View Full Version : The Public Behavior of the Ramseys & Other Info About Them
from their "Burden of Proof" interview of April 28, 2000, with Roger Cossack and Greta van Susteren:
COSSACK: Patsy, let me ask you a question. When I was a lawyer and before I would let my clients take a lie detector test, I used to made sure that they could pass their lie detector tests. I know you have very excellent lawyers, I know some of your lawyers. Have you privately taken a lie detector test? either of you? or both of you? and have you passed it already?
J. RAMSEY: You were asked the question, go ahead.
P. RAMSEY: I think that is kind of an inappropriate question, if you're so up on -- i think that's lawyer-client privilege and I don't wish to ruin that but...
J. RAMSEY: Being a lawyer, also recognize that any lawyer would tell their clients: Do not, under any circumstances, take a police polygraph test. They are subjective. We've gotten a number of letters from former polygraphers, we got one the other day from a retired FBI polygrapher, who said I could make the pope look deceptive, if I chose to do so. We got a letter from a state attorney general who said: You are absolutely correct, it must be fair and independent if you are going to do this. Don't give up on the point.
MyrDawn
09-17-2006, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by docg
from their "Burden of Proof" interview of April 28, 2000, with Roger Cossack and Greta van Susteren:
COSSACK: Patsy, let me ask you a question. When I was a lawyer and before I would let my clients take a lie detector test, I used to made sure that they could pass their lie detector tests. I know you have very excellent lawyers, I know some of your lawyers. Have you privately taken a lie detector test? either of you? or both of you? and have you passed it already?
J. RAMSEY: You were asked the question, go ahead.
P. RAMSEY: I think that is kind of an inappropriate question, if you're so up on -- i think that's lawyer-client privilege and I don't wish to ruin that but...
J. RAMSEY: Being a lawyer, also recognize that any lawyer would tell their clients: Do not, under any circumstances, take a police polygraph test. They are subjective. We've gotten a number of letters from former polygraphers, we got one the other day from a retired FBI polygrapher, who said I could make the pope look deceptive, if I chose to do so. We got a letter from a state attorney general who said: You are absolutely correct, it must be fair and independent if you are going to do this. Don't give up on the point.
They had two sets of polygraphs. The first was inconclusive. Meaning they didn't pass or fail it. They pass the second set with flying colors.
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon052500a.htm
from the same interview:
"VAN SUSTEREN: Let me ask the question -- and don't mean to invade the attorney-client privilege, but this whole -- I mean, frankly, I'm with Roger and I don't care how innocent my clients are, I never want them to take polygraph tests because people can fail them who are innocent. So it's always a problem. But given that, have you -- you know, have you actually done -- have you been polygraphed on this particular issue -- either one of you at this point?
J. RAMSEY: We can't answer that, Greta. That's, I believe, is an attorney-client privilege. What we have said is we will take a fair and independent polygraph test.
P. RAMSEY: There is no question that we are afraid to ask. The truth does not change. If you ask me any question, I will, as truthfully as I possibly, humanly can, answer the question. And there's nothing I'm afraid to answer.
COSSACK: John, why do you think it's attorney-client privilege just for the notion of whether or not you took the test? I'm not asking you what the results were, but just merely whether or not you have taken the test independently.
P. RAMSEY: We're looking forward to taking the test. Hopefully -- I mean, I see no reason why this test, this leading person that has -- whose name has been given to the police chief, Beckner, hopefully that -- you know, I can't imagine why he would not accept this person's name. He's preeminent. So we look forward to that."
This interview PRECEDED the tests we've all heard about.
Louisadelmar
09-17-2006, 11:42 AM
So where is your evidence they took and failed a test?
MyrDawn
09-17-2006, 11:53 AM
docg, are you implying they took THREE sets of polygraphs, passed one set, another was inconclusive, and they failed the third? If so, what's the basis for this?
Every thing I've ever heard or read states they took 2 sets, not 3.
WallyCleaver
09-17-2006, 12:01 PM
I was under the impression that whatever number of polygraph tests the Rs took, they were all admistered by examiners of their own choosing.
nuisanceposter
09-17-2006, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I was under the impression that whatever number of polygraph tests the Rs took, they were all admistered by examiners of their own choosing.
That's right. They refused to let FBI test them, they refused to take a test that required a drug test as well, and they only passed tests that were administered by people hired by the Ramseys - after not passing the first time.
Hardly impartial proof.
Louisadelmar
09-17-2006, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I was under the impression that whatever number of polygraph tests the Rs took, they were all admistered by examiners of their own choosing.
And didn't Jennifer Wilbank's fiance, John Mason do the same thing?
Do I really have to spell it out for you? Isn't there anyone here capable of drawing a logical inference?
Athena
09-17-2006, 01:56 PM
I had to go searching because I do remember that the Ramseys took a polygraph before the ones that Ed Gelb gave. But the polygraph test administered by Trocellio was inconclusive -- not that they failed. Unfortunately not much out there on this first test other than what can be found in forums and again because the forums tend to be pro- or anti-Ramsey I do not subscribe to them being credible:
But why the first polygraph both John and Patsy Ramsey took, on April 17, turned out to be "inconclusive" remains a mystery.
"If you knew why it was inconclusive, then it would not be inconclusive," was the only answer Wood provided.
Gerard Toriello, the New Jersey polygrapher who performed the first tests on the Ramseys in Atlanta on April 17, did not return calls to the Daily Camera on Thursday.
http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/26apoly.html
GERALDO: But is it not a fact that you administered a series of tests, the results of which were inconclusive?
GELB: No, that's not correct.
GERALDO: Then where does that report come from? To the best of your knowledge, have the Ramseys ever taken a lie detector test the results of which were inconclusive?
GELB: Yes they did, with Gerry Toriello in New Jersey.
GERALDO: And when, timewise, were those tests.
GELB: Well prior to the examinations that I conducted.
GERALDO: So, prior to the examinations that you conducted, they took and did not pass a lie detector test?
GELB: They did not fail; they ran inconclusive or what the government calls, "no opinion." And based on that result, their attorney offered that they take a polygraph test with me without even notifying me that that offer had been made.
GERALDO: So, you admit as you sit there, Dr. Gelb, that another polygraph examiner - and his reputation is what? Will you fill us in? Is he a reputable polygrapher?
GELB: Yes he is.
GERALDO: And you admit that his results were different, significantly, than yours?
GELB: Of course. They were inconclusive, no opinion.
GERALDO: So, what happened between their taking that test and their taking your test?
GELB: Well, there's an adage in the business, Geraldo, and it says that, "The clean get cleaner and the dirty get dirtier." People can take polygraph tests and run inconclusive. They can subsequently be re-tested by another examiner and prove to be conclusively truthful, and those are the results I stand by: A well-conducted examination by a recognized expert. That's me.
GERALDO: But you said that the other fellow was a well-recognized expert. Can we not presume that his tests were as well administered?
GELB: Oh yes, and I've run inconclusive examinations too in my life.
GERALDO: Is this a classic reason why polygraphs are deemed, legally speaking, unreliable?
GELB: Well, they're not deemed unreliable. The accuracy runs around 94-95%. What is the fact is that we don't have trial by polygraph in this country. We have trials by judges and juries. Those are the people who decide guilt and innocence, not polygraph examiners.
GERALDO: But Ed, are you not troubled by the fact that this other fellow, of equal renown, came to a different conclusion?
GELB: Absolutely not. He came to no conclusion, or as the United States Government calls it, "no opinion."
GERALDO: And that doesn't affect your confidence in your own results?
GELB: Absolutely not. I'm very confident in my results, to a certainty of 94-95%.
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/05302000petrocelliongeraldo.htm
Originally posted by Athena
I had to go searching because I do remember that the Ramseys took a polygraph before the ones that Ed Gelb gave. But the polygraph test administered by Trocellio was inconclusive -- not that they failed. Unfortunately not much out there on this first test other than what can be found in forums and again because the forums tend to be pro- or anti-Ramsey I do not subscribe to them being credible:
But why the first polygraph both John and Patsy Ramsey took, on April 17, turned out to be "inconclusive" remains a mystery.
<snip>
Thanks, Athena, that's very helpful.
It seems clear from the "Burden of Proof" interview that the Ramseys must, indeed, have taken a privately administered polygraph. Otherwise they'd have denied it. It seems clear as well that they didn't pass, otherwise they'd have said so. Their comments about "attorney-client" privilege are transparent dodges. That protection applies to the attorney, NOT the client. The attorney isn't free to respond, but the client certainly is. What they meant was not that they weren't free to respond but that they didn't WANT to respond. The information Athena provides above may be telling us why. It's possible also that they took yet another polygraph even earlier, that's never been mentioned publicly.
As an aside, I can't resist a comment or two regarding the competence of Lin Wood as a defense attorney. NO competent lawyer would have allowed John and Patsy to be interviewed on such a show, period. That was exactly the type of question Wood should have realized someone might ask. The Ramseys had no meaningful answer and were required to improvise and, in fact, dissemble. Wood's strong suit is publicity and media manipulation -- at that he's a genius. But if John is ever prosecuted for this crime, he'd better find an attorney who knows what he's doing in a criminal case.
Louisadelmar
09-17-2006, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by docg
Thanks, Athena, that's very helpful.
It seems clear from the "Burden of Proof" interview that the Ramseys must, indeed, have taken a privately administered polygraph. Otherwise they'd have denied it. It seems clear as well that they didn't pass, otherwise they'd have said so. Their comments about "attorney-client" privilege are transparent dodges. That protection applies to the attorney, NOT the client. The attorney isn't free to respond, but the client certainly is. What they meant was not that they weren't free to respond but that they didn't WANT to respond. The information Athena provides above may be telling us why. It's possible also that they took yet another polygraph even earlier, that's never been mentioned publicly.
[...]
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9706.html
[…]
Only the client has the power to waive the attorney-client privilege. It is important to bear in mind that a waiver may occur even though the client does not intend to waive the privilege. For example, if the client carelessly allows the information to be disclosed to others, confidentiality will be lost, and a waiver will occur. The waiver may also result from failure to object to the demand for disclosure in litigation. Once the privilege has been waived, it is treated as a waiver for all purposes.
[…]
If the Ramseys took and failed an earlier polygraph, it would be interesting to speculate on who failed what questions. The account provided regarding the earlier, pre-Gelb polygraph suggests a problem with Patsy's hand movements. The polygrapher who performed that test was "unavailable for comment." Translation: he was constrained by attorney-client privilege from relating what really happened, what his results were and also what sort of conversation he had with the Ramseys and their lawyers about how to treat his results. The fact is that anything at all could have occured during those sessions, including a huge fight over what the results were and what they might mean. This is the problem with such a test, controlled by the suspects lawyer and constrained by atty-client privilege. For all we know one of them could have broken down and confessed. The polygrapher would NOT legally be in a position to report any of that.
As a great believer in the power of logical inference I will toss out an inference of my own that could explain one of the oddest aspects of the official polygraph finally given by Gelb, the ONLY one trumpeted to the public as evidence they were being completely truthful. If John wasn't asked about the ransom note, that tells us, it would seem to me, that he must have failed a question on that topic in one of the earlier tests. The official reason was that there was no reason to ask him such a question because the handwriting experts had eliminated him. That strikes me as VERY lame. Even if he didn't write it he might well know who did. No, I think the question wasn't asked because he was asked a similar question earlier, with embarrassing -- and possibly very damaging -- results. We may never know for sure thanks to the convenient lawyer-client privilege law which would prevent anyone involved from reporting the truth.
sweetcharlotte
09-17-2006, 08:48 PM
No.
Athena
09-18-2006, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by docg
If the Ramseys took and failed an earlier polygraph, it would be interesting to speculate on who failed what questions. The account provided regarding the earlier, pre-Gelb polygraph suggests a problem with Patsy's hand movements. The polygrapher who performed that test was "unavailable for comment." Translation: he was constrained by attorney-client privilege from relating what really happened, what his results were and also what sort of conversation he had with the Ramseys and their lawyers about how to treat his results. The fact is that anything at all could have occured during those sessions, including a huge fight over what the results were and what they might mean. This is the problem with such a test, controlled by the suspects lawyer and constrained by atty-client privilege. For all we know one of them could have broken down and confessed. The polygrapher would NOT legally be in a position to report any of that.
As a great believer in the power of logical inference I will toss out an inference of my own that could explain one of the oddest aspects of the official polygraph finally given by Gelb, the ONLY one trumpeted to the public as evidence they were being completely truthful. If John wasn't asked about the ransom note, that tells us, it would seem to me, that he must have failed a question on that topic in one of the earlier tests. The official reason was that there was no reason to ask him such a question because the handwriting experts had eliminated him. That strikes me as VERY lame. Even if he didn't write it he might well know who did. No, I think the question wasn't asked because he was asked a similar question earlier, with embarrassing -- and possibly very damaging -- results. We may never know for sure thanks to the convenient lawyer-client privilege law which would prevent anyone involved from reporting the truth.
The only issue I have with your interpretation of the results of this first test is that they DID NOT fail. The tests were inconclusive. Inconclusive means that the examiner received inconsistent results and therefore could not discern what the truth was or where the lies occurred, if any. I think you are reading too much into this test. jmo
Originally posted by Athena
The only issue I have with your interpretation of the results of this first test is that they DID NOT fail. The tests were inconclusive. Inconclusive means that the examiner received inconsistent results and therefore could not discern what the truth was or where the lies occurred, if any. I think you are reading too much into this test. jmo
First of all, the earlier polygraph the Ramseys avoided discussing might have preceded the one you're referring to. If the results had been inconclusive, couldn't they have admitted that? Why dissemble?
Second of all, your interpretation doesn't explain why John wasn't asked about the note. The fact that he was eliminated as the writer of the note is NOT an adequate reason to deliberately avoid asking him about it. Since this was a Ramsey controlled test, protected by lawyer-client privilege, it was especially important to make sure there could be nothing questionable about it. Yet Patsy was asked that question and John wasn't. That's a HUGE gap in the process. There's got to be more of a reason for it then the lame excuse they presented.
Originally posted by victims feel
When at first you do not succeed...try and try again.....
doc: thanks for all your info on this very disturbing part of this case....
Hi there, I would like your opinion on the fact that John and Patsy were with friends in separate rooms, before JB was "found". They were not comforting each other, as you would think the mother and father of a "missing" child would have been. They did not even speak to each other, and were in separate rooms of the house, with friends. What do you think about that? I thought it was odd.
Originally posted by Ames
Hi there, I would like your opinion on the fact that John and Patsy were with friends in separate rooms, before JB was "found". They were not comforting each other, as you would think the mother and father of a "missing" child would have been. They did not even speak to each other, and were in separate rooms of the house, with friends. What do you think about that? I thought it was odd.
I think the fact that they were in different rooms reflects their very different roles. Patsy called in friends because she needed support. She spent the time with her friends who were apparently providing her with the support she needed.
John apparently didn't need support. He roamed the house, "looking for clues," so he said. But when he found one, a huge one, an open window, broken, with debris from the well on the floor and a suitcase flush to the wall beneath it, he closed the window and failed to report anything unusual. He also managed to get out from under police radar for an extended period of time when he could have gone anywhere at all, and dumped evidence, such as tape, cord, glass, you name it.
Because people made up their minds so early on that Patsy and John had to be in on it together, everyone interpreted their behavior in such terms -- as though they must have had some sort of fight that led to JonBenet's death and were upset with one another. Sorry, that's not consistent with their living together for the next ten years in apparent harmony.
As I see it, Patsy's behavior was normal, what you'd expect from a mother who was paralyzed with anxiety and needed her friends around her. John's behavior was, to say the least, suspicious. He didn't need friends. He needed to be alone. He had things to do.
Originally posted by victims feel
<snipped>
you can fool some of the people some of the time....BUT.....;)
we aint' fooled Ames!
:D NO WE AIN'T!!!
Originally posted by docg
I think the fact that they were in different rooms reflects their very different roles. Patsy called in friends because she needed support. She spent the time with her friends who were apparently providing her with the support she needed.
John apparently didn't need support. He roamed the house, "looking for clues," so he said. But when he found one, a huge one, an open window, broken, with debris from the well on the floor and a suitcase flush to the wall beneath it, he closed the window and failed to report anything unusual. He also managed to get out from under police radar for an extended period of time when he could have gone anywhere at all, and dumped evidence, such as tape, cord, glass, you name it.
Because people made up their minds so early on that Patsy and John had to be in on it together, everyone interpreted their behavior in such terms -- as though they must have had some sort of fight that led to JonBenet's death and were upset with one another. Sorry, that's not consistent with their living together for the next ten years in apparent harmony.
As I see it, Patsy's behavior was normal, what you'd expect from a mother who was paralyzed with anxiety and needed her friends around her. John's behavior was, to say the least, suspicious. He didn't need friends. He needed to be alone. He had things to do.
Good point, I have always felt that one or both were involved, but didn't know which one. I flip flop between the two, BUT from what I have read, I am now leaning more toward John, also. Have you ever noticed that smug grin of his, during all of his televised interviews? Almost like he is trying to hold back a laugh, or something. I have always thought that was strange for a person, that just had "found" their daughter murdered. What do YOU think???
Originally posted by Ames
Good point, I have always felt that one or both were involved, but didn't know which one. I flip flop between the two, BUT from what I have read, I am now leaning more toward John, also. Have you ever noticed that smug grin of his, during all of his televised interviews? Almost like he is trying to hold back a laugh, or something. I have always thought that was strange for a person, that just had "found" their daughter murdered. What do YOU think???
Thats one of thing I noticed about his odd behavior. He also acted recluse since 26th which makes me suspicion. While Patsy was talking, I noticed John had interrupted several times after he act sort of antsy on what Patsy was trying to say. While John was talking, I noticed his eyes were looking at left, which the creativity area on his brain was trying to simulate to what he said meaning he was lying or being creativity. If he eyes were looking at right, it would mean he was trying to remember or recall his memories. JMO
Also he tend to say, "I don't remember", if he want the killer found and caught, and this case to be solved, then he would want to remember to the details and be very cooperate with the police without getting his lawyers the first thing in the morning. He is a no where that desperate of a normal father who is innocent wanting to find the killer so bad, who brutally killed his own 6 yrs old daughter, to bring the killer to justice by doing everything he can. IMO
MyrDawn
09-20-2006, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by docg
snip..........
As I see it, Patsy's behavior was normal, what you'd expect from a mother who was paralyzed with anxiety and needed her friends around her. John's behavior was, to say the least, suspicious. He didn't need friends. He needed to be alone. He had things to do.
