote it as part of the staging effort.

Next, there is no real evidence of an intruder.

No one came in or out the window in the basement. We know that by the condition of the sill, the grate being in place, the spider web being intact and the grill and hose being on top of the grate.

The DNA has not been proven, so far as I can tell, to be from a caucasian. This has been widely reported, but never substantiated. The DNA is from a male, but Dr. Lee has shown us that new panties, just out of the package can have DNA on them.

The DNA on the panties was likely older (deposited at another time) than JB's blood. We know this from the degraded condition - fewer markers. Enough for CODIS, yes, but not as many as in JB's DNA.

The boot print might have been left weeks prior to the murder, and by any of dozens of people who had access to the house.

Everything used, with the possible exception of the cord and tape, were from the home. While it's possible the cord and tape were brought in, that certainly hasn't been proven, and needn't be the case. I find it unlilkely the killer came with some things he'd need but not others.

The falshlight seems to be debated. We don't know it was the R's light for a fact. I tend to think it was because a) why would the intruder leave it ? b) if it belonged to a cop why would the batteries show no prints? and c) we know that JAR gave the Rs a flashlight like that a year or two prior as a X-mass gift.

No item in the house has been traced to any individual other than a Ramsey. (The panty DNA has already been discussed) No fibers have been traced to say FW or Chris Wolfe, or anyone else. The tape and cord aren't traceable to any individual. Prints are either traced to someone who's been cleared or unkown. With literally hundreds of people being in the house in the 6 months prior, it's no suprise the house has prints, fibers, shoe prints, and "auxilliary" hairs from people who can't be identified, or from people who've been cleared.

While no evidence links a particular intruder to any element of the crime, there is evidence linking PR. Fibers conssitant with her jacket are found in the garrotte. Also in the paint tray. Also on the tape.

The FBI CASKU (sp?) unit looked at the evidence and concluded it was unlikely an IDI. With respect to John Douglas, the FBI unit is a "group of individuals" :-) not a single person. The collective wisdom is that it's not an IDI case.

If you were hoping for a play by play sort of theory, where the killer's movements are traced and his thoughts and emotions are speculated on, I'm sorry. I don't play a psychiatrist on the internet.

If you find it unsatisfying that I havn't said which R killed her I'm sorry. I don't know. I will state that I don't think Burke did it. The killing and staging was JR or PR, or a joint effort of the two.

IMO the evidence points at a member of the family killing JB, and staging the crime scene. Staging withing staging as it's often been called. A paedophile kidnapper who knows about JR's bonus, and is satisfied with that amount when he knows JR is worth several million dollars. Doesn't add up.

I know IDIs will ask why the Rs would kill their daughter. I don't know. I see no use speculating on why, as there isn't much to go on. For me, the fake note, the lack of intruder evidence and the evidence linking the Rs makes it overwhelmingly more likely that the Rs did it than an IDI. I think there is evidence of a stun gun used on JB....Nobody has been able to explain those marks to my satisfaction....I think the DNA is viable DNA....do we know when it was put into the FBI data base? I agree that the RN was to deceive, I think the perp was trying to deflect attention from himself...but I don't think a Ramsey wrote it....I think this perp was somehow indirectly hurt by John Ramsey...I think the perp intended all along to kill this child....I do think in the killer's mind it was for revenge! jmho

Athena

10-28-2006, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by Ames

You can say THAT again...weird beyond words..thats a great way to describe it.

Personally, as an RDI person, I am not quite sure WHERE I think the actual murder took place. Again, I want to emphasize...that I do NOT for one second, think that one of the Ramsey's harmed her intentionally....I think it was more like a fit of rage gone bad. Anyway, I have read other RDI posts...that have stated that THEY believe that the reason that Fleet didn't see her earlier, is because she was not in the same location as she was when she was found. They believe that when JR was out of sight, for awhile, that he moved the body to where it was found, so that it would make it easier for someone to see. They say that he wanted her to be found...and realized that she wasn't going to be, because Fleet hadn't seen her the first time around, so he moved the body out more, so that she could be seen. Does that make sense? I DO like to ramble. IMO

I don't think Fleet White saw her because he was down there at 6:15AM on a winter morning and didn't know where the light switch was and I'm sure it was probably dark outside. Doubt there was any light that would have shown in that room at that time of the morning.