Not everyone becomes paralyzed with anxiety in a crisis.
I have a neighbor like that. Her little boy cut his leg very badly while playing outside and she became hysterical. First she screamed, then she just stood there shaking and imobilized, like she was frozen with fear. I had to put a tourniquet on his leg and call 911.
When my own daughter was about 2, she playing with her grandpa and he gave her a sucker and was playing with her chasing her down the hallway. I heard her squealing and him laughing but had no idea she had anything in her mouth. She tripped, part of the sucker got lodged somewhere in her airway, and he stood there screaming while she turned blue. I came running to see what was wrong and the minute I saw her blue face I knew she wasn't getting air for some reason so I picked her up by the ankles and whacked her on the back, and the piece of sucker disloged and flew across the room, and she let out a yelp and started breathing again.
IMO, John did have things he felt he needed to do...the police were doing squat, so he went looking for clues that might lead to the recovery of his daughter, whom at that point he thought was kidnapped and might still be alive.
nuisanceposter
09-20-2006, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
IMO, John did have things he felt he needed to do...the police were doing squat, so he went looking for clues that might lead to the recovery of his daughter, whom at that point he thought was kidnapped and might still be alive.
I'm glad to hear your daughter was okay. Scary.
If John Ramsey thought his daughter was kidnapped and might still be alive, then why did he jeopardize that by going against the instructions of the RN and allowing Patsy to call over so many people? He knew the RN said JonBenet's head would be cut off if the kidnapper, who was watching the house, knew they called anyone - anyone at all. I can see calling police (although I would have made sure to tell them that my child's life had been threatened, so for the love of god don't let them know I've called you), but I can't see going ahead and calling that many friends over when the RN explicitly says we're watching you and will DECAPITATE your baby if we see you so much as talking to a stray dog.
If John Ramsey thought his daughter had been kidnapped, why did he allow his son Burke to leave the house to go somewhere else - without a police escort? How could he be sure that the kidnappers weren't very near by and watching and take the chance to kidnap or kill Burke as well?
And lastly, if John Ramsey thought his daughter had been kidnapped, WHY, when he went to the basement alone and found an open window like he claimed, did he not yell for the detective who was right upstairs? Why did he close that window, obliterating any possible prints? And most of all - WHY did he go back upstairs and say nothing to anyone at all - not the detective who was there in a law enforcement capacity, not his best friend who was there for support, and not his wife who seemingly distraught and anxious and ready to have a breakdown? Why did he not say anything about it for four months?
Officers French and Veitch had been down there earlier that morning, searching for a point of entry, and neither of them saw that window open - and that's precisely what they were searching for - a window that someone could have come through. Fleet White had been down there that morning, and same thing - looked for a way the killer may have come in and didn't find it.
Now we're supposed to believe John Ramsey when he says he did find it open - even though he's saying it four months after the fact, and when he found it he went back upstairs and sat down and said nothing anyone at all.
And at the same time he's telling police of this open window that only he saw but never bothered to mention, he's sitting there contradicting the version of events he had told police on the 26th in several other aspects as well - now JB was asleep, and he hadn't read to her, and the doors weren't locked after all....
IMO, John Ramsey is a liar. He knew that ransom note wasn't real, and he never saw any open window.
MyrDawn
09-20-2006, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I'm glad to hear your daughter was okay. Scary.
If John Ramsey thought his daughter was kidnapped and might still be alive, then why did he jeopardize that by going against the instructions of the RN and allowing Patsy to call over so many people? He knew the RN said JonBenet's head would be cut off if the kidnapper, who was watching the house, knew they called anyone - anyone at all. I can see calling police (although I would have made sure to tell them that my child's life had been threatened, so for the love of god don't let them know I've called you), but I can't see going ahead and calling that many friends over when the RN explicitly says we're watching you and will DECAPITATE your baby if we see you so much as talking to a stray dog.
If John Ramsey thought his daughter had been kidnapped, why did he allow his son Burke to leave the house to go somewhere else - without a police escort? How could he be sure that the kidnappers weren't very near by and watching and take the chance to kidnap or kill Burke as well?
And lastly, if John Ramsey thought his daughter had been kidnapped, WHY, when he went to the basement alone and found an open window like he claimed, did he not yell for the detective who was right upstairs? Why did he close that window, obliterating any possible prints? And most of all - WHY did he go back upstairs and say nothing to anyone at all - not the detective who was there in a law enforcement capacity, not his best friend who was there for support, and not his wife who seemingly distraught and anxious and ready to have a breakdown? Why did he not say anything about it for four months?
Officers French and Veitch had been down there earlier that morning, searching for a point of entry, and neither of them saw that window open - and that's precisely what they were searching for - a window that someone could have come through. Fleet White had been down there that morning, and same thing - looked for a way the killer may have come in and didn't find it.
Now we're supposed to believe John Ramsey when he says he did find it open - even though he's saying it four months after the fact, and when he found it he went back upstairs and sat down and said nothing anyone at all.
And at the same time he's telling police of this open window that only he saw but never bothered to mention, he's sitting there contradicting the version of events he had told police on the 26th in several other aspects as well - now JB was asleep, and he hadn't read to her, and the doors weren't locked after all....
IMO, John Ramsey is a liar. He knew that ransom note wasn't real, and he never saw any open window.
Did John know Patsy was making those phone calls?
About Burke, maybe he wanted to protect Burke from the trauma the police and activity at the house could cause. It must have been chaos. And, with all the police and people around, he probably didn't think the kidnapper would try anything more.
About the window, John said he's the one that broke it. If that's true, he probably didn't think it had anything to do with JonBenet being kidnapped. But, Fleet White had gone down to the basement before John did. VERY shortly after he arrived at the house, in fact. He saw the broken window. Why did he pick up the piece of glass from the floor and put it on the suitcase? Why did he move the suitcase? Why didn't he say anything about that broken window, the broken glass he moved, or the suitcase?
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I'm glad to hear your daughter was okay. Scary.
If John Ramsey thought his daughter was kidnapped and might still be alive, then why did he jeopardize that by going against the instructions of the RN and allowing Patsy to call over so many people? He knew the RN said JonBenet's head would be cut off if the kidnapper, who was watching the house, knew they called anyone - anyone at all. I can see calling police (although I would have made sure to tell them that my child's life had been threatened, so for the love of god don't let them know I've called you), but I can't see going ahead and calling that many friends over when the RN explicitly says we're watching you and will DECAPITATE your baby if we see you so much as talking to a stray dog.
If John Ramsey thought his daughter had been kidnapped, why did he allow his son Burke to leave the house to go somewhere else - without a police escort? How could he be sure that the kidnappers weren't very near by and watching and take the chance to kidnap or kill Burke as well?
And lastly, if John Ramsey thought his daughter had been kidnapped, WHY, when he went to the basement alone and found an open window like he claimed, did he not yell for the detective who was right upstairs? Why did he close that window, obliterating any possible prints? And most of all - WHY did he go back upstairs and say nothing to anyone at all - not the detective who was there in a law enforcement capacity, not his best friend who was there for support, and not his wife who seemingly distraught and anxious and ready to have a breakdown? Why did he not say anything about it for four months?
Officers French and Veitch had been down there earlier that morning, searching for a point of entry, and neither of them saw that window open - and that's precisely what they were searching for - a window that someone could have come through. Fleet White had been down there that morning, and same thing - looked for a way the killer may have come in and didn't find it.
Now we're supposed to believe John Ramsey when he says he did find it open - even though he's saying it four months after the fact, and when he found it he went back upstairs and sat down and said nothing anyone at all.
And at the same time he's telling police of this open window that only he saw but never bothered to mention, he's sitting there contradicting the version of events he had told police on the 26th in several other aspects as well - now JB was asleep, and he hadn't read to her, and the doors weren't locked after all....
IMO, John Ramsey is a liar. He knew that ransom note wasn't real, and he never saw any open window.
Very well said, nuisance. :patriot: I agree.
But I think he DID find that window open. Because the evidence tells us he himself must have opened it the previous night, as part of his staging. I think he came clean on that months later only because DA Hunter had made the HUGE mistake of handing him the police reports. My guess is that the police were down there before him, saw that window open and later noticed it had been shut, and were probably suspicious of John at that point.
Also, we don't know when John closed that window. No reason to accept his version of that. I feel sure he did close it, though, because that's consistent with the plan A - plan B scenario that reveals itself in the evidence. Plan A: stage a kidnapping by writing a note, breaking a window and leaving it open. Plan B: when the police are called despite the warnings in your note, the greatest danger is the now obvious window staging -- so close the window and claim you broke it months earlier.
nuisanceposter
09-20-2006, 10:21 AM
Yes, John knew Patsy was making those phone calls. He was supposedly on the floor reading the note while she called 911, and the phone's right there in earshot. She made those calls one right after the other, and he had to have gotten to the part about JonBenet being decapitated by the time she was done talking to 911.
No one with any sense or concern for their children is going to send their other child out of the house and their protective watch when their baby has been kidnapped and her life threatened in that manner. At the very least he should have asked for a police escort. He had no way of knowing what this kidnapper might do, and I can't believe JR would have risked Burke's life as well unless he knew it would be safe. They also sent Burke right back to school within weeks. They knew there were no kidnappers.
Fleet White isn't the one with a kidnapped/murdered child, so his actions are not in question here. What is in question is the fact that John Ramsey claims he found an open window, shut it, and went upstairs and said nothing for FOUR months. And on top of that, when he went to this interview after waiting for four months, he contradicted his previous story of what happened both Christmas night and the morning of the 26th.
Originally posted by MyrDawn
Did John know Patsy was making those phone calls?
About Burke, maybe he wanted to protect Burke from the trauma the police and activity at the house could cause. It must have been chaos. And, with all the police and people around, he probably didn't think the kidnapper would try anything more.
About the window, John said he's the one that broke it. If that's true, he probably didn't think it had anything to do with JonBenet being kidnapped. But, Fleet White had gone down to the basement before John did. VERY shortly after he arrived at the house, in fact. He saw the broken window. Why did he pick up the piece of glass from the floor and put it on the suitcase? Why did he move the suitcase? Why didn't he say anything about that broken window, the broken glass he moved, or the suitcase?
If JonBenet's attacker were someone "out to get" John, then there'd be every reason for alarm and every reason to protect not only Burke but Patsy and himself. But after an initial period under police protection they simply "went on with their lives" as though there were no particular cause for alarm.
Yes, John said he's the one that broke it earlier. But the story he's told about breaking it earlier is simply not credible. He can hardly remember a single detail, not even what month it happened, why he didn't have a key, why he didn't get one from his neighbor, how he crawled in -- forward or backward, how he broke the window, or even whether it was later repaired. And the housekeeper has denied knowing anything about any broken window.
We don't know WHEN John closed that window, or whether Fleet was really down there first. Why accept John's version of when he closed it, he's our chief suspect? And we don't know what Fleet reported to the police and certainly have no reason to believe he failed to mention anything he'd seen. Those reports have never been made public.
bookratt
09-20-2006, 10:52 AM
to obliterate prints. Perhaps he did it to ADD his prints, that should have already been there IF the story he had to tell about coming thru that window prior to this, was actually true.
First he closes the window, then draws attention to it and what he had done earlier, when he and Fleet white canvass the area together later on.
Suspicious? You bet!
Originally posted by harz
Thats one of thing I noticed about his odd behavior. He also acted recluse since 26th which makes me suspicion. While Patsy was talking, I noticed John had interrupted several times after he act sort of antsy on what Patsy was trying to say. While John was talking, I noticed his eyes were looking at left, which the creativity area on his brain was trying to simulate to what he said meaning he was lying or being creativity. If he eyes were looking at right, it would mean he was trying to remember or recall his memories. JMO
Also he tend to say, "I don't remember", if he want the killer found and caught, and this case to be solved, then he would want to remember to the details and be very cooperate with the police without getting his lawyers the first thing in the morning. He is a no where that desperate of a normal father who is innocent wanting to find the killer so bad, who brutally killed his own 6 yrs old daughter, to bring the killer to justice by doing everything he can. IMO
Antsy...YES..thats a good word for him, coupled with the fact that he had that stupid grin on his face. (Almost like he was thinking..."I know something that YOU don't know." (IMO) My daughter does that if she is lying about something...and the smirk ALWAYS gives it away. I tell you what, if it was MY daughter that was found murdered, I sure as heck would find a way to remember everything. I don't care what I had to do. But, John seemed/seems to me, to not be trying very hard to remember. "I don't remember" is an easy way out. IMO
Originally posted by docg
Very well said, nuisance. :patriot: I agree.
But I think he DID find that window open. Because the evidence tells us he himself must have opened it the previous night, as part of his staging. I think he came clean on that months later only because DA Hunter had made the HUGE mistake of handing him the police reports. My guess is that the police were down there before him, saw that window open and later noticed it had been shut, and were probably suspicious of John at that point.
Also, we don't know when John closed that window. No reason to accept his version of that. I feel sure he did close it, though, because that's consistent with the plan A - plan B scenario that reveals itself in the evidence. Plan A: stage a kidnapping by writing a note, breaking a window and leaving it open. Plan B: when the police are called despite the warnings in your note, the greatest danger is the now obvious window staging -- so close the window and claim you broke it months earlier.
I am sure that you have read Linda Arndt's deposition. She said that she knew the instant that she saw John carrying JB's body, that he was guilty of murdering her. She said that it was the WAY that he carried her...UPRIGHT...and with her head above his, that was strange to her. I had never heard or read that before, until I read her deposition. Why the heck would he hold her THAT way? That was weird!! She said it was like he was giving her a bear hug, but that her head was above his, and not even with his. To all of you guys that believe that John is guilty (and I am ONE of those), what do you think about this? I will post Linda Arndt's depostion if needed. Thanks guys! :D
Originally posted by bookratt
to obliterate prints. Perhaps he did it to ADD his prints, that should have already been there IF the story he had to tell about coming thru that window prior to this, was actually true.
First he closes the window, then draws attention to it and what he had done earlier, when he and Fleet white canvass the area together later on.
Suspicious? You bet!
My thoughts exactly...the same reason he closed the window, is the same reason that he picked JB up and carried her, to explain his fibers and his prints. IMO
sweetcharlotte
09-21-2006, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
Not everyone becomes paralyzed with anxiety in a crisis.
<snip>
IMO, John did have things he felt he needed to do...the police were doing squat, so he went looking for clues that might lead to the recovery of his daughter, whom at that point he thought was kidnapped and might still be alive.
Exactly.
Originally posted by Ames
I am sure that you have read Linda Arndt's deposition. She said that she knew the instant that she saw John carrying JB's body, that he was guilty of murdering her. She said that it was the WAY that he carried her...UPRIGHT...and with her head above his, that was strange to her. I had never heard or read that before, until I read her deposition. Why the heck would he hold her THAT way? That was weird!! She said it was like he was giving her a bear hug, but that her head was above his, and not even with his. To all of you guys that believe that John is guilty (and I am ONE of those), what do you think about this? I will post Linda Arndt's depostion if needed. Thanks guys! :D
Sorry, but I can't take such subjective reponses seriously. Arndt may be convinced John killed JonBenet but she offers no real evidence, unfortunately, just her own intuitive take on what John did and how it looked to her. If we went by such "evidence" we'd have reason to believe just about everyone ever named as a possible suspect did it.
Arndt's report about losing track of John, which was in fact a source of embarrassment for her, is far more significant.
Originally posted by docg
<snipped>
Arndt's report about losing track of John, which was in fact a source of embarrassment for her, is far more significant.
TRUE! But, I thought it was pretty odd that he would carry her body the way that he did...straight up and down, and not in his arms, with her neck on one arm, and his other arm, behind her knees. Maybe there is nothing to that at all, I just thought it was strange. IMO
MyrDawn
09-21-2006, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Ames
TRUE! But, I thought it was pretty odd that he would carry her body the way that he did...straight up and down, and not in his arms, with her neck on one arm, and his other arm, behind her knees. Maybe there is nothing to that at all, I just thought it was strange. IMO
Not to be gruesome, but her body was in full rigor mortis. Maybe he first tried to carry her that way, but her body wouldn't fit across the stairwell to the basement extended out like that.
Originally posted by MyrDawn
Not to be gruesome, but her body was in full rigor mortis. Maybe he first tried to carry her that way, but her body wouldn't fit across the stairwell to the basement extended out like that.
Good point, never thought about that!
:D
Originally posted by docg
I think the fact that they were in different rooms reflects their very different roles. Patsy called in friends because she needed support. She spent the time with her friends who were apparently providing her with the support she needed.
John apparently didn't need support. He roamed the house, "looking for clues," so he said. But when he found one, a huge one, an open window, broken, with debris from the well on the floor and a suitcase flush to the wall beneath it, he closed the window and failed to report anything unusual. He also managed to get out from under police radar for an extended period of time when he could have gone anywhere at all, and dumped evidence, such as tape, cord, glass, you name it.
Because people made up their minds so early on that Patsy and John had to be in on it together, everyone interpreted their behavior in such terms -- as though they must have had some sort of fight that led to JonBenet's death and were upset with one another. Sorry, that's not consistent with their living together for the next ten years in apparent harmony.
As I see it, Patsy's behavior was normal, what you'd expect from a mother who was paralyzed with anxiety and needed her friends around her. John's behavior was, to say the least, suspicious. He didn't need friends. He needed to be alone. He had things to do.
What about the fact that Linda Ardnt said that when Fleet ran up the stairs screaming for someone to call an ambulance, Patsy, just sat there on the couch, and did not move, when everyone else in the house ran to see what he had found, and what he was screaming about. What is your opinion on that? I would have thought that she would have jumped up, and ran to see what was happening. Sure, she could have been in shock, BUT...remember, at that time, it was ONLY a kidnapping, and Fleet yelled for an ambulance....he didn't scream out that she was dead, call the coroner. Wouldn't she have thought that JB had been found injured (but not dead). Thats what my thought would have been. At any rate, I would have jumped up, and ran over to Fleet as quickly as possible. IMO
Originally posted by Ames
What about the fact that Linda Ardnt said that when Fleet ran up the stairs screaming for someone to call an ambulance, Patsy, just sat there on the couch, and did not move, when everyone else in the house ran to see what he had found, and what he was screaming about. What is your opinion on that? I would have thought that she would have jumped up, and ran to see what was happening. Sure, she could have been in shock, BUT...remember, at that time, it was ONLY a kidnapping, and Fleet yelled for an ambulance....he didn't scream out that she was dead, call the coroner. Wouldn't she have thought that JB had been found injured (but not dead). Thats what my thought would have been. At any rate, I would have jumped up, and ran over to Fleet as quickly as possible. IMO
This is the problem, Ames. Once you make up your mind Patsy is involved, then anything she does or doesn't do will look suspicious. If she'd reacted instantly, then "obviously" she would have been "putting on an act."
My guess is that she was trying to compose herself before confronting the possibility of her daughter's death. Or maybe she didn't want to deal with it, so hesitated as long as possible. Since none of us was there, we really can't say what the situation was, whether it was clear JonBenet was dead or not, nor can we know just how long she hesitated or whether she in fact hesitated at all.
The fact remains that there was no motive for her to kill JonBenet, no evidence she ever attacked her anytime at all in her life, no reason for her to write a pointless and possibly incriminating ransom note in her own hand, using items directly associated with her and no reason for her to call 911 if she knew the body of her victim was still in the house. Her fibers obviously got all over JonBenet when she put her to bed and were transferred to the crime scene via the victim. There is no other evidence against her. And putting the same outfit on the next day is evidence of her innocence, NOT her guilt.
People don't want to let go of the Patsy thing, it's truly a remarkable phenomenon. It's like the monkey that sticks its hand in the jar to grab the banana and then refuses to unclench its fist and let the banana go so it can remove the hand. Before the case can be solved it's necessary to let go of Patsy, everyone has been screaming Patsy Patsy for years and it's led nowhere, it's a dead end, she didn't do it.
Originally posted by victims feel
I do not recall anyone thinking there was a motive for Patsey other than to cover up anything that happened that night that would incriminate either herself or her hubby. This is a strong motive in my books.
I have no doubt she was involved but played the lesser of the two...roles.
conversely doc as you think she is as innocent as innocent gets you will see all in that prejudicial light as well....
as a few of us have written including myself many a hostile moment has no history .... you seem to not want to listen any other version but your own despite evidence and information to the contrary of child abuse and accidental deaths and frames and staging scenes and parents being quite capable, in unison of cover-ups.
You do not let go of the Patsy is a victim thing......I think that is really remarkable given the evidence against her,albeit CE and COG for now ...
people have screamed JOHN JOHN and it got us nowhere..are you now conceding that an intruder did this?
I have no particular "thing" for Patsy, believe me. I look at the evidence and at a certain point Patsy dunnit just hits a dead end, stops cold. Same with the intruder. But when I consider John there's no dead end, just a dead child.
And, no, people have NOT been screaming John John, not since he was "ruled out" so soon after the murder. If that was a mistake, and I feel sure it was, it was a HUGE blunder that focused all attention on her and relatively little on him.
The so-called evidence against Patsy reminds me too much of the intruder evidence, it's based on wishful thinking and emotion, not logic, not the facts.
Originally posted by Ames
Antsy...YES..thats a good word for him, coupled with the fact that he had that stupid grin on his face. (Almost like he was thinking..."I know something that YOU don't know." (IMO) My daughter does that if she is lying about something...and the smirk ALWAYS gives it away. I tell you what, if it was MY daughter that was found murdered, I sure as heck would find a way to remember everything. I don't care what I had to do. But, John seemed/seems to me, to not be trying very hard to remember. "I don't remember" is an easy way out. IMO
Lol, check this out;
http://www.acandyrose.com/ramseycase-quotes1.htm
Ramseys should make a song, "I don't remember". Poor detectives, how can these detectives who questioned Ramseys can stand too many "I don't remember" as answers? Obviously, Ramseys doesn't want to help in solving this case because they are the gulity ones. IMO
Originally posted by harz
Lol, check this out;
http://www.acandyrose.com/ramseycase-quotes1.htm
Ramseys should make a song, "I don't remember". Poor detectives, how can these detectives who questioned Ramseys can stand too many "I don't remember" as answers? Obviously, Ramseys doesn't want to help in solving this case because they are the gulity ones. IMO
Yeah, it seems that "I Don't Remember" , "I mean", "Uhhh" and "Um", were their favorite quotes. "I Don't Remember", being their most favorite, though. Okay...now...I have a question....the link that you posted, with the JR interview...said that he had to climb in the window to get into the house. I knew about THAT part, because he "claims" that he had been locked out. Okay, but...he did it while wearing only his UNDERWEAR and a pair of SHOES???!!?!! What the h---??? OKAAYYYYYY...now...that does NOT make any sense to me. If you know anything about this crock of bull...would you please explain. I can hardly wait!! IMO
Originally posted by docg
This is the problem, Ames. Once you make up your mind Patsy is involved, then anything she does or doesn't do will look suspicious. If she'd reacted instantly, then "obviously" she would have been "putting on an act."
My guess is that she was trying to compose herself before confronting the possibility of her daughter's death. Or maybe she didn't want to deal with it, so hesitated as long as possible. Since none of us was there, we really can't say what the situation was, whether it was clear JonBenet was dead or not, nor can we know just how long she hesitated or whether she in fact hesitated at all.
The fact remains that there was no motive for her to kill JonBenet, no evidence she ever attacked her anytime at all in her life, no reason for her to write a pointless and possibly incriminating ransom note in her own hand, using items directly associated with her and no reason for her to call 911 if she knew the body of her victim was still in the house. Her fibers obviously got all over JonBenet when she put her to bed and were transferred to the crime scene via the victim. There is no other evidence against her. And putting the same outfit on the next day is evidence of her innocence, NOT her guilt.
People don't want to let go of the Patsy thing, it's truly a remarkable phenomenon. It's like the monkey that sticks its hand in the jar to grab the banana and then refuses to unclench its fist and let the banana go so it can remove the hand. Before the case can be solved it's necessary to let go of Patsy, everyone has been screaming Patsy Patsy for years and it's led nowhere, it's a dead end, she didn't do it.
Well, I do credit you and your posts, for changing my mind about Patsy being the one that initially killed JB (although...I thought accidently). Every since it happened ten years ago, I had always felt that the parents were somehow involved. Thinking that Patsy had done it, and the John help to cover it. Although, YOU have made me change my mind, and now I suspect John....I DO still think that Patsy was somehow involved too...but, just in the staged coverup. I hope and pray that I am wrong about the both of them, but my intuition, tells me that I am not. Sorry to disagree with you on that one. I really do enjoy your posts!! :D
LadyFisher
09-22-2006, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by docg
This is the problem, Ames. Once you make up your mind Patsy is involved, then anything she does or doesn't do will look suspicious. If she'd reacted instantly, then "obviously" she would have been "putting on an act."
My guess is that she was trying to compose herself before confronting the possibility of her daughter's death. Or maybe she didn't want to deal with it, so hesitated as long as possible. Since none of us was there, we really can't say what the situation was, whether it was clear JonBenet was dead or not, nor can we know just how long she hesitated or whether she in fact hesitated at all.
The fact remains that there was no motive for her to kill JonBenet, no evidence she ever attacked her anytime at all in her life, no reason for her to write a pointless and possibly incriminating ransom note in her own hand, using items directly associated with her and no reason for her to call 911 if she knew the body of her victim was still in the house. Her fibers obviously got all over JonBenet when she put her to bed and were transferred to the crime scene via the victim. There is no other evidence against her. And putting the same outfit on the next day is evidence of her innocence, NOT her guilt.
People don't want to let go of the Patsy thing, it's truly a remarkable phenomenon. It's like the monkey that sticks its hand in the jar to grab the banana and then refuses to unclench its fist and let the banana go so it can remove the hand. Before the case can be solved it's necessary to let go of Patsy, everyone has been screaming Patsy Patsy for years and it's led nowhere, it's a dead end, she didn't do it. It is a remarkable phenomenon....it reminds me of the saying....tell a lie loud enough and long enough and folks would believe it.....who said that..(wish hubby was here..he's the history buff) was it Hitler? :confused: That's exactly what the press did to Patsy imho!
Originally posted by Ames
Yeah, it seems that "I Don't Remember" , "I mean", "Uhhh" and "Um", were their favorite quotes. "I Don't Remember", being their most favorite, though. Okay...now...I have a question....the link that you posted, with the JR interview...said that he had to climb in the window to get into the house. I knew about THAT part, because he "claims" that he had been locked out. Okay, but...he did it while wearing only his UNDERWEAR and a pair of SHOES???!!?!! What the h---??? OKAAYYYYYY...now...that does NOT make any sense to me. If you know anything about this crock of bull...would you please explain. I can hardly wait!! IMO
Lol, newbie BPD need a reason why the window was broke, so John came up with something clever (not). It was cold outside in Boulder, naturally he need to do anything drastically to get back inside the house, as he doesn't want his neighbors to see him in underwear, or it doesn't bother him at all? Why excatly did he left the house in just underwear & shoes? For a morning jog? Or was it his way to imply that he had habit of being sure all the doors were locked at all times? A way to point an intruder who had key? IMO
Originally posted by harz
Lol, newbie BPD need a reason why the window was broke, so John came up with something clever (not). It was cold outside in Boulder, naturally he need to do anything drastically to get back inside the house, as he doesn't want his neighbors to see him in underwear, or it doesn't bother him at all? Why excatly did he left the house in just underwear & shoes? For a morning jog? Or was it his way to imply that he had habit of being sure all the doors were locked at all times? A way to point an intruder who had key? IMO
:lol: A morning jog!! That is way to funny! Okay, now here is MY theory. I think that he KNEW that window was too small for anyone to fit through, and he knew that if he told the police that he came through it WITH clothes on, their next question would probably be, "and your clothes did not get caught on anything? Because thats an awfully small window there, and it looks like to us, that anyone squeezing through it, would get their clothes caught on something". So, IMO...he had to explain WHY that didn't happen. He was outside in his UNDERWEAR!!! Geez...how stupid! I wonder what the police asked him after THAT statement? Why in the WORLD would anyone be outside (especially if he said it was in the winter), in their UNDERWEAR! I just do NOT get it. OHHHH...AND his shoes!! We can't forget the SHOES!! Now, I bet THAT was a "pretty"site.... in his shoes and underwear. It NEVER happened....IMO
thewhitewitch1
09-22-2006, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by victims feel
WOW great find H...you like your links too. :)
now how many "I CAN'T REMEMBERS" start being suspicious I wonder?
I knew one time but....now I can't remember:D
Just about as many "I don't know. John/Patsy would probably know better than me" come up as the "I don't remembers". Way to dodge a question.
cantaloupe
09-22-2006, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Ames
TRUE! But, I thought it was pretty odd that he would carry her body the way that he did...straight up and down, and not in his arms, with her neck on one arm, and his other arm, behind her knees. Maybe there is nothing to that at all, I just thought it was strange. IMO
JonBenet was in FULL rigor--she was as stiff as a board, no way could he have cradled her--she was like a mannequin. I don't see any other way he could have carried her. If he had carried her lying down, she would have been too wide to fit in the stairwell.
Originally posted by cantaloupe
JonBenet was in FULL rigor--she was as stiff as a board, no way could he have cradled her--she was like a mannequin. I don't see any other way he could have carried her. If he had carried her lying down, she would have been too wide to fit in the stairwell.
Yes, another poster said the same thing. Makes perfect sense. Linda Ardnt wondered the same thing, though....she said herself that it was strange....BUT...like you said, she was like a mannequin, and there really was no other way to carry her. Good point. Doesn't matter how he carried her though, I still think that he is guilty. IMO
Originally posted by Ames
:lol: A morning jog!! That is way to funny! Okay, now here is MY theory. I think that he KNEW that window was too small for anyone to fit through, and he knew that if he told the police that he came through it WITH clothes on, their next question would probably be, "and your clothes did not get caught on anything? Because thats an awfully small window there, and it looks like to us, that anyone squeezing through it, would get their clothes caught on something". So, IMO...he had to explain WHY that didn't happen. He was outside in his UNDERWEAR!!! Geez...how stupid! I wonder what the police asked him after THAT statement? Why in the WORLD would anyone be outside (especially if he said it was in the winter), in their UNDERWEAR! I just do NOT get it. OHHHH...AND his shoes!! We can't forget the SHOES!! Now, I bet THAT was a "pretty"site.... in his shoes and underwear. It NEVER happened....IMO
OK OK, before you and harz go off the deep end, here is the real scoop:
First of all, it happened in the summer, so no need to worry about John freezing his . . . off.
1. John said he'd just returned from a business meeting. So he would have been wearing his "business suit." Millionaires like John wear suits costing anywhere from $1000 on up. A friend whose father was a millionaire tells me it would be more like $5,000.
2.He was asked why he didn't break in one of the street level windows, why the filthy basement route? His reply: those windows are more expensive to replace.
3. Suddenly it dawns on him: if I went down in my business suit, that suit would have been destroyed, so it would have ended up costing me MORE to go down the rabbit hole (oops, window well) than breaking in via one of the insulated windows on the 1st floor.
4. AND HENCE: it is necessary for John to have taken his suit off first, before climbing down into the well, window-wise.
5. THEN he is asked how he broke the window after he got down there. Which means that now it's necessary for John to have left his shoes ON even though his pants were taken OFF.
6. No one asked about how he managed the above feat (no pun intended), probably because everyone was laughing so hard. Or should have been.
Originally posted by victims feel
That is your POV and you are entitled to it but to then pass a comment on those who think she is G.. is not called for....
Unlike you I do not have any dead end with Patsey at all....does that make you right and me wrong? or the opposite?
I cannot tell you, you are wrong anymore than you can say to those of us who hold her as GUILTY that we will not let it go.....
we do not let go for a reason.....she gives us plenty
JOHN JOHN has been screamed out, maybe you missed it as it is still going on....look on this board... it is not our fault that no one is listening....those of us who are strong R2 have been for long time it seems.....being I am not prone to bouts of idiocy, I feel quite confident that both are involved...
although your delivery has improve somewhat your insinuation that people like me are emotional and do not base anything on logics is as offensive as usual.
You see, some things never change no matter how they are wrapped.
It wasn't an insinuation but a fact. Which you confirmed in the above post. I always talk evidence, that's what my thinking is based on. Talk evidence to me and I'll take you seriously. Tell me how you just know deep in your heart Patsy is involved or how you can tell from gazing at the note that it just screams Patsy at you and I just might get sarcastic, yes.
Try to feed me some absurd theory of how they staged an accident to look like murder and you'll get the same treatment. Tell me you think John was molesting her but Patsy killed her and I'll shake my head in disbelief. Same when you claim Patsy called the police on herself as part of some plan to make the two of them look innocent. None of this makes sense but you refuse to admit it.
There is no evidence that Patsy was involved. What you accept as evidence is every bit as shaky as what the other side accepts as intruder evidence.
If you really want to get even with me point out the flaws in my logic or come up with some piece of evidence that points in some other direction. I'll be delighted if you do that, by the way, because that's what I'm here to do, discuss the case. I'm not here to make you or anyone else feel better about themselves for accusing an innocent person because you have problems with her parenting style.
Originally posted by docg
OK OK, before you and harz go off the deep end, here is the real scoop:
First of all, it happened in the summer, so no need to worry about John freezing his . . . off.
1. John said he'd just returned from a business meeting. So he would have been wearing his "business suit." Millionaires like John wear suits costing anywhere from $1000 on up. A friend whose father was a millionaire tells me it would be more like $5,000.
2.He was asked why he didn't break in one of the street level windows, why the filthy basement route? His reply: those windows are more expensive to replace.
3. Suddenly it dawns on him: if I went down in my business suit, that suit would have been destroyed, so it would have ended up costing me MORE to go down the rabbit hole (oops, window well) than breaking in via one of the insulated windows on the 1st floor.
4. AND HENCE: it is necessary for John to have taken his suit off first, before climbing down into the well, window-wise.
5. THEN he is asked how he broke the window after he got down there. Which means that now it's necessary for John to have left his shoes ON even though his pants were taken OFF.
6. No one asked about how he managed the above feat (no pun intended), probably because everyone was laughing so hard. Or should have been.
Gee, going for a jog in his underwear seems more believable. LOL Thanks for clarifying though.
Originally posted by cantaloupe
JonBenet was in FULL rigor--she was as stiff as a board, no way could he have cradled her--she was like a mannequin. I don't see any other way he could have carried her. If he had carried her lying down, she would have been too wide to fit in the stairwell.
Yeah that really strange. I remember when I touched & picked up a cat that belongs to my friend to examine it, I knew it was dead right away because of the stiffness. So what you said made perfect sense. I believe John was just putting up a show all along. IMO
Originally posted by docg
OK OK, before you and harz go off the deep end, here is the real scoop:
First of all, it happened in the summer, so no need to worry about John freezing his . . . off.
1. John said he'd just returned from a business meeting. So he would have been wearing his "business suit." Millionaires like John wear suits costing anywhere from $1000 on up. A friend whose father was a millionaire tells me it would be more like $5,000.
2.He was asked why he didn't break in one of the street level windows, why the filthy basement route? His reply: those windows are more expensive to replace.
3. Suddenly it dawns on him: if I went down in my business suit, that suit would have been destroyed, so it would have ended up costing me MORE to go down the rabbit hole (oops, window well) than breaking in via one of the insulated windows on the 1st floor.
4. AND HENCE: it is necessary for John to have taken his suit off first, before climbing down into the well, window-wise.
5. THEN he is asked how he broke the window after he got down there. Which means that now it's necessary for John to have left his shoes ON even though his pants were taken OFF.
6. No one asked about how he managed the above feat (no pun intended), probably because everyone was laughing so hard. Or should have been.
Thank you for stopping me from going off deep end myself :) I didn't know it happened in summer, at least your facts got out to correct my assumption. IIRC, around 25 people have keys to his house, what about neighbors that he could go over to pick up keys? It strange if many people have keys, but Ramseys doesn't hide one outside around the house. Thanks again.
JMO
Originally posted by harz
Thank you for stopping me from going off deep end myself :) I didn't know it happened in summer, at least your facts got out to correct my assumption. IIRC, around 25 people have keys to his house, what about neighbors that he could go over to pick up keys? It strange if many people have keys, but Ramseys doesn't hide one outside around the house. Thanks again.
JMO
It didn't happen in the summer. Or the winter. Or anytime at all, ever.
He SAID it was the summer.
And sure, there were all kinds of people he could have gotten a key from, the whole story is just a very very lame attempt to point away from his window staging the night of the crime.
Originally posted by docg
It didn't happen in the summer. Or the winter. Or anytime at all, ever.
He SAID it was the summer.