JR found her at 1:05PM and at that time there would have probably been a bit of light into the basement just from the sun. It was bright and sunny that afternoon. And don't forget he did not see JBR but saw her white blanket and realized it was probably JBR and switched the light on and ran over to it. JMO

WallyCleaver

10-29-2006, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Athena

I don't think Fleet White saw her because he was down there at 6:15AM on a winter morning and didn't know where the light switch was and I'm sure it was probably dark outside. Doubt there was any light that would have shown in that room at that time of the morning.

JR found her at 1:05PM and at that time there would have probably been a bit of light into the basement just from the sun. It was bright and sunny that afternoon. And don't forget he did not see JBR but saw her white blanket and realized it was probably JBR and switched the light on and ran over to it. JMO

- Or called out and then switched on the light, depending on who's version of the story you believe.

Yes, I think it's reasonable to say FW didn't see her because it was too dark.

Athena

10-29-2006, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Linda...if there were fibers from the "blanket" that was inside the suitcase on JB, couldn't it have been that that blanket was on her at some point in time and later put in the suitcase? It doesn't necessarily mean that someone tried to put JB in the suitcase. I know this is going to sound kind of nasty too, but isn't it possible that the person who used it on JB noticed the "semen" on the blanket, and, not wanting to implicate JA, put the blanket in the suitcase and used the one from her bed instead?
Also, I saw "Who Killed the Pageant Queen" the other night and there is no way on earth that suitcase was ever going to fit through that window. A person would have to be nuts to think they could put her in a suitcase and get her out that way. If they had to stand on it to get out, if they even could get the suitcase out, what were they then supposed to stand on to get themselves out? Yep...I believe the suitcase under window was staged too; just like everything else except for the blow to the head. IMO

How would anyone have known that JAR's semen was on that blanket? Also how would anyone have known there was even a blanket in the suitcase? The suitcase was opened for a reason IMO and that was to try to put JBRs body into it and then the kidnapper/killer realized they could not get the body into the suitcase or out of the house.

I still do not understand why FW moved the sutcase in the first place, picked up the glass or examined that duct tape and put it on the white blanket. Even though in the Greta interview Thomas uses the word "may" when referring to FW opening that window, I now believe that FW did in fact open that window which would also indicate he was in that basement prior to JR going down there. Why would Thomas even bring it up now and say to Greta this is the first time he is divulging this information, something he has not said in 10 years?

What I have seen questioned is why JR went to the basement first when asked by Linda Arndt to search the house. What I have not seen asked is WHY FW went down into the basement FIRST, 15 minutes after he got there? Because all of FW's interviews, depos etc have been sealed there is no way to verify exactly what happened re: FW.

JMHO

thewhitewitch1

10-29-2006, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Athena

How would anyone have known that JAR's semen was on that blanket? Also how would anyone have known there was even a blanket in the suitcase? The suitcase was opened for a reason IMO and that was to try to put JBRs body into it and then the kidnapper/killer realized they could not get the body into the suitcase or out of the house.

I still do not understand why FW moved the sutcase in the first place, picked up the glass or examined that duct tape and put it on the white blanket. Even though in the Greta interview Thomas uses the word "may" when referring to FW opening that window, I now believe that FW did in fact open that window which would also indicate he was in that basement prior to JR going down there. Why would Thomas even bring it up now and say to Greta this is the first time he is divulging this information, something he has not said in 10 years?

What I have seen questioned is why JR went to the basement first when asked by Linda Arndt to search the house. What I have not seen asked is WHY FW went down into the basement FIRST, 15 minutes after he got there? Because all of FW's interviews, depos etc have been sealed there is no way to verify exactly what happened re: FW.

JMHO

I was surmising that the "blanket" in the suitcase was not in the suitcase originally. Maybe she was carried in it to the basement. As far as how anyone would know JARs semen was on it...well, not to say that anyone knew it was his but if it left a stain or a residue, I would think that the Ramseys were smart enough to figure out what it was and from whom it came. Just guessing, as always. :shrug:
It's my understanding that FW went looking around the house trying to find "evidence"...such as a point of entry. You can't really blame him, can you? Also he has said (I've read) that his own daughter was missing once and was found hiding in the crawlspace of his home so I would assume that's why he checked the basement...based on this memory.
As far as the open window....I do believe that it makes more sense that JR would have gone into the basement first looking for something. We can't just assume that FW was the first one down there.
Thomas is just grasping at straws at this point. IMO There is no real evidence that FW was in that house that night at all. Lacking the evidence...what would his motive be?

Athena

10-29-2006, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I was surmising that the "blanket" in the suitcase was not in the suitcase originally. Maybe she was carried in it to the basement. As far as how anyone would know JARs semen was on it...well, not to say that anyone knew it was his but if it left a stain or a residue, I would think that the Ramseys were smart enough to figure out what it was and from whom it came. Just guessing, as always. :shrug:
It's my understanding that FW went looking around the house trying to find "evidence"...such as a point of entry. You can't really blame him, can you? Also he has said (I've read) that his own daughter was missing once and was found hiding in the crawlspace of his home so I would assume that's why he checked the basement...based on this memory.
As far as the open window....I do believe that it makes more sense that JR would have gone into the basement first looking for something. We can't just assume that FW was the first one down there.
Thomas is just grasping at straws at this point. IMO There is no real evidence that FW was in that house that night at all. Lacking the evidence...what would his motive be?

You are right there is no real evidence that FW was down there. There is NO real evidence of whoever was down there at night. Still seems pretty wierd to me that FW tampered with the evidence -- to cover his tracks perhaps? Every person is suspect to me in this case and every person that was allegedly cleared was the same evidence that cleared the Ramseys. JMO

thewhitewitch1

10-30-2006, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Athena

You are right there is no real evidence that FW was down there. There is NO real evidence of whoever was down there at night. Still seems pretty wierd to me that FW tampered with the evidence -- to cover his tracks perhaps? Every person is suspect to me in this case and every person that was allegedly cleared was the same evidence that cleared the Ramseys. JMO

I guess FWs "tampering with the evidence" could as easily be dismissed as the Ramseys "tampering" if he was as upset as you or I could imagine he'd be. Maybe he didn't realize that he was "contaminating" the scene. I guess we can give him the same benefit of the doubt as the Ramseys, right?
No one can deny that they did more than their fair share of contaminating the crime scene; and while some of the things they did are forgiveable and understandable, some of it is just beyond believeable...such as inviting all of those people over. Let's not forget that FW was asked to be there. He did not come rushing over on his own to "tamper with the evidence". If he had not been there, would he still be a "suspect?" Why would he be?
Kind of sucks to be called over by your friends to help them in a crisis and then suddenly the finger is pointed at you just because you tried to be there for them. IMO

WallyCleaver

11-01-2006, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I guess FWs "tampering with the evidence" could as easily be dismissed as the Ramseys "tampering" if he was as upset as you or I could imagine he'd be. Maybe he didn't realize that he was "contaminating" the scene. I guess we can give him the same benefit of the doubt as the Ramseys, right?
No one can deny that they did more than their fair share of contaminating the crime scene; and while some of the things they did are forgiveable and understandable, some of it is just beyond believeable...such as inviting all of those people over. Let's not forget that FW was asked to be there. He did not come rushing over on his own to "tamper with the evidence". If he had not been there, would he still be a "suspect?" Why would he be?
Kind of sucks to be called over by your friends to help them in a crisis and then suddenly the finger is pointed at you just because you tried to be there for them. IMO

That was pretty clever of FW to get himself invited over so he'd have a chance to tamper with evidence :seeya:

Ames

11-01-2006, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

That was pretty clever of FW to get himself invited over so he'd have a chance to tamper with evidence :seeya:

:lol: Pretty cleaver indeed....

thewhitewitch1

11-02-2006, 01:15 AM

I'd like to know what the IDI's think of JR's failure to mention the suitcase under the window to the LE after his first trip to the basement. Notice in the '97 interview, the only thing he mentions is the window:

ST: And you mentioned when you went down in the morning, the 26th, and it was unlatched, did that strike you as odd or did you bring that to anybody’s attention?

JR: I, I don’t know. I mean when I was, I think, yeah, I think it probably struck me as a little odd, but it wasn’t, I mean sometimes that window would be open because the basement got hot, or one of those windows would be opened. So it wasn’t . . .

ST: Particularly unusual?