And sure, there were all kinds of people he could have gotten a key from, the whole story is just a very very lame attempt to point away from his window staging the night of the crime.
Yep, that whole story was made up. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Why do you think that he told them he took off his suit? (I STILL can't get over the fact that he said that he was in his UNDERWEAR! ) I think that he said that because, he knew that the window was SO small, that the police would ask him how he climbed through without tearing his clothes. Why ELSE would he tell them that he climbed in wearing only his underwear and shoes. Sure it was all a lie, but he would have to have a reason behind telling them that. Why not tell them that he came in fully clothed? Whats your opinion on this??? IMO
Originally posted by Ames
Yep, that whole story was made up. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Why do you think that he told them he took off his suit? (I STILL can't get over the fact that he said that he was in his UNDERWEAR! ) I think that he said that because, he knew that the window was SO small, that the police would ask him how he climbed through without tearing his clothes. Why ELSE would he tell them that he climbed in wearing only his underwear and shoes. Sure it was all a lie, but he would have to have a reason behind telling them that. Why not tell them that he came in fully clothed? Whats your opinion on this??? IMO
I recently posted my thoughts on that somewhere else, maybe on another thread. His reason for breaking in via that window rather than a street level window, which would have been a lot easier and less messy, was that the basement window was less expensive to replace. But he also said he was returning from a business meeting, which means he would have been wearing a "good suit." To a millionaire a good suit means one that could cost anywhere from $1000 to $5,000. And you're right, going through that filthy narrow window would have ruined his expensive suit. So I think he just got trapped in his own story, sort of a "what a web we weave" sort of thing. One thing led to another and he found himself forced to tell them he'd taken his suit off.
I often wonder whether they bought his story or not. My guess is that they didn't, but what could they do, John had been "ruled out as writer of the note" and there was no real evidence against Patsy, who had been all but ruled out. I guess they felt they couldn't indict him strictly on the basis of his ridiculous window story, that they needed more evidence.
Originally posted by docg
I recently posted my thoughts on that somewhere else, maybe on another thread. His reason for breaking in via that window rather than a street level window, which would have been a lot easier and less messy, was that the basement window was less expensive to replace. But he also said he was returning from a business meeting, which means he would have been wearing a "good suit." To a millionaire a good suit means one that could cost anywhere from $1000 to $5,000. And you're right, going through that filthy narrow window would have ruined his expensive suit. So I think he just got trapped in his own story, sort of a "what a web we weave" sort of thing. One thing led to another and he found himself forced to tell them he'd taken his suit off.
I often wonder whether they bought his story or not. My guess is that they didn't, but what could they do, John had been "ruled out as writer of the note" and there was no real evidence against Patsy, who had been all but ruled out. I guess they felt they couldn't indict him strictly on the basis of his ridiculous window story, that they needed more evidence.
Thanks for answering my question. In YOUR opinion, do you think that investigators are still investigating John R.? Do YOU think that he will ever be charged in the death of JB?
Originally posted by Ames
Thanks for answering my question. In YOUR opinion, do you think that investigators are still investigating John R.? Do YOU think that he will ever be charged in the death of JB?
I am not sure, but check out here & sign up if you wish
www.petitiononline.com/jbr246/petition.html
hopefully they would appoint special DA and would bring strict attention to this case. IMO
Originally posted by harz
I am not sure, but check out here & sign up if you wish
www.petitiononline.com/jbr246/petition.html
hopefully they would appoint special DA and would bring strict attention to this case. IMO
Harz, thanks for the link! I will check it out, and sign it. I agree, there needs to be very strict attention brought to this case. JB needs justice...ten years is way too long. IMO
Originally posted by Ames
Thanks for answering my question. In YOUR opinion, do you think that investigators are still investigating John R.? Do YOU think that he will ever be charged in the death of JB?
I think it is certainly possible, on the basis of what is now known, to vigorously re-investigate John's role. The key is going to be the court document on Brugnatelli's website, which seems to have been ignored by the investigators, who very early on became fixated on Patsy as the note writer. If it is in fact John's printing, and it was, as Jameson claims, not one of the exemplars seen by the "experts" who ruled John out, then it would be necessary to rule him back IN, which would change the whole complexion of the investigation.
The real question is whether or not the investigators will have the intestinal fortitude to admit they were wrong about Patsy and change course to focus on John.
We have two factions investigating this case, both of whom are IMO dead wrong: the Patsy dunnits and the intruder dunnits. Neither group is motivated to look too closely at John, which is why he may never be charged. I think the ONLY hope is the appointment of an independent prosecutor willing to take a completely fresh look at the case.
diplomat
09-25-2006, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by Ames
:lol: A morning jog!! That is way to funny! Okay, now here is MY theory. I think that he KNEW that window was too small for anyone to fit through, and he knew that if he told the police that he came through it WITH clothes on, their next question would probably be, "and your clothes did not get caught on anything? Because thats an awfully small window there, and it looks like to us, that anyone squeezing through it, would get their clothes caught on something". So, IMO...he had to explain WHY that didn't happen. He was outside in his UNDERWEAR!!! Geez...how stupid! I wonder what the police asked him after THAT statement? Why in the WORLD would anyone be outside (especially if he said it was in the winter), in their UNDERWEAR! I just do NOT get it. OHHHH...AND his shoes!! We can't forget the SHOES!! Now, I bet THAT was a "pretty"site.... in his shoes and underwear. It NEVER happened....IMO
Lou Smit went through that same window right on TV and his clothes did not get caught on anything. And he is a much larger man than John Ramsey. Not only is that my opinion it's a fact. If you don't believe me, email Katie Couric. She did the interview with Smit right there at the house in Boulder.
diplomat
09-25-2006, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by docg
I think it is certainly possible, on the basis of what is now known, to vigorously re-investigate John's role. The key is going to be the court document on Brugnatelli's website, which seems to have been ignored by the investigators, who very early on became fixated on Patsy as the note writer. If it is in fact John's printing, and it was, as Jameson claims, not one of the exemplars seen by the "experts" who ruled John out, then it would be necessary to rule him back IN, which would change the whole complexion of the investigation.
The real question is whether or not the investigators will have the intestinal fortitude to admit they were wrong about Patsy and change course to focus on John.
We have two factions investigating this case, both of whom are IMO dead wrong: the Patsy dunnits and the intruder dunnits. Neither group is motivated to look too closely at John, which is why he may never be charged. I think the ONLY hope is the appointment of an independent prosecutor willing to take a completely fresh look at the case.
It is an interesting turn of events that since Patsy has died the focus has been redirected toward John. JMO
Originally posted by diplomat
It is an interesting turn of events that since Patsy has died the focus has been redirected toward John. JMO
Indeed, too late about Patsy, so we better hurry do something to solve this case long before John would die so the justice can be serve as we can learn the truth to what happened to JB. IMO
Originally posted by docg
I think it is certainly possible, on the basis of what is now known, to vigorously re-investigate John's role. The key is going to be the court document on Brugnatelli's website, which seems to have been ignored by the investigators, who very early on became fixated on Patsy as the note writer. If it is in fact John's printing, and it was, as Jameson claims, not one of the exemplars seen by the "experts" who ruled John out, then it would be necessary to rule him back IN, which would change the whole complexion of the investigation.
The real question is whether or not the investigators will have the intestinal fortitude to admit they were wrong about Patsy and change course to focus on John.
We have two factions investigating this case, both of whom are IMO dead wrong: the Patsy dunnits and the intruder dunnits. Neither group is motivated to look too closely at John, which is why he may never be charged. I think the ONLY hope is the appointment of an independent prosecutor willing to take a completely fresh look at the case.
Refresh my memory, who did JB tell that she was going to have a secret meeting with Santa, to? I see alot of posters saying that Fleet White did it. Well, imo he was to frail to have crawled through that window and to have killed JB. I was wondering, since Fleets wife (Priscilla) had written that play about a girl that was murdered and found in a basement, if maybe she was placed there by John, to make Fleet look suspicious. IMO
MyrDawn
09-25-2006, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Ames
Refresh my memory, who did JB tell that she was going to have a secret meeting with Santa, to? I see alot of posters saying that Fleet White did it. Well, imo he was to frail to have crawled through that window and to have killed JB. I was wondering, since Fleets wife (Priscilla) had written that play about a girl that was murdered and found in a basement, if maybe she was placed there by John, to make Fleet look suspicious. IMO
Why do you think Fleet White was "frail"? If you saw it at a reliable source, I'd like a link, please.
I heard JonBenet told one of her friends' mother, named Barbara Kostanick, that Santa was going to pay her a "special" visit Christmas night.
The White's had key to the Ramsey house. Fleet wouldn't have needed to use the window to get in.
It was Priscilla that wrote the play. How would putting JonBenet's body in the basement make Fleet look suspicious? He wasn't the one that wrote the play.
IMO, JMO and MOOOOOOOOO
MissOtisRegrets
09-25-2006, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Ames
Refresh my memory, who did JB tell that she was going to have a secret meeting with Santa, to? I see alot of posters saying that Fleet White did it. Well, imo he was to frail to have crawled through that window and to have killed JB. I was wondering, since Fleets wife (Priscilla) had written that play about a girl that was murdered and found in a basement, if maybe she was placed there by John, to make Fleet look suspicious. IMO
Ames, I believe it was Santa(Bill McReynolds)'s wife Janet, who wrote the play.
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Ames, I believe it was Santa(Bill McReynolds)'s wife Janet, who wrote the play.
DUHHH....yes, I was a bit confused about that one. I don't know why I was thinking that Fleet had played Santa. IMO SORRY GUYS!!!!
MyrDawn
09-25-2006, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Ames
DUHHH....yes, I was a bit confused about that one. I don't know why I was thinking that Fleet had played Santa. IMO SORRY GUYS!!!!
Sheeeesh, I was mixed up on that, too! :D
Originally posted by MyrDawn
Sheeeesh, I was mixed up on that, too! :D
HA HA...in my mind, I could have sworn that I saw an article online that Fleet had played Santa, and that he had heart surgery, just six months before. (That was the reasoning behind me thinking that he was frail). Apparently I was thinking of Bill McReynolds. Sorry for the mix up....
Athena
09-25-2006, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by LadyFisher
It is a remarkable phenomenon....it reminds me of the saying....tell a lie loud enough and long enough and folks would believe it.....who said that..(wish hubby was here..he's the history buff) was it Hitler? :confused: That's exactly what the press did to Patsy imho!
Here's my favorite Lady. On other boards I have been on this is part of my signature but it is not allowed here:
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
JFK
MyrDawn
09-25-2006, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by diplomat
It is an interesting turn of events that since Patsy has died the focus has been redirected toward John. JMO
That's the truth! It seems that some people want a Ramsey to pay, no matter which one it is, so now the focus has turned to John because Patsy's dead and it's not as much "fun" to accuse her any longer. :shrug:
IMO, JMO and MOOOOOOOO
bullmoose
09-25-2006, 06:35 PM
I'll throw my two cents worth in and say that I agree with the preceding posters that since the rabid Ramsey-haters no longer have Patsy to chew on, they now are trying to sink their slavering jaws into John. JMO bullmoose
Originally posted by Ames
Refresh my memory, who did JB tell that she was going to have a secret meeting with Santa, to? I see alot of posters saying that Fleet White did it. Well, imo he was to frail to have crawled through that window and to have killed JB. I was wondering, since Fleets wife (Priscilla) had written that play about a girl that was murdered and found in a basement, if maybe she was placed there by John, to make Fleet look suspicious. IMO
Hoo Hah! Talk about non sequiturs. I am speechless.
OK OK. I have recovered.
You are confusing the Whites with the Santas. It was the Santa the Ramseys had hired who was too weak to deal with any aspect of this crime (not that he doesn't have his supporters anyhow).
I'm not sure who JonBenet said that to. Does it matter? There was NO SIGN of an intruder. What part of that don't you understand?
Originally posted by diplomat
It is an interesting turn of events that since Patsy has died the focus has been redirected toward John. JMO
NOT true. I wish it were. Everyone continues to look away look away look away from John Ramsey.
I'm the only one who's really looked at John -- as both killer AND note writer. A few on this forum have, from time to time, agreed with me.
That's about it.
So save your comments about what's "interesting." NOTHING interesting has been happening in this case -- focuswise -- for years and years.
bullmoose
09-25-2006, 07:06 PM
When the Smart girl was taken from her home in Utah, if I remember correctly, the police found no evidence of an intruder either. Inasmuch as it turned out to have been an intruder, to me it seems that proof of or a lack thereof of an intruder, as reported by the BPD means little one way or the other. bullmoose
Originally posted by bullmoose
When the Smart girl was taken from her home in Utah, if I remember correctly, the police found no evidence of an intruder either. Inasmuch as it turned out to have been an intruder, to me it seems that proof of or a lack thereof of an intruder, as reported by the BPD means little one way or the other. bullmoose
Yes there was evidence of an intruder in Smart's case. Her sister was a witness. Try compare JB's case to Scott Peterson's instead. :)
JMO
Originally posted by docg
Hoo Hah! Talk about non sequiturs. I am speechless.
OK OK. I have recovered.
You are confusing the Whites with the Santas. It was the Santa the Ramseys had hired who was too weak to deal with any aspect of this crime (not that he doesn't have his supporters anyhow).
I'm not sure who JonBenet said that to. Does it matter? There was NO SIGN of an intruder. What part of that don't you understand?
UMMMMM....ha ha...docg...I am on YOUR side, remember? Yes, I KNOW there was no intruder. Yeah, I was getting the Whites mixed up with the McReynolds. SORRY. The only reason I was wondering who JB said that to is because, if it had of been her DAD...he could have been making that whole thing up just to frame Santa. Get my drift??? Remember, I am on YOUR side...I am NOT a pro-Ramsey, I promise. You do not have to convince me that there wasn't an intruder...I already know that. IMO
Originally posted by bullmoose
When the Smart girl was taken from her home in Utah, if I remember correctly, the police found no evidence of an intruder either. Inasmuch as it turned out to have been an intruder, to me it seems that proof of or a lack thereof of an intruder, as reported by the BPD means little one way or the other. bullmoose
Theres a "little" bit of a difference here, between the JB case and the Elizabeth Smart case. The intruder in the Smart case, did not linger around for hours and hours, writing three page notes, etc. He just came in and grabbed her and left...he didn't stick around and "make himself at home". Remember, her sister saw him, and was too scared to tell her parents at first. AND HENCE...the reason that us RDI people, think that it was done by either one or both Ramseys.
Originally posted by Ames
UMMMMM....ha ha...docg...I am on YOUR side, remember? Yes, I KNOW there was no intruder. Yeah, I was getting the Whites mixed up with the McReynolds. SORRY. The only reason I was wondering who JB said that to is because, if it had of been her DAD...he could have been making that whole thing up just to frame Santa. Get my drift??? Remember, I am on YOUR side...I am NOT a pro-Ramsey, I promise. You do not have to convince me that there wasn't an intruder...I already know that. IMO
Yes, Ames, you are on my side and thank you for it. But docG is such a horrible tyrant he expets everyone to agree with him TOTALLY. ALL the time.
I don't know what I'm gonna do with this guy. If he were anyone else (but me) I'd have fired him a LONG time ago.
:shrug:
Originally posted by docg
Yes, Ames, you are on my side and thank you for it. But docG is such a horrible tyrant he expets everyone to agree with him TOTALLY. ALL the time.
I don't know what I'm gonna do with this guy. If he were anyone else (but me) I'd have fired him a LONG time ago.
:shrug:
:lol:
Originally posted by diplomat
Lou Smit went through that same window right on TV and his clothes did not get caught on anything. And he is a much larger man than John Ramsey. Not only is that my opinion it's a fact. If you don't believe me, email Katie Couric. She did the interview with Smit right there at the house in Boulder.
I know...I have seen pictures of him doing this...but, that doesn't mean that JR did it, while wearing only his underwear and shoes. IMO
MyrDawn
09-26-2006, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by harz
Yes there was evidence of an intruder in Smart's case. Her sister was a witness. Try compare JB's case to Scott Peterson's instead. :)
JMO
Scott Peterson? A much better comparison would be David Westerfield.
rosebud
09-26-2006, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
Scott Peterson? A much better comparison would be David Westerfield.
No, Westerfield is not a good comparison. The "intruder" in the Ramsey house would have had to linger there for a long time, probably hours, and perhaps was inside the house for six or more hours.
MyrDawn
09-26-2006, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by rosebud
No, Westerfield is not a good comparison. The "intruder" in the Ramsey house would have had to linger there for a long time, probably hours, and perhaps was inside the house for six or more hours.
The discussion was about intruders that didn't leave any known evidence. Westerfield didn't leave any the PD could find. And, I have no idea how long he was in the Van Dam's house, to you?
BTW, where do you get the "six or more hours"? Did you read on a forum somewhere that's how long it took Jonbenet to die of her injuries? :rolleyes:
rosebud
09-26-2006, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
The discussion was about intruders that didn't leave any known evidence. Westerfield didn't leave any the PD could find. And, I have no idea how long he was in the Van Dam's house, to you?
BTW, where do you get the "six or more hours"? Did you read on a forum somewhere that's how long it took Jonbenet to die of her injuries? :rolleyes:
It is evident from the evidence and the facts of the case that any "intruder" must have lingered inside the Ramsey home. He did not just enter take the victim and exit. Therefore there is no comparison to the Westerfield case.
Originally posted by rosebud
No, Westerfield is not a good comparison. The "intruder" in the Ramsey house would have had to linger there for a long time, probably hours, and perhaps was inside the house for six or more hours.
I agree...and I don't know about you...but, I have never heard of an "intruder" lingering hours and hours in a victims house, making himself "at home", writing stupid three page notes, etc...
The JB case is the only case that I have heard of that has those characteristics, which makes the intruder theory seem even more unbelievable to me. IMO IMO IMO
rosebud
09-26-2006, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Ames
I agree...and I don't know about you...but, I have never heard of an "intruder" lingering hours and hours in a victims house, making himself "at home", writing stupid three page notes, etc...
The JB case is the only case that I have heard of that has those characteristics, which makes the intruder theory seem even more unbelievable to me. IMO IMO IMO
IMO, The intruder theory has nothing whatsoever to base itself on. Not only is there no evidence of any intruder, but any scenario of one is implausible. It makes no sense. I guess I should not take it personal though if these people want to wander off into fantasy land about one.
JMO
Mimi428
09-26-2006, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
Scott Peterson? A much better comparison would be David Westerfield.