It's as though the suitcase wasn't even there at that time. If I saw a broken/open window with a suitcase under it after recieving a ransom note, I'd damn sure go get a cop right away to point it out. No one has yet had an explanation why the cop that did the initial search of the house didn't notice the window OR the suitcase. This says to me that JR was in the basement after the initial LE search and put that suitcase there. It also tells me that the window was never open. IMO

nuisanceposter

11-02-2006, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

<snip>

No one has yet had an explanation why the cop that did the initial search of the house didn't notice the window OR the suitcase. This says to me that JR was in the basement after the initial LE search and put that suitcase there. It also tells me that the window was never open. IMO

I wonder about that too...Officers French and Veitch were down in the basement specifically searching for an intruder's point of entry/exit. Why didn't they see the suitcase and window, when that was exactly the type of thing they were searching for?

WallyCleaver

11-02-2006, 03:09 PM

Athena

11-02-2006, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I wonder about that too...Officers French and Veitch were down in the basement specifically searching for an intruder's point of entry/exit. Why didn't they see the suitcase and window, when that was exactly the type of thing they were searching for?

According to PMPT French went immediately to the basement to search after arriving at the Ramseys and JR met him at the door. FW went down after him. If FW opened the window and moved the suit case chances are French would not have noticed it at the time he went down. I still don't know why Fleet did that and that bugs me. I honestly don't think French searched as thoroughly as you may think; if he had he would have opened the door to the wine cellar. How does he know what would have been on the other side of the door and he wishes to this day that he had. p8 PMPT

Veitch was not one of the first officers on the scene; he arrived later according to PMPT p 78 and was with Linda Arndt for a while however other officers were upstairs but it doesn't say who.

Another officer searched the outside but because the windows were not ground level he probably didn't even notice them under the grate. It has also been reported that other windows were cracked to allow the electrical cords into the basement from the outside Christmas decorations - that's from the interviews. JMO

Athena

11-02-2006, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

That was pretty clever of FW to get himself invited over so he'd have a chance to tamper with evidence :seeya:

I understand what you are saying but there is absolutely no valid explanation for what Fleet White did and IMO is worse in many ways what JR did. JR found the body of his baby girl - snatched the duct tape off, untied her and took her upstairs. Cannot be compared to what Fleet did by moving that suitcase, opening up that window, picking up glass and touching that duct tape. Almost appears like he was covering his tracks in the event his prints were picked up. IMO

thewhitewitch1

11-02-2006, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I understand what you are saying but there is absolutely no valid explanation for what Fleet White did and IMO is worse in many ways what JR did. JR found the body of his baby girl - snatched the duct tape off, untied her and took her upstairs. Cannot be compared to what Fleet did by moving that suitcase, opening up that window, picking up glass and touching that duct tape. Almost appears like he was covering his tracks in the event his prints were picked up. IMO

If he was such a mastermind criminal, he would have done all of that after "he" murdered her. What point was there in moving the suitcase? Where did he move it to? Why did John state that no glass was found by either of them in the "97 interview? Where do you read FW picked up the glass? I'm sorry to ask for a link but I don't recall seeing that. Did FW move the suitcase to look for glass? Understandable.
You are talking about someone tampering with evidence that never would have had an opportunity to tamper with it had he not been asked to be there. That really makes no sense. If he thought he had missed something that needed to be covered up, I'm sure he could have come up with some excuse to go to the Ramseys before they left for their trip. IMO
Also, what he did most certainly CAN be compared to what JR did: Closing the window, not telling the LE about either it OR the suitcase, HE picked up glass too (at least in one account he said he did), taking the tape off of JBs mouth, untying her wrists, moving her from the crime scene and covering her with another blanket. Do you know that in one account he gave, he states that HE put her under the Christmas tree? I can't believe that you IDIs make so many excuses for the inconsistancies in both of the Ramseys stories. IMO

Athena

11-02-2006, 08:44 PM

I am not providing another link re: Fleet White. I take the time to type from a book - not copy from something already typewritten and quite frankly see only a couple that may do that as well. Do a search - I'm sure you 'll find it. One thing I do not do is post something that is not true unless I specifically say it is my opinion.

FACT: Fleet White admitted moving the suitcase, picking up glass and removing the duct tape.

thewhitewitch1

11-02-2006, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Athena
I am not providing another link re: Fleet White. I take the time to type from a book - not copy from something already typewritten and quite frankly see only a couple that may do that as well. Do a search - I'm sure you 'll find it. One thing I do not do is post something that is not true unless I specifically say it is my opinion.

FACT: Fleet White admitted moving the suitcase, picking up glass and removing the duct tape.

So you are saying that FW moved the suitcase under the window and opened the window while he was in the basement with Officer French? That's pretty bold of him.
It is not a FACT that he opened the window. It still doesn't explain why JR said nothing about the suitcase or open window to LE. If the suitcase wasn't there when HE was in the basement, don't you think he'd have thought something was messed up when it WAS there when he went down later with FW?
Also, why would FW admit to moving the suitcase, picking up glass and picking up the tape if he was trying to tamper with the evidence? Why would he not keep these things to himself?
Why did JR state in the '97 interview that when he and FW looked for glass that they didn't find any? Why did JR later change his story and say they did find some glass? To my understanding, the glass (or lack thereof) thing happened while they were both in the basement just before they found JB. FW, to my knowledge, did not change his story about what he did, found or saw. Only JR seems to do that.
Athena, obviously I irritated you by asking for a link. I am sorry.

Athena

11-02-2006, 11:02 PM

TWW: Please read what I posted as fact again. Thank you.

French went into the basement as soon as he got to the Ramseys not with Fleet. Fleet went down after French. French was only down there a couple of minutes.

I also said maybe Fleet touched all of those things to explain his prints being on them.

And yea I guess I did get kind of irritated but not at YOU. At the situation. So don't take it personal.

Good night.

WallyCleaver

11-02-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

If he was such a mastermind criminal, he would have done all of that after "he" murdered her. What point was there in moving the suitcase? Where did he move it to? Why did John state that no glass was found by either of them in the "97 interview? Where do you read FW picked up the glass? I'm sorry to ask for a link but I don't recall seeing that. Did FW move the suitcase to look for glass? Understandable.
You are talking about someone tampering with evidence that never would have had an opportunity to tamper with it had he not been asked to be there. That really makes no sense. If he thought he had missed something that needed to be covered up, I'm sure he could have come up with some excuse to go to the Ramseys before they left for their trip. IMO
Also, what he did most certainly CAN be compared to what JR did: Closing the window, not telling the LE about either it OR the suitcase, HE picked up glass too (at least in one account he said he did), taking the tape off of JBs mouth, untying her wrists, moving her from the crime scene and covering her with another blanket. Do you know that in one account he gave, he states that HE put her under the Christmas tree? I can't believe that you IDIs make so many excuses for the inconsistancies in both of the Ramseys stories. IMO

No kidding. But no inconsistancies are tolerated in anyone else.

shill

11-03-2006, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

what JR did: Closing the window, not telling the LE about either it OR the suitcase, HE picked up glass too (at least in one account he said he did), taking the tape off of JBs mouth, untying her wrists, moving her from the crime scene and covering her with another blanket. Do you know that in one account he gave, he states that HE put her under the Christmas tree? I can't believe that you IDIs make so many excuses for the inconsistancies in both of the Ramseys stories. IMO I thought John tried to untie her wrists but failed. And when did John cover JB with another blanket? Do you have links?
But the big question is, why would he say he put her under the Christmas tree? It's obvious he didn't. How does that make him more or less of a suspect?

sweetcharlotte

11-03-2006, 07:07 AM

LindaA

11-03-2006, 07:35 AM

I've read that he covered her with a blanket when he brought her upstairs, but I can't recall where. I believe he asked Arndt for permission and went upstairs or to another room to get one. She was also covered with a sweatshirt, but I don't know who put that on her or why. We do know that the cord was still around her hands when the autopsy was performed, I believe. I've never read that JR said he put her under the tree. One of the RDIs here posted a link to a page that said that. But I don't see how that makes him more of less a suspect either. I doubt my memory would be perfect under those conditions.