Westerfield went in, got Danielle & immediately left. How is that remotely comparable to this case?
IF any intruder came in, s/he did not leave in minutes.
JonBenet was not removed from the house (as Danielle was).
Westerfield did not roam upstairs, downstairs, in the basement.
Westerfield did not rummage through the house to find paper & pen.
Westerfield did not write even one word, much less a mini-series version of a ransom note.
So...again - how is that comparable in any way, shape or form to this situation?
Originally posted by rosebud
IMO, The intruder theory has nothing whatsoever to base itself on. Not only is there no evidence of any intruder, but any scenario of one is implausible. It makes no sense. I guess I should not take it personal though if these people want to wander off into fantasy land about one.
JMO
You are right...there is absolutely NO evidence of an intruder..IMO. I try not to argue too much with the Pro-Ramsey's ...I am sure that they just don't want to think that a parent could kill their own child...but, it happens ALL the time. I have thought from day 1 (ten years ago) that the Ramseys were guilty, and nothing so far has proved to me otherwise. IMO
MyrDawn
09-27-2006, 07:11 AM
NEWS FLASH: The PD did not seal off the Ramseys house when they got there and there were several people milling around it on the 26th. Nobody knows what evidence there might have been that was destroyed.
NEWS FLASH: It wouldn't have taken "hours and hours" to lure JonBenet from her bedroom to the basement, kill her, stage the scene, go to the kitchen and write the note and exit.
MOO
MyrDawn
09-27-2006, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by Mimi428
Westerfield went in, got Danielle & immediately left. How is that remotely comparable to this case?
IF any intruder came in, s/he did not leave in minutes.
JonBenet was not removed from the house (as Danielle was).
Westerfield did not roam upstairs, downstairs, in the basement.
Westerfield did not rummage through the house to find paper & pen.
Westerfield did not write even one word, much less a mini-series version of a ransom note.
So...again - how is that comparable in any way, shape or form to this situation?
How does it compare to Scott Peterson?
rosebud
09-27-2006, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by Mimi428
Westerfield went in, got Danielle & immediately left. How is that remotely comparable to this case?
IF any intruder came in, s/he did not leave in minutes.
JonBenet was not removed from the house (as Danielle was).
Westerfield did not roam upstairs, downstairs, in the basement.
Westerfield did not rummage through the house to find paper & pen.
Westerfield did not write even one word, much less a mini-series version of a ransom note.
So...again - how is that comparable in any way, shape or form to this situation?
I find no comparison of Westerfield to any supposed intruder in the Ramsey case, either. Any scenario of an intruder in the JB case has to take into account an intruder that must have been inside the house for at least a half an hour, and almost certainly much longer. He had to rummage around and find the pad of paper and pens, find JB, make sure everyone was asleep, find the 118,000 dollar amount that John Ramsey got as a bonus for Christmas, which presumably was inside a desk or file of some sort in their financial records, then make the garrote and kill JB.
He did all this presumably while digging around with a flashlight.
If he entered while they were at the Whites he may have been inside the house for over six hours.
Since the scene of intrusion includes the murder scene in the Ramsey case I would think that Myr Dawn would realize right there that the two are completely different.
The fact that Westerfield left no "trace" of himself from the house he took his victim from is not comparable at all to the Ramsey case.
JMO
rosebud
09-27-2006, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
NEWS FLASH: The PD did not seal off the Ramseys house when they got there and there were several people milling around it on the 26th. Nobody knows what evidence there might have been that was destroyed.
NEWS FLASH: It wouldn't have taken "hours and hours" to lure JonBenet from her bedroom to the basement, kill her, stage the scene, go to the kitchen and write the note and exit.
MOO
You are the one comparing Westerfield's quick taking of his victim to a crime scene at the Ramseys that includes the actual murder scene. If the "intruder" entered when he saw the Ramseys go to the Whites, he was inside the house for hours.
rosebud
09-27-2006, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
The discussion was about intruders that didn't leave any known evidence. Westerfield didn't leave any the PD could find. And, I have no idea how long he was in the Van Dam's house, to you?
BTW, where do you get the "six or more hours"? Did you read on a forum somewhere that's how long it took Jonbenet to die of her injuries? :rolleyes:
Very sarcastic. Since you know very well that IDI people on your side speculate all the time that the intruder was watching the Ramsey house that day and entered when they left for the Whites and since JB had to die after 10 PM, you are already well aware that would mean an intruder who was inside the house for over five hours.
It would mean an intruder who rummaged around and found the amount of the Christmas bonus and for some strange reason--he probably also found financial records indicating they were worth much more than that--he chose that amount for the ransom.
He found the paper and pen and wrote the ransom note. He made the garrote and killed her. The murder scene is inside the house. There is very little to compare to the Westerfield case.
JMO
MyrDawn
09-27-2006, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by rosebud
You are the one comparing Westerfield's quick taking of his victim to a crime scene at the Ramseys that includes the actual murder scene. If the "intruder" entered when he saw the Ramseys go to the Whites, he was inside the house for hours.
Where did I say the intruder would have entered the house when he saw the Ramseys go to the White's? The doors had locks. Keys open locks. Many people had keys to the Ramsey's house. Many of the keys weren't located. Nobody knows who's hands they ended up in.
MOO
rosebud
09-27-2006, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
Where did I say the intruder would have entered the house when he saw the Ramseys go to the White's? The doors had locks. Keys open locks. Many people had keys to the Ramsey's house. Many of the keys weren't located. Nobody knows who's hands they ended up in.
MOO
Right. I am aware that after the killing the Ramseys apparently were constantly expanding the ever widening circle of people who might have had keys to their house. I believe at one point the police also got the idea that Patsy "might" left a key hidden outside so she could get in if she locked herself out.
Funny all that was not mentioned on 26 Dec. I find it rather peculiar that people like the Ramseys did not know if nine keys to the house were out there or as many as twenty. Very convenient.
The fact is that any intruder had to have spent a considerable amount of time inside the house. How did he know about the Christmas bonus?
There is no comparison to the intruder in the Westerfield killing and the death of JB.
IMO
MyrDawn
09-27-2006, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by rosebud
Right. I am aware that after the killing the Ramseys apparently were constantly expanding the ever widening circle of people who might have had keys to their house. I believe at one point the police also got the idea that Patsy "might" left a key hidden outside so she could get in if she locked herself out.
Funny all that was not mentioned on 26 Dec. I find it rather peculiar that people like the Ramseys did not know if nine keys to the house were out there or as many as twenty. Very convenient.
The fact is that any intruder had to have spent a considerable amount of time inside the house. How did he know about the Christmas bonus?
There is no comparison to the intruder in the Westerfield killing and the death of JB.
IMO
The police asked the Ramseys for a list of people that had keys to the house, then they checked for the keys. Some of the people cuoldn't locate them. I haven't heard of one person on that list the Ramsey's gave the police state that the Ramsey's never gave them a key.
What do you mean by "considerable" time in the house? Are you still implying it would have taken six hours to get JonBenet from her bedroom to the kitchen, then the basement, kill her, stage the scene and write the ransom note?
The intruder could have seen one of John's pay stubs any time and remembered that amount. The amount was on most of his pay stubs for that entire year.
There is a comparison to the Westerfield case. Westerfield got in the Van Dam's home, went up the stairs, located Danielle's bedroom, took her, went back down the stairs and left with her, all without leaving a trace of evidence he'd been there or waking anyone.
MOO
Originally posted by MyrDawn
NEWS FLASH: The PD did not seal off the Ramseys house when they got there and there were several people milling around it on the 26th. Nobody knows what evidence there might have been that was destroyed.
NEWS FLASH: It wouldn't have taken "hours and hours" to lure JonBenet from her bedroom to the basement, kill her, stage the scene, go to the kitchen and write the note and exit.
MOO
Yeah, but it would have taken alot more time, than if the "intruder" had of just grabbed her and left. IMO
Mimi428
09-27-2006, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
How does it compare to Scott Peterson?
What in the world are you referring to? What does SP have to do with anything in this case?
I can't imagine why anyone thinks Westerfield is comparable, except for the fact that the victims were similar in age. I surely cannot fathom how SP's crime is comparable.
MyrDawn
09-27-2006, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Ames
Yeah, but it would have taken alot more time, than if the "intruder" had of just grabbed her and left. IMO
Yes, it would have taken more time, but I've never seen any stats on how long someone has to be in a house or the distance they must travel in the house before evidence is left.
Anyway, many fibers have never been identified, so nobody knows where they came from. Intruder? Possibly...IMO
Also, I think it's entirely possible the intruder DID leave evidence, but the way the PD let people mill all over the house could easily have allowed the evidence to be destroyed.
MOO
MyrDawn
09-27-2006, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Mimi428
What in the world are you referring to? What does SP have to do with anything in this case?
I can't imagine why anyone thinks Westerfield is comparable, except for the fact that the victims were similar in age. I surely cannot fathom how SP's crime is comparable.
I have no idea how anyone can fathom SP's crime is comparale. Ask harz. He's the one that brought up Scott Peterson, not me. His post is on page 2 of this thread. It states "Yes there was evidence of an intruder in Smart's case. Her sister was a witness. Try compare JB's case to Scott Peterson's instead. :)
JMO"
I was responding to that post and said Westerfield would be a much better comparison.
There are more similarities in the Westerfield than the victims being of the same age. Westerfield entered the Van Dam home during the night, went upstairs, located Danielles bedroom, got her out of her bedroom, down the stairs, and back out of the house, all without leaving a trace of evidence.
And I KNOW he didn't kill her in the house. I KNOW he wouldn't have been there as long as in JonBenet's case. But, there IS evidence collected in JonBenet's case that has never been identified...not to mention any evidence that might have been lost when all those people were allowed to wonder around the Ramsey house before her body was discovered.
MOO
Mimi428
09-27-2006, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
I have no idea how anyone can fathom SP's crime is comparale. Ask harz. He's the one that brought up Scott Peterson, not me. His post is on page 2 of this thread. It states "Yes there was evidence of an intruder in Smart's case. Her sister was a witness. Try compare JB's case to Scott Peterson's instead. :)
JMO"
I was responding to that post and said Westerfield would be a much better comparison.
If your question was to harz - why did you post it in reply to me? If you wanted to ask harz, you could have asked it in a reply to a post that harz wrote.
Very confusing.
And about the Westerfield comparison - in that case, it is without question that he is the person who committed the crime. In this case, there is absolutely no clear & convincing evidence that any intruder was in the house to murder JonBenet.
MyrDawn
09-27-2006, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Mimi428
If your question was to harz - why did you post it in reply to me? If you wanted to ask harz, you could have asked it in a reply to a post that harz wrote.
Very confusing.
And about the Westerfield comparison - in that case, it is without question that he is the person who committed the crime. In this case, there is absolutely no clear & convincing evidence that any intruder was in the house to murder JonBenet.
I originally was responding to a post by harz. My post about Westerfield being more likely than SP was in response to harz, and it was harz's post I copied. Read it. It's the 2nd post on this page.
You then replied to my post in which I said Westerfield was a much better comparison than SP. You listed the reasons Westerfield was not a good comparison, and I asked how it compares to SP...which was the reason this conversation started.
I didn't say there was clear & convincing evidence that any intruder was in the house to murder JonBenet. I was comparing the fact of an intruder kidnapping a girl from her bedroom not leaving a trace of himself behind.
Mimi428
09-27-2006, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
But, there IS evidence collected in JonBenet's case that has never been identified...not to mention any evidence that might have been lost when all those people were allowed to wonder around the Ramsey house before her body was discovered.
MOO
<snipped>
And if a forensic team entered your house - or mine - or anyone else's - how much material do you think they would collect that could never be identified as to the source?
By your measure, simply having material such as fibers & hairs, with an unidentified source, is enough to exonerate every criminal on the planet who commits a crime in their own home - for we know, without question, that in every home there will always be extraneous hairs & fibers that have absolutely nothing to do with the crime part of the crime scene.
And the flip side of that is that if you so much a drop a hair off your head while you are in someone else's home 2 months ago - should a crime be committed in that home today, the presence of your hair should be enough to accuse you of being a suspect.
You accept the total disregard of all sense & all reason when it supports your theory in this one & only instance. I seriously doubt you would be so inclined if the victim was your loved one.
JMO
MyrDawn
09-27-2006, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Mimi428
<snipped>
And if a forensic team entered your house - or mine - or anyone else's - how much material do you think they would collect that could never be identified as to the source?
By your measure, simply having material such as fibers & hairs, with an unidentified source, is enough to exonerate every criminal on the planet who commits a crime in their own home - for we know, without question, that in every home there will always be extraneous hairs & fibers that have absolutely nothing to do with the crime part of the crime scene.
And the flip side of that is that if you so much a drop a hair off your head while you are in someone else's home 2 months ago - should a crime be committed in that home today, the presence of your hair should be enough to accuse you of being a suspect.
You accept the total disregard of all sense & all reason when it supports your theory in this one & only instance. I seriously doubt you would be so inclined if the victim was your loved one.
JMO
Stop trying to decide what I think and believe. It's rediculous! You obviously don't read my posts very well.
Of course, a forensics team would probably be able to collect quite a lot of fibers from my house that couldn't be identified. And, some of it might be from an intruder.
By my measure, unidentified fibers COULD have come from an intruder. I NEVER said "having material such as fibers & hairs, with an unidentified source, is enough to exonerate every criminal on the planet who commits a crime in their own home." That is a very mean thing to say about me!
And, I NEVER said ALL the fiber and hair that's not been identifed came from an intruder. People claim it couldn't possibly be an intruder because no intruder left any evidence. How do they KNOW? I believe it's POSSIBLE that SOME of the unidentifed evidence did come from an intruder.
I NEVER said I was even positive the Ramseys are innocent. I have ALWAYS said it's possible one of them are guilty. But, I also think it's possible an intruder did it.
You are so hellbent on convicting the Ramseys, so much so that you aren't willing to even consider any other possiblity, IMO. That to me is without sense or reason.
rosebud
09-27-2006, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
The police asked the Ramseys for a list of people that had keys to the house, then they checked for the keys. Some of the people cuoldn't locate them. I haven't heard of one person on that list the Ramsey's gave the police state that the Ramsey's never gave them a key.
What do you mean by "considerable" time in the house? Are you still implying it would have taken six hours to get JonBenet from her bedroom to the kitchen, then the basement, kill her, stage the scene and write the ransom note?
The intruder could have seen one of John's pay stubs any time and remembered that amount. The amount was on most of his pay stubs for that entire year.
There is a comparison to the Westerfield case. Westerfield got in the Van Dam's home, went up the stairs, located Danielle's bedroom, took her, went back down the stairs and left with her, all without leaving a trace of evidence he'd been there or waking anyone.
MOO
You know very well what I mean by "six hours" as a possibility for the intruder to be in the house (since I have stated elsewhere what I do mean). By "considerable" time I mean just that. The intruder did not just enter and take JB and leave. He had to spend a "considerable" amount of time in the house.
I am sure most people cannot name fairly quickly who also has a key to their house (sarcasm, folks). In the Ramseys case the circle of people who had keys kept expanding and apparently it was suggested to the police well after the murder that Patsy "may have" put a key outside the front door hidden somewhere in case she got locked out. "May have?"
Smells like guilt to me.
JMO
Originally posted by rosebud
<snipped>
Smells like guilt to me.
JMO
And me too!
MyrDawn
09-27-2006, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Mimi428
If your question was to harz - why did you post it in reply to me? If you wanted to ask harz, you could have asked it in a reply to a post that harz wrote.
Very confusing.
And about the Westerfield comparison - in that case, it is without question that he is the person who committed the crime. In this case, there is absolutely no clear & convincing evidence that any intruder was in the house to murder JonBenet.
Well, color us both confused then. Why did you reply to my post saying Westerfield was a better comparison than SP if you didn't want to join the discussion of why?
It's without question Westerfield is the killer of Danielly because of the evidence they in his mobile home and other reason. NOT because of evidence found in the Van Dam house.
In this case there's no clear and convincing evidence an intruder killed JonBenet. There's also no clear and convicing evidence the Ramseys did it. But, someone did kill her. On this board we are discussing our opinions as to who we thought did it because there's no clean and convincing proof either way.
Originally posted by MyrDawn
I originally was responding to a post by harz. My post about Westerfield being more likely than SP was in response to harz, and it was harz's post I copied. Read it. It's the 2nd post on this page.
You then replied to my post in which I said Westerfield was a much better comparison than SP. You listed the reasons Westerfield was not a good comparison, and I asked how it compares to SP...which was the reason this conversation started.
I didn't say there was clear & convincing evidence that any intruder was in the house to murder JonBenet. I was comparing the fact of an intruder kidnapping a girl from her bedroom not leaving a trace of himself behind.
About SP to this case because of all the staging. Remember SP use gasoline in shed to destroy smell or evidences. Oh remember their dog was found running with lease outside. I thought that was a good one, but still kinda obvious since Laci was very pregnent. Also placed himself at the lake where Laci was found. SP went to media instead of cooperating with the police to find the kidnapper or killer. Odd behaviors. SP brought the boat as a part in his plan similar to a stun gun, maybe duct tape too. SP planned to flee out of country once Laci was found, similar to Ramsey had plane ready to fly to Atlanta after JB body was found. Both of them had plenty time all night doing the staging, oh btw both cases happened at Christmas time. Do I need t go on? Westerfield case is more similar to John Couey. Smart's case is very different since Smart is still breathing today. JMO
watson
10-07-2006, 11:25 AM
Hi everyone. Just back to considering the Ramsey case original evidence and events free from any therories that have developed over the subsequent years. Consider this.....
We all know it takes some time and effort to plan and set up a funeral. More so when the death is unexpected, and there's the initial shock of the totally unexpected to get over first. If there must be an autopsy and criminal investigation, these could be expected to really delay a funeral. What happened in JB's case?
Her death was totally unexpected. The body wasn't removed from the crime scene till late Thursday night. An autopsy was done Friday. The very next day Saturday after having the body only 1 day and dispite a freshly opened ongoing criminal investigation, police were bombarded with demands to release it. When they refused the DA's ofice gave into demands from the most politically connected lawfirm in the state, already hired by John Ramsey for the purpose. The big rush...by Saturday all the funeral plans had been made, meaning they were all made on Friday the last business day of the week. Everything from place, time, selecting casket, clothing, invitations, newspapers announcements, service etc. etc. all done the very next day after the surprise murder. As Patsy was sedated all that day, we can only assume John made all the arrangements himself.