LadyFisher

11-03-2006, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by LindaA
I've read that he covered her with a blanket when he brought her upstairs, but I can't recall where. I believe he asked Arndt for permission and went upstairs or to another room to get one. She was also covered with a sweatshirt, but I don't know who put that on her or why. We do know that the cord was still around her hands when the autopsy was performed, I believe. I've never read that JR said he put her under the tree. One of the RDIs here posted a link to a page that said that. But I don't see how that makes him more of less a suspect either. I doubt my memory would be perfect under those conditions. I read in the Cases That Haunt Us, written by John Douglas about JR covering JB's body with another blanket, almost as if he was tucking her into bed....JD states in his book, that many cases where parent stage a scene the way the body is left signals a lot to LE...he refers to it as "proprietary interest"...the perp left JBs body with only the torso wrapped in the blanket...JD speculates the killer might have planned on using the blanket to transport the body! :shrug:

thewhitewitch1

11-03-2006, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by LindaA
I've read that he covered her with a blanket when he brought her upstairs, but I can't recall where. I believe he asked Arndt for permission and went upstairs or to another room to get one. She was also covered with a sweatshirt, but I don't know who put that on her or why. We do know that the cord was still around her hands when the autopsy was performed, I believe. I've never read that JR said he put her under the tree. One of the RDIs here posted a link to a page that said that. But I don't see how that makes him more of less a suspect either. I doubt my memory would be perfect under those conditions.

He did cover her with a blanket after he took her upstairs but where the blanket came from depends on which interview you read, since the room and location changes with each account. He asked Arndt for permission to cover her even as he was putting it on her, which leads me to believe the blanket was located in the same room. One account is that it came off of a chair.
The cord was only around one wrist at the time of the autopsy. JR had untied her other wrist in the cellar. One of the "guests" in the house put the sweatshirt over her feet. I think it was Barbara Fernie.
I don't know why IDIs always blame the Ramseys memory for all of their story inconsistancies. It isn't like they didn't have access to their own interviews to keep their stories straight. :confused:

thewhitewitch1

11-03-2006, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by shill
I thought John tried to untie her wrists but failed. And when did John cover JB with another blanket? Do you have links?
But the big question is, why would he say he put her under the Christmas tree? It's obvious he didn't. How does that make him more or less of a suspect?

I will give you links as soon as I have time. If you read the search warrants, when she was carried upstairs, Det. Arndt noted a "string" hanging from one wrist. This is the wrist that was left tied. Autopsy photos show only one wrist tied. JR hedged back and forth over whether or not he untied one wrist; sometimes he says he did, sometimes he says he didn't.
I don't know why he said he put her under the Christmas tree and I did not say that it made him more or less of a suspect. I am only commenting that he cannot keep his memories or stories straight. Finding the link where he says he placed her there may take some time so have patience.

thewhitewitch1

11-03-2006, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Athena
TWW: Please read what I posted as fact again. Thank you.

French went into the basement as soon as he got to the Ramseys not with Fleet. Fleet went down after French. French was only down there a couple of minutes.

I also said maybe Fleet touched all of those things to explain his prints being on them.

And yea I guess I did get kind of irritated but not at YOU. At the situation. So don't take it personal.

Good night.

Yet his prints were not found anywhere else? I don't think he was dumb enough to leave his prints if he was the murderer, since his weren't on the RN or the flashlight or anything else used in the murder. No need to touch anything to explain them. IMO

shill

11-03-2006, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

JR hedged back and forth over whether or not he untied one wrist; sometimes he says he did, sometimes he says he didn't.
I don't know why he said he put her under the Christmas tree and I did not say that it made him more or less of a suspect. I am only commenting that he cannot keep his memories or stories straight. Finding the link where he says he placed her there may take some time so have patience. You answered my question, thanks. It doesn't make him more or less of a suspect but it shows how confused he is about everything that happened.

IMO, What John has said can not be taken as evidence. His account of the events can not be used to presume he is or isn't guilty since they are obviously inaccurate.
( I was asking if anyone thought it made him more or less of a suspect. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth TWW, sorry. )

Zoey

11-04-2006, 01:50 PM

You need to go to the thread Troubling Details. In Sept/Oct, this same conversation took place about the blanket, avalanche sweatshirt and Christmas tree. It was discussed and posted that JR put the body in the foyer, Arndt moved the body under the Christmas Tree. JR put a blanket on her that he got off the chair, Arndt covered her with the Avalanche sweatshirt. You now have two threads talking about the same thing.

thewhitewitch1

11-04-2006, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Zoey
You need to go to the thread Troubling Details. In Sept/Oct, this same conversation took place about the blanket, avalanche sweatshirt and Christmas tree. It was discussed and posted that JR put the body in the foyer, Arndt moved the body under the Christmas Tree. JR put a blanket on her that he got off the chair, Arndt covered her with the Avalanche sweatshirt. You now have two threads talking about the same thing.

It happens all the time that we jump around and back to a topic on the wrong thread. No big deal.

Zoey

11-04-2006, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

It happens all the time that we jump around and back to a topic on the wrong thread. No big deal.

I'm sorry. I was just getting confused on where I was supposed to post what. Thank you.

thewhitewitch1

11-04-2006, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Zoey

I'm sorry. I was just getting confused on where I was supposed to post what. Thank you.

That's okay. I don't think anyone minds too much where you post what...except for the moderators and they tend to "condense" things when our backs are turned. :D

Athena

11-05-2006, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by shill
You answered my question, thanks. It doesn't make him more or less of a suspect but it shows how confused he is about everything that happened.

IMO, What John has said can not be taken as evidence. His account of the events can not be used to presume he is or isn't guilty since they are obviously inaccurate.
( I was asking if anyone thought it made him more or less of a suspect. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth TWW, sorry. )

I don't think parents who have just gone through a horrific death of a child would remember anything accurately. The inconsistencies that have been picked up are minor and in addition to that when you read or hear stories over and over again eventually you begin to wonder if you actually said/did that; if it really happened that way or it's ingrained because you've heard it so often. Some of the inconsistencies are also where they really are trying to come up with answers and just truly don't remember. I have not read any major inconsistencies except in Thomas' depo. Just think about a car accident which is far different from losing a child. Many people do not recall what actually happened at point of impact or after. Not unusual to be affected by trauma this way. JMO

thewhitewitch1

11-05-2006, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I don't think parents who have just gone through a horrific death of a child would remember anything accurately. The inconsistencies that have been picked up are minor and in addition to that when you read or hear stories over and over again eventually you begin to wonder if you actually said/did that; if it really happened that way or it's ingrained because you've heard it so often. Some of the inconsistencies are also where they really are trying to come up with answers and just truly don't remember. I have not read any major inconsistencies except in Thomas' depo. Just think about a car accident which is far different from losing a child. Many people do not recall what actually happened at point of impact or after. Not unusual to be affected by trauma this way. JMO

I'm sorry but I don't believe that is the case in this one. They seem to have the entire story memorized by heart. They use the same words almost verbadim when telling it on tv interviews.
They were allowed to view their earlier statements. There is no excuse for their inconsistancies. They may seem slight to you, but the slight "tweaking" they do is all for the benefit of making them look "innocent". IMO
I don't see how you can recite something so many times and still come up with inconsistancies.

nuisanceposter

11-06-2006, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I'm sorry but I don't believe that is the case in this one. They seem to have the entire story memorized by heart. They use the same words almost verbadim when telling it on tv interviews.
They were allowed to view their earlier statements. There is no excuse for their inconsistancies. They may seem slight to you, but the slight "tweaking" they do is all for the benefit of making them look "innocent". IMO
I don't see how you can recite something so many times and still come up with inconsistancies.

Absolutely. They had access to all of their previous statements (which in itself is highly unusual) and still told inconsistent stories. Many times it seems the lack of recall is all too convenient, especially with Patsy.

She was an intelligent woman with a good memory. She can tell you exactly which costume JonBenet wore in which pageant and who it was made by, but she can't remember if JonBenet had a bath Christmas Day. She can tell you exactly what ornament came from where on each of the eight Christmas trees in her house for the Boulder Parade of Homes tour, but she doesn't remeber if JonBenet was wearing size 12 undies when she changed her into long johns.

I don't believe she can't remember the details of situations involving her daughter's murder but can remember everything else about that time - such as how shabby and rickety the taxi CNN sent to pick them up was.

She has access to her previous statements - why shouldn't she be able to remember what she said before? And I don't believe her grief over losing her child was so extremely all-consuming that she can't remember even things that happened before her child turned up missing or dead - she's damn lucky that this killer has never struck again and killed another little girl the same way while she suffers from convenient amnesia and offers nothing to police to help them other than inconsistent half-truths.