JB's CO funeral was held on Sunday less than 72 hours after her murder was even suspected. Immediately thereafter the family left for the airport with the body, and left the state. After another 1 day of preperation on Monday, JB's GA funeral was held on Tuesday. In only 4 full days after the totally unexpected death, dispite that it was a murder case, the need for autopsy, a ongoing criminal investigation, an intervening weekend, and that it was Xmas week, the body had undergone 2 funerals and was in the ground 2000 miles away from where it was discovered only 4 days before. Found murdered late on the day after Xmas she was already buried 2000 miles away, after 2 funerals well before New Years Eve. A world record in rushed burials, or should it be said in rushed 'proper burial of the remains'?
What do you think?
thewhitewitch1
10-07-2006, 12:56 PM
I think you asked a very good question. I've wondered myself why the big rush to bury her when this was a horrible murder and a more careful study of the body may have offered more answers and clues, such as the stun gun theory.
IDI's will say that the Ramseys let their friends take over and make all of the decisions for them and that may be true but I can't believe at least John was not involved in some of that; he being the more coolheaded of the two.
I believe that the Ramseys wanted her buried quickly before more questions arose and the need to study her body again more closely occured. It seems odd that no one tried a little harder to determine what the abrasions on her body were made from. It may have helped solve the murder. But then...it seems they weren't given much time to do that. IMO
Devotion
10-07-2006, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by watson
Hi everyone. Just back to considering the Ramsey case original evidence and events free from any therories that have developed over the subsequent years. Consider this.....
We all know it takes some time and effort to plan and set up a funeral. More so when the death is unexpected, and there's the initial shock of the totally unexpected to get over first. If there must be an autopsy and criminal investigation, these could be expected to really delay a funeral. What happened in JB's case?
Her death was totally unexpected. The body wasn't removed from the crime scene till late Thursday night. An autopsy was done Friday. The very next day Saturday after having the body only 1 day and dispite a freshly opened ongoing criminal investigation, police were bombarded with demands to release it. When they refused the DA's ofice gave into demands from the most politically connected lawfirm in the state, already hired by John Ramsey for the purpose. The big rush...by Saturday all the funeral plans had been made, meaning they were all made on Friday the last business day of the week. Everything from place, time, selecting casket, clothing, invitations, newspapers announcements, service etc. etc. all done the very next day after the surprise murder. As Patsy was sedated all that day, we can only assume John made all the arrangements himself.
JB's CO funeral was held on Sunday less than 72 hours after her murder was even suspected. Immediately thereafter the family left for the airport with the body, and left the state. After another 1 day of preperation on Monday, JB's GA funeral was held on Tuesday. In only 4 full days after the totally unexpected death, dispite that it was a murder case, the need for autopsy, a ongoing criminal investigation, an intervening weekend, and that it was Xmas week, the body had undergone 2 funerals and was in the ground 2000 miles away from where it was discovered only 4 days before. Found murdered late on the day after Xmas she was already buried 2000 miles away, after 2 funerals well before New Years Eve. A world record in rushed burials, or should it be said in rushed 'proper burial of the remains'?
What do you think?
:shrug: IMO: I think the LE allowed themselves to be pushed into some wrong decisions.....jmo
Mimi428
10-07-2006, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Devotion
:shrug: IMO: I think the LE allowed themselves to be pushed into some wrong decisions.....jmo
I think so too. They could not withstand the pressure the high-powered attorneys brought to bear. Hal Haddon is a force to be reckoned with & I doubt any person working the case was not aware of that.
The family wasn't 1/10th as interested in finding out who did the crime as they were in proceeding with the burial & getting out of Boulder. What a crying shame for that poor, innocent child when your own parents won't gut up & do what is necessary to help find your murderer. And if anything is clear, JonBenet's parents did every possible thing through their attorneys to thwart the investigation.
MOO
sweetcharlotte
10-07-2006, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by watson
<snip>
A world record in rushed burials, or should it be said in rushed 'proper burial of the remains'?
What do you think?
JonBenet was found the morning of December 26th. A memorial service was help in Denver on December 29th. The funeral was help in Atlanta on December 31st. That doesn't seem "rushed" to me. JMO
simply quiet
10-07-2006, 03:22 PM
I must say there are some very strange aspects to this case, but the timing of the funeral does not raise any red flags with me.
The family is well connected it would, IMO, not take long to make all the arrangements.
And honestly, most families want the funeral over with ASAP. I sure wouldn't want my little one lying in a funeral home all alone any longer then necessary. JMHO
Athena
10-07-2006, 03:54 PM
Just some comments re: above posts:
JBR was found the morning of the 26th. The autopsy was conducted on the 27th. Although the LE wanted to hold the body there is absolutely NO legal reason to withhold a body for burial once the autopsy has been deemed completed by the coroner. When John Myers was contacted by LE to hold the body that is exactly what they were told by him.
The body was picked up; prepared for burial; arrangements made with the church and then to fly her remains to GA and she was buried next to her older step-sister so no arrangements had to be made for a plot. She was not buried until the following Tuesday. Not unusual at all. If anything they could have actually skipped the services in Boulder since their families were in GA.
The only reason some people may take longer in burying a loved one is to give other family members time to make arrangements for travel time which obviously wasn't the case here since they were taking her "home". Other than that average funeral is within 2-4 days.
Re: the comment of keeping the body for stun gun results -- the theory that a stun gun was even used was when Smit entered the case. There was no further examination that needed to be done.
There is no such thing "as rushing" burial. Some peoples' religions even suggest that the body be prepared and buried within 24 hours. I know that is not the case here but the point is it wasn't a rush funeral -- funerals and the length of time a peron's body is laid out is up to the family. jmo
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I think you asked a very good question. I've wondered myself why the big rush to bury her when this was a horrible murder and a more careful study of the body may have offered more answers and clues, such as the stun gun theory.
IDI's will say that the Ramseys let their friends take over and make all of the decisions for them and that may be true but I can't believe at least John was not involved in some of that; he being the more coolheaded of the two.
I believe that the Ramseys wanted her buried quickly before more questions arose and the need to study her body again more closely occured. It seems odd that no one tried a little harder to determine what the abrasions on her body were made from. It may have helped solve the murder. But then...it seems they weren't given much time to do that. IMO
I still cannot figure out why John put a SCARF into the casket with JB. What special meaning could that possibly have had to a six year old...(she wasn't 60)? I think that the scarf was connected to the murder in some way, and he wanted it GONE. I think that the reason for the quickie funeral(s), and the reason that they don't want the body exhumed....is the same. Shoot, when my mom passed away, with all of the preparations..it took us three days just to have the funeral. I had never thought about it before, but JB's funeral(s) was/were a rush job. IMO
Originally posted by Mimi428
<snipped>
What a crying shame for that poor, innocent child when your own parents won't gut up & do what is necessary to help find your murderer. And if anything is clear, JonBenet's parents did every possible thing through their attorneys to thwart the investigation.
MOO
Yes, and I "wonder" why? The reason is perfectly clear to me...IMO
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
JonBenet was found the morning of December 26th. A memorial service was help in Denver on December 29th. The funeral was help in Atlanta on December 31st. That doesn't seem "rushed" to me. JMO
I thought that she was found at 1:00 that evening (26th). ( I could be wrong about that.) A memorial service, AND a funeral ....all in 5 days....IS a little rushed IMO. Why be in a hurry to have the body released? Why didn't the Ramsey's tell them to keep it as long as they needed to, to make sure that they didn't miss anything during the autopsy? Why not have another autopsy performed, if some of the things that were found were inconclusive? Just like Anna Nicole Smith had with her son, Daniel. She didn't stop, until she had some answers, which IMO would be what any parent (that wasn't guilty of something) would do. IMO
thewhitewitch1
10-07-2006, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Athena
Just some comments re: above posts:
JBR was found the morning of the 26th. The autopsy was conducted on the 27th. Although the LE wanted to hold the body there is absolutely NO legal reason to withhold a body for burial once the autopsy has been deemed completed by the coroner. When John Myers was contacted by LE to hold the body that is exactly what they were told by him.
The body was picked up; prepared for burial; arrangements made with the church and then to fly her remains to GA and she was buried next to her older step-sister so no arrangements had to be made for a plot. She was not buried until the following Tuesday. Not unusual at all. If anything they could have actually skipped the services in Boulder since their families were in GA.
The only reason some people may take longer in burying a loved one is to give other family members time to make arrangements for travel time which obviously wasn't the case here since they were taking her "home". Other than that average funeral is within 2-4 days.
Re: the comment of keeping the body for stun gun results -- the theory that a stun gun was even used was when Smit entered the case. There was no further examination that needed to be done.
There is no such thing "as rushing" burial. Some peoples' religions even suggest that the body be prepared and buried within 24 hours. I know that is not the case here but the point is it wasn't a rush funeral -- funerals and the length of time a peron's body is laid out is up to the family. jmo
The point about the stun gun was just an example. If they could have looked into those abrasions on her body a little more, they may have gotten an idea of what they were from (not nec. a stun gun) and maybe they could have fit some pieces together. Just the fact that the stun gun theory did come into play suggests that more time should have been taken examining her body.
I know most funerals take X amount of time but most funerals aren't for murdered 6 year old children whos parents were under an "umbrella of suspicion".
Ames...that scarf has also bothered me. A lot of things bother me about the Ramseys words and actions.
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
The point about the stun gun was just an example. If they could have looked into those abrasions on her body a little more, they may have gotten an idea of what they were from (not nec. a stun gun) and maybe they could have fit some pieces together. Just the fact that the stun gun theory did come into play suggests that more time should have been taken examining her body.
I know most funerals take X amount of time but most funerals aren't for murdered 6 year old children whos parents were under an "umbrella of suspicion".
Ames...that scarf has also bothered me. A lot of things bother me about the Ramseys words and actions.
Exellent post TWW! I totally agree with you, as I have stated in one of my previous posts, why didn't they have a 2nd autopsy done...why the rush to bury JB? Personally speaking, I would have gotten as many autopsies as needed to get the answers to my questions, if JB had of been MY child. The memorial and funeral WERE rushed....IMO
Athena
10-07-2006, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
The point about the stun gun was just an example. If they could have looked into those abrasions on her body a little more, they may have gotten an idea of what they were from (not nec. a stun gun) and maybe they could have fit some pieces together. Just the fact that the stun gun theory did come into play suggests that more time should have been taken examining her body.
I know most funerals take X amount of time but most funerals aren't for murdered 6 year old children whos parents were under an "umbrella of suspicion".
Ames...that scarf has also bothered me. A lot of things bother me about the Ramseys words and actions.
The point though is that is the coroner's call not the parents. When a body is taken for an autopsy in any death under suspicious circumstances or when cause of death is unknown, the parents or next of kin have NO control over that. And really what would they have known to question? An autopsy was done and cause of death determined and John Myers is the one that notified the LE that the autopsy was completed and would be illegal for him to hold onto the body as there were no legal grounds to hold it. If John Myers had any reason to believe the body needed further examination that is all he had to say but he did not. The Ramseys were entitled to bury their daughter.
This has NOTHING to do with being RDI or IDI; it is just statement of fact. jmo
Originally posted by Athena
The point though is that is the coroner's call not the parents. When a body is taken for an autopsy in any death under suspicious circumstances or when cause of death is unknown, the parents or next of kin have NO control over that. And really what would they have known to question? An autopsy was done and cause of death determined and John Myers is the one that notified the LE that the autopsy was completed and would be illegal for him to hold onto the body as there were no legal grounds to hold it. If John Myers had any reason to believe the body needed further examination that is all he had to say but he did not. The Ramseys were entitled to bury their daughter.
This has NOTHING to do with being RDI or IDI; it is just statement of fact. jmo
Yes, but the parents could have requested a 2nd autopsy, to be performed by another examiner. Thats what Anna Nicole Smith did, when she wasn't satisfied with the results from her son's first one. She pressed on, until she had some answers. You cannot tell me, if J and P hadn't of been in such a rush to bury JB, that SOMETHING else MAY have been discovered in a 2nd autopsy. Gee, if nothing else...they could have gotten a 2nd opinion, to see if they agreed with the first examiner. There were things that were inconclusive in the first autopsy...thats what I meant by unanswered questions. As a parent, I wouldn't have stopped with one autopsy...I would have had a 2nd and 3rd, if thats what it took, to find the answers. But, then again...thats just me. IMO
Mimi428
10-07-2006, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Ames
Yes, and I "wonder" why? The reason is perfectly clear to me...IMO
At the time the body was released for burial, the only face-to-face contact the Ramsey parents had with LE was while the BPD was operating under the assumption that JonBenet had been kidnapped. The questioning that was done was simply to ascertain the details of finding the note, realizing she was gone, etc.
Once the body was found & it was determined that a MURDER investigation needed to start, it was "Lawyer Up Time For the Ramseys". I think they set a speed record for as fast as they obtained legal representation.
NO PARENT who wants their child's murderer to be found is going to refuse to answer questions from the police during that critical time period. The Ramseys could have had several attorneys present AND talked to the police as part of the MURDER investigation. Their attorneys could have protected them if they believed they were under too much scrutiny - but at the VERY LEAST - they OWED it to their dead child to get the police on the right track to find the murderer.
But at the point it became a murder investigation - they clammed up. Who gives a flip who killed JonBenet? Not John. Not Patsy. Oh no - they couldn't be bothered to help the police find a murderer. All they could do was hide behind Haddon & his cronies.
JMO
Athena
10-07-2006, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by Ames
Yes, but the parents could have requested a 2nd autopsy, to be performed by another examiner. Thats what Anna Nicole Smith did, when she wasn't satisfied with the results from her son's first one. She pressed on, until she had some answers. You cannot tell me, if J and P hadn't of been in such a rush to bury JB, that SOMETHING else MAY have been discovered in a 2nd autopsy. Gee, if nothing else...they could have gotten a 2nd opinion, to see if they agreed with the first examiner. There were things that were inconclusive in the first autopsy...thats what I meant by unanswered questions. As a parent, I wouldn't have stopped with one autopsy...I would have had a 2nd and 3rd, if thats what it took, to find the answers. But, then again...thats just me. IMO
Ames come on.... to compare what Anna Nicole did to the Ramseys is apples and oranges. Her son died suddenly in a foreign country. She was told it would be about two weeks before she would get the official autopsy results. The initial conclusion was that it was a "suspicious" death but no foul play. Of course, you would not be satisfied with that answer -- she called a coroner from the US. She did not want to believe her son had been taking drugs.
There was nothing for the Ramseys to question -- the cause of death had been determined - what was there to question??? What's so funny here is that had they demanded a 2nd independent autopsy be done -- something would have been read into that as well. Damned if you do or damned if you don't. jmo
Athena
10-07-2006, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Mimi428
At the time the body was released for burial, the only face-to-face contact the Ramsey parents had with LE was while the BPD was operating under the assumption that JonBenet had been kidnapped. The questioning that was done was simply to ascertain the details of finding the note, realizing she was gone, etc.
Once the body was found & it was determined that a MURDER investigation needed to start, it was "Lawyer Up Time For the Ramseys". I think they set a speed record for as fast as they obtained legal representation.
NO PARENT who wants their child's murderer to be found is going to refuse to answer questions from the police during that critical time period. The Ramseys could have had several attorneys present AND talked to the police as part of the MURDER investigation. Their attorneys could have protected them if they believed they were under too much scrutiny - but at the VERY LEAST - they OWED it to their dead child to get the police on the right track to find the murderer.
But at the point it became a murder investigation - they clammed up. Who gives a flip who killed JonBenet? Not John. Not Patsy. Oh no - they couldn't be bothered to help the police find a murderer. All they could do was hide behind Haddon & his cronies.
JMO
But it was OK for Thomas; his ego and his cronies to come up with some far-fetched theory and close their minds to anybody but a Ramsey?
If you are ever accused of ANYTHING I suggest the first thing you do IS get a lawyer. jmo
Originally posted by Athena
Ames come on.... to compare what Anna Nicole did to the Ramseys is apples and oranges. Her son died suddenly in a foreign country. She was told it would be about two weeks before she would get the official autopsy results. The initial conclusion was that it was a "suspicious" death but no foul play. Of course, you would not be satisfied with that answer -- she called a coroner from the US. She did not want to believe her son had been taking drugs.
There was nothing for the Ramseys to question -- the cause of death had been determined - what was there to question??? What's so funny here is that had they demanded a 2nd independent autopsy be done -- something would have been read into that as well. Damned if you do or damned if you don't. jmo
Well, I don't think that it would have been asking too much..if the Ramsey's had of asked for a 2nd autopsy...considering there WERE some things that were ruled inconclusive. Personally, I would not have been satisfied with "inconclusive". And I don't have any idea what could have been read into a second autopsy...to me, it would have made them look LESS suspicious. IMO
Athena
10-07-2006, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Ames
Well, I don't think that it would have been asking too much..if the Ramsey's had of asked for a 2nd autopsy...considering there WERE some things that were ruled inconclusive. Personally, I would not have been satisfied with "inconclusive". And I don't have any idea what could have been read into a second autopsy...to me, it would have made them look LESS suspicious. IMO
Nothing in the autopsy report says inconclusive. We will have to agree to disagree.
Originally posted by Athena
Nothing in the autopsy report says inconclusive. We will have to agree to disagree.
What about the "stun gun marks" and the previous sexual molestation?
Mimi428
10-08-2006, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by Athena
But it was OK for Thomas; his ego and his cronies to come up with some far-fetched theory and close their minds to anybody but a Ramsey?
If you are ever accused of ANYTHING I suggest the first thing you do IS get a lawyer. jmo
What are you talking about? My post was specifically & solely written about the behavior of the Ramsey parents.
I don't care how much the police suspect you - when YOUR child is murdered in YOUR home while YOU are present - and you do NOT agree to be questioned by the police so they can properly investigate the crime - you deserve every ounce of scrutiny & derision you get.
The Ramseys could have packed the room with an army of attorneys to protect their rights while they were being questioned. They didn't. They didn't have the guts. They didn't have the interest in finding out who murdered their child.
How were the police ever supposed to rule them out when they refused to be questioned?
There are thousands upon thousands of people accused of every sort of crime from the most minor to the most heinous - yet somehow, the ones who have faith in their own innocence DO manage to bring an attorney along to protect their interest AND answer the questions of the police.
Except, of course, the Ramseys...who could not muster up enough outrage that there was a 'sociopathic' murderer supposedly on the loose & who had, by their story, snuck into their house & murdered their baby. Guess clearing their names & helping the police find & bring to justice the maniac who killed their child just wasn't at the top of their list of priorities, was it?
JMO
Originally posted by Mimi428
<snipped>
The Ramseys could have packed the room with an army of attorneys to protect their rights while they were being questioned. They didn't. They didn't have the guts. They didn't have the interest in finding out who murdered their child.
JMO
You go girl!! I couldn't have said it better myself!! IMO
Originally posted by Mimi428
What are you talking about? My post was specifically & solely written about the behavior of the Ramsey parents.
I don't care how much the police suspect you - when YOUR child is murdered in YOUR home while YOU are present - and you do NOT agree to be questioned by the police so they can properly investigate the crime - you deserve every ounce of scrutiny & derision you get.
The Ramseys could have packed the room with an army of attorneys to protect their rights while they were being questioned. They didn't. They didn't have the guts. They didn't have the interest in finding out who murdered their child.
How were the police ever supposed to rule them out when they refused to be questioned?
There are thousands upon thousands of people accused of every sort of crime from the most minor to the most heinous - yet somehow, the ones who have faith in their own innocence DO manage to bring an attorney along to protect their interest AND answer the questions of the police.
Except, of course, the Ramseys...who could not muster up enough outrage that there was a 'sociopathic' murderer supposedly on the loose & who had, by their story, snuck into their house & murdered their baby. Guess clearing their names & helping the police find & bring to justice the maniac who killed their child just wasn't at the top of their list of priorities, was it?
JMO
I agree with you. Remember how Ramsey withdrew the $100,000 reward for the leading arrest of the killer while Scott Peterson’s parents still desperately believe either Laci & Connor are still alive or their killer is still out there with the continuing rewards worth over $800,000. JR is indeed a quite skilled artful dodger when he was questioned; even his dodgy responses went accompanying with the help of his lawyers to keep the truth from being exposed. It seems the only things that made JR or Patsy agonized were; BPD’s questioning them, how BPD treated their house as crime scene, JR & Patsy as suspected, BPD’s investigating clues on JB’s body, BPD interviewing others who connected with the Ramseys, but not when Burke went stay with friends, when their lawyers were beside them, their close friendships with others came to cease, “supposedly” intruder/killer is still out there, and the evidences on JB’s body buried with her. Both of Ramseys went celebrating on New Year Eve for the new future by leaving their old friendships, jobs, Boulder, parties, classes, neighbors, house, pageants, memories, even the life of JonBenet behind them. IMO
Originally posted by harz
<snipped>
Both of Ramseys went celebrating on New Year Eve for the new future by leaving their old friendships, jobs, Boulder, parties, classes, neighbors, house, pageants, memories, even the life of JonBenet behind them. IMO
Yeah, they had no intention of ever helping to find the "real" killer, because all along...they knew who murdered their daughter, all they had to do is look in the mirror. How in the world could they just move away, and start a new life...when this case is unsolved...and according to them, the killer is still out there? They could not have given a rats patootie about justice for little Jonbenet, all they cared about is saving their own butts...and that is a crying shame. Poor Jonbenet!! IMO
MyrDawn
10-08-2006, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by harz
I agree with you. Remember how Ramsey withdrew the $100,000 reward for the leading arrest of the killer while Scott Peterson’s parents still desperately believe either Laci & Connor are still alive or their killer is still out there with the continuing rewards worth over $800,000. JR is indeed a quite skilled artful dodger when he was questioned; even his dodgy responses went accompanying with the help of his lawyers to keep the truth from being exposed. It seems the only things that made JR or Patsy agonized were; BPD’s questioning them, how BPD treated their house as crime scene, JR & Patsy as suspected, BPD’s investigating clues on JB’s body, BPD interviewing others who connected with the Ramseys, but not when Burke went stay with friends, when their lawyers were beside them, their close friendships with others came to cease, “supposedly” intruder/killer is still out there, and the evidences on JB’s body buried with her. Both of Ramseys went celebrating on New Year Eve for the new future by leaving their old friendships, jobs, Boulder, parties, classes, neighbors, house, pageants, memories, even the life of JonBenet behind them. IMO
Scott Peterson's parents are offering the reward because they believe either Laci or Conner are still alive???? What about the DNA testing? LOL That's one reward they know very well they are never going to have to pay. They could offer the moon, and never have a moments worry they'd ever have to fork it over.
JR dodgy? Then why did the Ramseys beg the Boulder police to call in the FBI? Why did the police lie to them and say the FBI had been called and were on their way, when in fact the FBI offered to help and the police turned them down?
Where did you hear the "Ramseys went celebrating on New Year Eve"? JonBenet's funeral and burial was on New Years Eve.
MOO
thewhitewitch1
10-08-2006, 11:59 AM
"JR dodgy? Then why did the Ramseys beg the Boulder police to call in the FBI? Why did the police lie to them and say the FBI had been called and were on their way, when in fact the FBI offered to help and the police turned them down?"
Where did you ever hear that the Ramseys "begged" the BPD to call the FBI? Due to the fact that John was affiliated with Lockheed Martin, the FBI should have been right on it anyway.
(See my thread "Interesting Read and Good Point").
Also, why did neither J or P let the 911 operator know that the ransom note sounded as though it had been written by terrorists? I'm sure the FBI would have been there in a heartbeat and maybe this murder would have been solved by now. Funny how Johns employer deals in Homeland Security yet John did not act appropriately to a "terrorist" act. I don't think calling 911 is quite the thing to do when dealing with terrorists. IMO
watson
10-08-2006, 04:35 PM
Hi everybody. I think there are a lot of good comments from everyone both pro and con. Just a couple of points.
1.) JB's body was brought up from the basement to the foyer and living room by John at 1 pm Thursday Dec. 26. The police then began clearing the crime scene, which was secured c. 2pm. JB's body then remained there waiting for the coronor to see it at the scene. He did not arrive until 8pm (see ME report). After he left police made arrangements for the body to leave the premises, which it did about 10pm, probably being checked in and secured at the morgue by 11pm. So, the ME didn't really have full control and custody of it until about 11pm Thur. Dec 26.
2.) The autopsy was done on Fri. Dec. 27, probably because of Boulders small size, in a large city the body probably would have had to wait for autopsy to later in the weekend or even the next business week.
3.) All days aren't equal, there's business days, weekend days, holidays, churches may have something else scheduled for the day you want your funeral. Funeral homes might be already booked etc. What strikes me is that whoever made all the funeral plans had to make most or all of them on the last business day of the week, Friday the 27th, and that's 24 hours or less after the shocking and unexpected murder was discovered, and that this whole thing started happened and was concluded ( the abduction, murder, autopsy, criminalist investigation, funeral planning, 2 funerals, burial, and a 2000 mile move) all in the 5 1/2 days of the HOLIDAY week between the day after Xmas and New Years Eve, when it is so hard to get ANY business or anything done because of hoilday closures, vacations etc.
4.) It still seems like a speed record to me, and WHO I wonder from the Ramsey family was so ruthlessly efficent and driven that literally hours after being booted out of your own home Xmas week with no warning, finding your child surprisingly murdered in your own basement, could then spend the very next day happily making and completeing funeral arrangements? Not to mention also finding time to retain the states top law firm, all on the last business day of the wek before the New Years weekend?
LadyFisher
10-08-2006, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Athena
But it was OK for Thomas; his ego and his cronies to come up with some far-fetched theory and close their minds to anybody but a Ramsey?
If you are ever accused of ANYTHING I suggest the first thing you do IS get a lawyer. jmo Althena, IMHO it is easy for folks to say they would act this way or that way IF they lost a child...but until they experience the situation...they cannot truthfully say what they would do or how they would act. The Ramseys were in shock..and I'm certain remained in that state for days, weeks, and months....imho they cooperated as fully as they could under the circumstances...it was Bynum who suggested he handle the lawyer situation anyway.....so I guess now, the RDIs will say Bynum was part of the conspiracy! :confused:
LadyFisher
10-08-2006, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
JonBenet was found the morning of December 26th. A memorial service was help in Denver on December 29th. The funeral was help in Atlanta on December 31st. That doesn't seem "rushed" to me. JMO There was nothing rushed about it! :beer:
Athena
10-08-2006, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by watson
Hi everybody. I think there are a lot of good comments from everyone both pro and con. Just a couple of points.
1.) JB's body was brought up from the basement to the foyer and living room by John at 1 pm Thursday Dec. 26. The police then began clearing the crime scene, which was secured c. 2pm. JB's body then remained there waiting for the coronor to see it at the scene. He did not arrive until 8pm (see ME report). After he left police made arrangements for the body to leave the premises, which it did about 10pm, probably being checked in and secured at the morgue by 11pm. So, the ME didn't really have full control and custody of it until about 11pm Thur. Dec 26.
2.) The autopsy was done on Fri. Dec. 27, probably because of Boulders small size, in a large city the body probably would have had to wait for autopsy to later in the weekend or even the next business week.
3.) All days aren't equal, there's business days, weekend days, holidays, churches may have something else scheduled for the day you want your funeral. Funeral homes might be already booked etc. What strikes me is that whoever made all the funeral plans had to make most or all of them on the last business day of the week, Friday the 27th, and that's 24 hours or less after the shocking and unexpected murder was discovered, and that this whole thing started happened and was concluded ( the abduction, murder, autopsy, criminalist investigation, funeral planning, 2 funerals, burial, and a 2000 mile move) all in the 5 1/2 days of the HOLIDAY week between the day after Xmas and New Years Eve, when it is so hard to get ANY business or anything done because of hoilday closures, vacations etc.
4.) It still seems like a speed record to me, and WHO I wonder from the Ramsey family was so ruthlessly efficent and driven that literally hours after being booted out of your own home Xmas week with no warning, finding your child surprisingly murdered in your own basement, could then spend the very next day happily making and completeing funeral arrangements? Not to mention also finding time to retain the states top law firm, all on the last business day of the wek before the New Years weekend?
My baby brother was killed - shot in the head over a chain around his neck. The day of the autopsy my sisters and I made the funeral arrangements. BTW: we did not "happily" make funeral arrangements; we did what needed to be done. He was buried within 3 days because we did not want my mother to freak out any more than she already was. It would have been two days but there was a holiday in that three days so there was noone to open the plot to have him buried. The day after the autopsy he was waked. We had the funeral mass on the 3rd day immediately followed by the burial.
Alot of funeral homes are family run and are available 24x7 including weekends and holidays and the Ramseys were friendly with the Pastor and apparently the church was available. You also don't know if the Ramseys were the ones to make the arrangements; it could have been friends or other family members. I haven't read their book so maybe they do discuss it in there - don't know.
I'm not understanding why their funeral arrangements are considered rush at all.
Re: the lawyers:
Pg. 63 Shortly after noon that Saturday, without consultiing John or Patsy, Bynum told Detective Arndt that the Ramseys would not give any more testiimonial evidence without a criminal attorny present, and they would no longer share privileged information with the police. Since he was no longer a criminal attorney, Bynum called Bryan Morgan of haddon, Morgan and Foreman in Denver, one of Colorado's top firms. By Saturday evening the Ramseys had retained Morgan.
He also offered this: "If you're guilty, you should have a lawyer. And I want to tell you that if you're innocent, you'd better have a great lawyer. There is no difference."
Bynum Interview with Tracey:
"It is foolish to blindly throw oneself into the maw of the justice sytem. One simply must be thoughtful about the way one acts, especially in a case where the media attention reaches a point of near hysteria, and especially in a case of media attention which from the outset portrays certain people as clearly guilty. This is the way towards the conviction of innocent people in this country."
Athena
10-08-2006, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
"JR dodgy? Then why did the Ramseys beg the Boulder police to call in the FBI? Why did the police lie to them and say the FBI had been called and were on their way, when in fact the FBI offered to help and the police turned them down?"
Where did you ever hear that the Ramseys "begged" the BPD to call the FBI? Due to the fact that John was affiliated with Lockheed Martin, the FBI should have been right on it anyway.
(See my thread "Interesting Read and Good Point").
Also, why did neither J or P let the 911 operator know that the ransom note sounded as though it had been written by terrorists? I'm sure the FBI would have been there in a heartbeat and maybe this murder would have been solved by now. Funny how Johns employer deals in Homeland Security yet John did not act appropriately to a "terrorist" act. I don't think calling 911 is quite the thing to do when dealing with terrorists. IMO
Gosh -- it is not up to John to try to figure out what that note meant nor is it his responsiblity to have made sure the FBI was there. The FBI should have been involved from the very beginning because it was a kidnapping and the BPD should have taken them up on their offer to help after JBR's body was found. That was the BPD's responsiblity but their egos got in the way and turned down the FBI's offer as well as turning down the offer of help from the Denvier PD. As far as the BPD is concerned within one and a half hours of securing the first search warrant - they wanted to call it quits claiming they had everything they needed and did not feel the need to continue. The DAs office insisted they look for everything and do vacuuming of fibers, etc. The BPD were totally irresponsible. jmo
Originally posted by MyrDawn
Scott Peterson's parents are offering the reward because they believe either Laci or Conner are still alive???? What about the DNA testing? LOL That's one reward they know very well they are never going to have to pay. They could offer the moon, and never have a moments worry they'd ever have to fork it over.
JR dodgy? Then why did the Ramseys beg the Boulder police to call in the FBI? Why did the police lie to them and say the FBI had been called and were on their way, when in fact the FBI offered to help and the police turned them down?
Where did you hear the "Ramseys went celebrating on New Year Eve"? JonBenet's funeral and burial was on New Years Eve.
MOO
It shows how desperate those of SP’s parents and pro-SP are for either Laci or Scott that clouded their minds from the reality regardless of DNA; remember how the DNA was insignificant to those juries at OJ’s trail.
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/Reward.html
About FBI, if JR begged for FBI to be involved into this case, it doesn’t make any different since the note said JB was “kidnapped” for ransom. If JR wrote the note, it means he want FBI to get involved in the first place, usually FBI do get involve into the kidnapping cases as it’s a federal offense; because the kidnappers usually take their victims out of the state. The reason he want FBI to get involved so there would be more suspects (scapegoats), whom were connected to JR, to investigate after. Many guilty murders do ask for FBI or other kinds of LE to give them wild goose chase (in hopes to get lucky if an innocent person became suspect) if a certain category of LE doesn’t get off their back.
I read some article and timelines last month that both of Ramseys went and celebrated on New Year Eve, I thought you knew that. I would have to find these links again. Of course Ramseys want JB to be buried in Atlanta instead of in Boulder so they don’t need any reasons to go back there. I did consider a possibility that JR on purpose killed JB for some reasons about wanting to leave the life of Boulder or Colorado behind him. Maybe it had to do with the pressure on JR into intensifying toward being famous and responsibilities from his job. Maybe Vaughn can explain his theories about Microsoft being threatened by JR’s business that Bill Gate had some conspiracies and connections to this case, lol. JMO
Originally posted by Athena
Gosh -- it is not up to John to try to figure out what that note meant nor is it his responsiblity to have made sure the FBI was there. The FBI should have been involved from the very beginning because it was a kidnapping and the BPD should have taken them up on their offer to help after JBR's body was found. That was the BPD's responsiblity but their egos got in the way and turned down the FBI's offer as well as turning down the offer of help from the Denvier PD. As far as the BPD is concerned within one and a half hours of securing the first search warrant - they wanted to call it quits claiming they had everything they needed and did not feel the need to continue. The DAs office insisted they look for everything and do vacuuming of fibers, etc. The BPD were totally irresponsible. jmo
I agree FBI should have been involved on this case, but JB’s body was already discovered inside Ramsey’s house. Also, BPD suspected the killer does not live anywhere outside of Boulder or Colorado, so it wasn’t need for FBI to be involved. It would help a lot for this case if FBI had to be involved regardless if Ramseys were guilty or not. BPD and Boulder’s bureaucrats were such incomplete and ignominy which we agree that FBI’s involvements would given a higher chance to have this case to be solved and closed then. IMO
MyrDawn
10-09-2006, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by harz
I agree FBI should have been involved on this case, but JB’s body was already discovered inside Ramsey’s house. Also, BPD suspected the killer does not live anywhere outside of Boulder or Colorado, so it wasn’t need for FBI to be involved. It would help a lot for this case if FBI had to be involved regardless if Ramseys were guilty or not. BPD and Boulder’s bureaucrats were such incomplete and ignominy which we agree that FBI’s involvements would given a higher chance to have this case to be solved and closed then. IMO
There wasn't any NEED for the FBI to be involved? How about the zero experience the BPD had with kidnappings? What about the "Linberg Law"? The FBI offered to assist BPD long BEFORE JonBenet's body was found, but the PBD turned down the offer. They refused the offer of help from the Denver PD, too.
Linda Arndt even asked her supervisor to let for FBI help at the house, even before she arrived on the scene. John asked several times when the FBI agents would get there, and was only told "they're on their way, it takes a couple of hours". That was a lie.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/27/lkl.00.html
The BPD didn't accept the FBI's offer of help until after JonBenet's body was found. Only then was the FBI agent was allowed in the Ramsey house.
One of the points of Arndt's lawsuit against Koby and the City of Boulder was the erroneous reports she refused to allow the FBI to the house.
http://www.acandyrose.com/05191998arndtcomplaint.htm
chatwuann
10-09-2006, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
JonBenet was found the morning of December 26th. A memorial service was help in Denver on December 29th. The funeral was help in Atlanta on December 31st. That doesn't seem "rushed" to me. JMO
That doesn't seem rushed to me either.
JMO
chatwuann
10-09-2006, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by simply quiet
I must say there are some very strange aspects to this case, but the timing of the funeral does not raise any red flags with me.
The family is well connected it would, IMO, not take long to make all the arrangements.
And honestly, most families want the funeral over with ASAP. I sure wouldn't want my little one lying in a funeral home all alone any longer then necessary. JMHO
I wouldn't want my little one lying in a funeral home any longer than necessary either.
chatwuann
10-09-2006, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by Ames
I thought that she was found at 1:00 that evening (26th). ( I could be wrong about that.) A memorial service, AND a funeral ....all in 5 days....IS a little rushed IMO. Why be in a hurry to have the body released? Why didn't the Ramsey's tell them to keep it as long as they needed to, to make sure that they didn't miss anything during the autopsy? Why not have another autopsy performed, if some of the things that were found were inconclusive? Just like Anna Nicole Smith had with her son, Daniel. She didn't stop, until she had some answers, which IMO would be what any parent (that wasn't guilty of something) would do. IMO
Just my opinion but I think Anna Nicole Smith wanted the second autopsy because she wasn't satisfied with the results of the first one. Could it be the Ramseys were satisfied with the results of the autopsy that Meyers performed and felt that another one wasnt necessary. I also think that after what the murderer had done to JonBenet the Ramseys didn't want to see anything more done to her body.
JMO
chatwuann
10-09-2006, 09:28 AM
The BPD wanted to use JonBenet's body as a bargaining chip to elicit more interviews from the Ramseys. That sounds a little unethical to me.
JMO
chatwuann
10-09-2006, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Athena
Ames come on.... to compare what Anna Nicole did to the Ramseys is apples and oranges. Her son died suddenly in a foreign country. She was told it would be about two weeks before she would get the official autopsy results. The initial conclusion was that it was a "suspicious" death but no foul play. Of course, you would not be satisfied with that answer -- she called a coroner from the US. She did not want to believe her son had been taking drugs.
There was nothing for the Ramseys to question -- the cause of death had been determined - what was there to question??? What's so funny here is that had they demanded a 2nd independent autopsy be done -- something would have been read into that as well. Damned if you do or damned if you don't. jmo
That sums it up when it comes to the Ramseys. They could do nothing right.
JMO
sweetcharlotte
10-09-2006, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by chatwuann
The BPD wanted to use JonBenet's body as a bargaining chip to elicit more interviews from the Ramseys. That sounds a little unethical to me.
JMO
It was - and the coronoer wouldn't go along with that idea. Really hacked Eller off. PM/PT
lucky13
10-09-2006, 11:03 AM
I think it was a bit rushed. Considering that there were things that could have possibly been figured out with a 2nd autopsy...especially the previous sexual abuse. HELLO! If you, as a parent, could possibly be accused of sexual abuse of your murdered daughter, why wouldn't you do ANY & EVERYthing possible to clear your name?( IF YOU WERE INNOCENT!!) I think the Ramseys wanted her in the ground ASAP for many reasons, & to never be exhumed either.( Even though that also could have helped the investigation.) Out of sight/out of mind- for the guilty conscience.
I also think that the silk scarf that John put into the casket was just plain weird. Patsy said he had recently bought it. So there was no sentimental reasoning. Why, of all things, would you put a scarf in with a 6 year old? It's not like it was used to cover her scarred neck with....very strange indeed. I'm positive that John had a specific, warped reason for choosing the scarf, only he (& maybe Patsy) know.
MOO
thewhitewitch1
10-09-2006, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by lucky13
I think it was a bit rushed. Considering that there were things that could have possibly been figured out with a 2nd autopsy...especially the previous sexual abuse. HELLO! If you, as a parent, could possibly be accused of sexual abuse of your murdered daughter, why wouldn't you do ANY & EVERYthing possible to clear your name?( IF YOU WERE INNOCENT!!) I think the Ramseys wanted her in the ground ASAP for many reasons, & to never be exhumed either.( Even though that also could have helped the investigation.) Out of sight/out of mind- for the guilty conscience.
I also think that the silk scarf that John put into the casket was just plain weird. Patsy said he had recently bought it. So there was no sentimental reasoning. Why, of all things, would you put a scarf in with a 6 year old? It's not like it was used to cover her scarred neck with....very strange indeed. I'm positive that John had a specific, warped reason for choosing the scarf, only he (& maybe Patsy) know.
MOO
I am wondering what material the scarf Beth bought John in Switzerland was made of...
lucky13
10-09-2006, 03:17 PM
TheWW1, what are you getting at about the scarf?? I'm interested...
sweetcharlotte
10-09-2006, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I am wondering what material the scarf Beth bought John in Switzerland was made of...
Silk.
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-funeral.htm
Originally posted by MyrDawn
There wasn't any NEED for the FBI to be involved? How about the zero experience the BPD had with kidnappings? What about the "Linberg Law"? The FBI offered to assist BPD long BEFORE JonBenet's body was found, but the PBD turned down the offer. They refused the offer of help from the Denver PD, too.
Linda Arndt even asked her supervisor to let for FBI help at the house, even before she arrived on the scene. John asked several times when the FBI agents would get there, and was only told "they're on their way, it takes a couple of hours". That was a lie.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/27/lkl.00.html
The BPD didn't accept the FBI's offer of help until after JonBenet's body was found. Only then was the FBI agent was allowed in the Ramsey house.
One of the points of Arndt's lawsuit against Koby and the City of Boulder was the erroneous reports she refused to allow the FBI to the house.
http://www.acandyrose.com/05191998arndtcomplaint.htm
I meant the BPD felt or thought FBI doesn’t need to be involved, which I thought it was wrong. Who exactly were the ones whom refuse to allow outside help beside Detective Arndt? Were there other polices given impression in agreeing with Arndt? Maybe a police or detective from Boulder is responsible of JB’s death that he wanted to make the Ramseys to look like murders and staged the scene themselves. I think if it was an intruder, only a sociopath LE would be capable of doing that after researching Ramsey history, floor plan of their house, wrote the note while no one was home. A flashlight might be clue if it not Andrew’s Christmas gift and it might be a murder weapon after all police tend use that kind of flashlight. Most time, murder weapons usually abandon on the scenes instead of being taken with the murders, because the murders believe it would make it more difficult for the cases to be solve. Or the murders don’t want have murder weapons with them as liability that it would track back to them. So if one of BPD left his flashlight in Ramsey’s house after wipe off fingerprints, talked to Detective Arndt into suspecting the Ramseys? Maybe it would be a good idea to take DNA testing on each polices who entered Ramsey’s house on 26th to see if one of them is a murder. Or maybe interrogate each of them, questioning their psychology backgrounds, histories, and families. Do you think it worth to find out if it was one of LE or BPD who killed JB? Well, I wonder if this flashlight has serial number. Why would Andrew get a flashlight for Christmas? It seems an odd gift from a rich family. If it was gift, did Andrew open his present? Why didn’t he take it with him? I wonder which answers we know on whom the flashlight belongs to or where this flashlight came from? I think it was a murder weapon that caused a blow to JB’s head then left on the scene after wiping fingerprints off it and its batteries too. IMO
thewhitewitch1
10-09-2006, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by lucky13
TheWW1, what are you getting at about the scarf?? I'm interested...
Sweetcharlotte says it was made of silk.
Lucky, there have been theories going around about JB being stranged first with an article other than the garrotte and the garrotte being used to cover that up. One of the items speculated on was a silk scarf. I posted a link a while back with an autopsy picture of a person strangled with a silk scarf that was compared to JBs injuries. In both, there was that huge spot on the necks (hemorages?)
I am wondering if Beths scarf wasn't used to strangle JB and if it is the same scarf that she was buried with.
At the same time, being as how John was so distraught over the death of Beth, the thought has played out in my mind that maybe he killed JB as a way of punishing Patsy for something. Maybe she wasn't supportive to him at the time of Beths death and he wanted to show her how it felt to lose a daughter. I know that is way out there...but this scarf thing bothers me. Scarfs are brought up quite a bit in the interviews and knowing that she was buried with this silk scarf that had no apparent sentimental value...well...just got me to thinking..."what if?" And now knowing that Beths scarf was made of silk also...such a coincidence.
nuisanceposter
10-10-2006, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Ames
Yeah, they had no intention of ever helping to find the "real" killer, because all along...they knew who murdered their daughter, all they had to do is look in the mirror. How in the world could they just move away, and start a new life...when this case is unsolved...and according to them, the killer is still out there? They could not have given a rats patootie about justice for little Jonbenet, all they cared about is saving their own butts...and that is a crying shame. Poor Jonbenet!! IMO
John Ramsey was on the telephone making arrangements to get his family out of Boulder within thirty minutes of finding their baby dead in the basement. Patsy walked out of that house without a look back for her dead child laid near the Christmas tree, ready to get as far away as possible.
They waited four months to sit down to an interview with the police. That tells you how worried about solving their daughter's murder and finding the "real killer" so other children weren't attacked they were, doesn't it? They're so concerned they can't do anything, can't even function or feed themselves, but there they are on CNN, portraying themselves as victims while the police are left waiting to hear from them for a couple more months.
They hired attorneys and a PR firm the same day their child went missing and was found dead, before police were even really beginning to question them. Bynum was there with John Ramsey setting attys in place just hours in the investigation. And they hired someone for public relations! Not to mention when John Ramsey comes right out and says they hired PIs and attorneys not to find the killer but to keep the Ramseys out of jail.
And of course police are going to suspect the people who were in the house with the child at the time of the child's murder. That's pretty basic.
nuisanceposter
10-10-2006, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
"JR dodgy? Then why did the Ramseys beg the Boulder police to call in the FBI? Why did the police lie to them and say the FBI had been called and were on their way, when in fact the FBI offered to help and the police turned them down?"
Where did you ever hear that the Ramseys "begged" the BPD to call the FBI?
Also, why did neither J or P let the 911 operator know that the ransom note sounded as though it had been written by terrorists? I'm sure the FBI would have been there in a heartbeat and maybe this murder would have been solved by now. Funny how Johns employer deals in Homeland Security yet John did not act appropriately to a "terrorist" act. I don't think calling 911 is quite the thing to do when dealing with terrorists. IMO
The FBI were there that morning. Agent Ron Walker and three other agents set up phone traps waiting for the kidnapper to call. They left when JonBenet's body was found and the crime changed from a kidnapping to a homicide, which meant it was no longer in their jurisdiction. John Ramsey lied when he said FBI weren't there and police said they weren't coming.
Why indeed did John and Patsy fail to tell the 911 operator to make sure the kidnapper watching the house didn't find out they had called police? Why did they call some 5 people and ask them to come over, knowing the kidnapper said he was watching them and would cut off JonBenet's head if they even so much as talked to a stray dog? Why did they allow Burke to leave with FW, not knowing where the kidnapper was or if he might get a chance to attack Burke as well?
Because they knew that RN was fake. They knew there was nothing to fear in not telling police their daughter would be beheaded, they knew there was no danger in calling friends over, and they knew there was no one out there would be a threat to Burke.
Think about it - if your youngest child is missing and there's a ransom note threatening to kill her by cutting her head off, are you really going to allow your other child to leave your protective presence? Are you really going to endanger your child's life with your own selfish need to be surrounded by friends?
No. Not unless you know you have nothing to fear.
nuisanceposter
10-10-2006, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by harz
I meant the BPD felt or thought FBI doesn’t need to be involved, which I thought it was wrong. Who exactly were the ones whom refuse to allow outside help beside Detective Arndt? Were there other polices given impression in agreeing with Arndt? Maybe a police or detective from Boulder is responsible of JB’s death that he wanted to make the Ramseys to look like murders and staged the scene themselves. I think if it was an intruder, only a sociopath LE would be capable of doing that after researching Ramsey history, floor plan of their house, wrote the note while no one was home. A flashlight might be clue if it not Andrew’s Christmas gift and it might be a murder weapon after all police tend use that kind of flashlight. Most time, murder weapons usually abandon on the scenes instead of being taken with the murders, because the murders believe it would make it more difficult for the cases to be solve. Or the murders don’t want have murder weapons with them as liability that it would track back to them. So if one of BPD left his flashlight in Ramsey’s house after wipe off fingerprints, talked to Detective Arndt into suspecting the Ramseys? Maybe it would be a good idea to take DNA testing on each polices who entered Ramsey’s house on 26th to see if one of them is a murder. Or maybe interrogate each of them, questioning their psychology backgrounds, histories, and families. Do you think it worth to find out if it was one of LE or BPD who killed JB? Well, I wonder if this flashlight has serial number. Why would Andrew get a flashlight for Christmas? It seems an odd gift from a rich family. If it was gift, did Andrew open his present? Why didn’t he take it with him? I wonder which answers we know on whom the flashlight belongs to or where this flashlight came from? I think it was a murder weapon that caused a blow to JB’s head then left on the scene after wiping fingerprints off it and its batteries too. IMO
The flashlight had been a gift from John Andrew to his father and the one found in the Ramsey house on the kitchen counter was indeed the same one.
Here's what I wonder...if that wasn't their flashlight, why didn't they lead police to it immediately, and say, "this isn't our flashlight, the intruder must have left it behind"? They just played dumb when police found it until they finally sourced it back to the Ramseys themselves.
Same with the bowl the pineapple on the table was in - Patsy tried to play daumb and act like she wasn't sure if it was their bowl, but her prints were on it, and both John and Burke recognized it as one of their own.
thewhitewitch1
10-10-2006, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The FBI were there that morning. Agent Ron Walker and three other agents set up phone traps waiting for the kidnapper to call. They left when JonBenet's body was found and the crime changed from a kidnapping to a homicide, which meant it was no longer in their jurisdiction. John Ramsey lied when he said FBI weren't there and police said they weren't coming.
Why indeed did John and Patsy fail to tell the 911 operator to make sure the kidnapper watching the house didn't find out they had called police? Why did they call some 5 people and ask them to come over, knowing the kidnapper said he was watching them and would cut off JonBenet's head if they even so much as talked to a stray dog? Why did they allow Burke to leave with FW, not knowing where the kidnapper was or if he might get a chance to attack Burke as well?
Because they knew that RN was fake. They knew there was nothing to fear in not telling police their daughter would be beheaded, they knew there was no danger in calling friends over, and they knew there was no one out there would be a threat to Burke.
Think about it - if your youngest child is missing and there's a ransom note threatening to kill her by cutting her head off, are you really going to allow your other child to leave your protective presence? Are you really going to endanger your child's life with your own selfish need to be surrounded by friends?
No. Not unless you know you have nothing to fear.
Myself and many others have expressed those same thoughts many times. The refusal of IDI's to even allow for the possibility that the Ramseys were involved despite all of this evidence just boggles my mind.
Mimi428
10-10-2006, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Myself and many others have expressed those same thoughts many times. The refusal of IDI's to even allow for the possibility that the Ramseys were involved despite all of this evidence just boggles my mind.
You have plenty of company. I have never been able to figure out just what it is about the Ramsey parents that allow the IDIs to refuse to consider them as suspects. The twisting around, the wiggling about, the slipping & sliding that has to be done to keep from looking at J & P is enough to keep a contortionist in knots.
Makes no sense to me.
Ramsey parent fibers UNDERNEATH the tape on JB's mouth - ignored.
Ramsey parent fibers tied INTO the knot - ignored.
Ramsey parents lying through their teeth about JB being asleep - ignored.
And so on.
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The flashlight had been a gift from John Andrew to his father and the one found in the Ramsey house on the kitchen counter was indeed the same one.
Here's what I wonder...if that wasn't their flashlight, why didn't they lead police to it immediately, and say, "this isn't our flashlight, the intruder must have left it behind"? They just played dumb when police found it until they finally sourced it back to the Ramseys themselves.
Same with the bowl the pineapple on the table was in - Patsy tried to play daumb and act like she wasn't sure if it was their bowl, but her prints were on it, and both John and Burke recognized it as one of their own.
Thank for confirming who this flashlight belongs to and where it came from.
I learned that someone wiped the fingerprints off the flashlight and its batteries too, police was able to determine that. I dont have link but I remember reading about it somewhere. The question is why wipe off the fingerprints unless it was used to blow JB's head. It doesn't make sense for intruder to find that flashlight in one of shopping bags, then search for the batteries to go with it. If there was an intruder, why wipe off the fingerprints when he wore the gloves, but not bring his own flashlight? Or if it was intruder's, why would he forget to take his flashlight but not to forget wiping off the fingerprints before? Thats why IDI does not make any sense. IMO
LadyFisher
10-10-2006, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The FBI were there that morning. Agent Ron Walker and three other agents set up phone traps waiting for the kidnapper to call. They left when JonBenet's body was found and the crime changed from a kidnapping to a homicide, which meant it was no longer in their jurisdiction. John Ramsey lied when he said FBI weren't there and police said they weren't coming.
Why indeed did John and Patsy fail to tell the 911 operator to make sure the kidnapper watching the house didn't find out they had called police? Why did they call some 5 people and ask them to come over, knowing the kidnapper said he was watching them and would cut off JonBenet's head if they even so much as talked to a stray dog? Why did they allow Burke to leave with FW, not knowing where the kidnapper was or if he might get a chance to attack Burke as well?
Because they knew that RN was fake. They knew there was nothing to fear in not telling police their daughter would be beheaded, they knew there was no danger in calling friends over, and they knew there was no one out there would be a threat to Burke.
Think about it - if your youngest child is missing and there's a ransom note threatening to kill her by cutting her head off, are you really going to allow your other child to leave your protective presence? Are you really going to endanger your child's life with your own selfish need to be surrounded by friends?
No. Not unless you know you have nothing to fear. Give me a link please that proves the FBI was in their home that morning..to my knowledge there never was....the FBI might have been called, but I have never read anywhere that they showed up at the Ramsey home! IMO they let Burke go with the Whites simply because they trusted them..and felt he was in good hands...they were waiting for a call from a kidnapper, why would they want Burke to stay...he in their opinion did not need the trauma of what was happening there! Please give me that link!
bullmoose
10-10-2006, 04:33 PM
I'm with you, ladyfisher, I would to see that link. If the FBI had gotten involved to the extant of installing phone traps, how could the BPD keep them from becoming involved in the investigation? I find it hard to believe that with the ransom note that they, once involved, could have disappeared from any part of thecase. Jonbenet was not found for hours, so to me the BPD had not let the FBI into the investigation somehow. I find that fact troubling.
nuisanceposter
10-10-2006, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by LadyFisher
Give me a link please that proves the FBI was in their home that morning..to my knowledge there never was....the FBI might have been called, but I have never read anywhere that they showed up at the Ramsey home! IMO they let Burke go with the Whites simply because they trusted them..and felt he was in good hands...they were waiting for a call from a kidnapper, why would they want Burke to stay...he in their opinion did not need the trauma of what was happening there! Please give me that link!
Are you serious? It's in Steve Thomas's book and in Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. I'll see what I can find online...
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Ramsey%20Did%20It%20Theories
FBI agent Ron Walker, who was at the Ramsey house on 12/26/96
As for Burke leaving with the Whites, again, if you know a kidnapper has your child and has threatened to cut her head off if you even talk to a stray dog, are you going to let your other child leave the house, not knowing where this kidnapper is or if he might be able to get ahold of your other child?
As big as the Ramsey house was, and as many people as were in it, if the Rs wanted Burke safely out of the thick of it they could have set him up in the tv room with his Nintendo 64 and someone to keep him company. There was no need to risk his safety by sending him elsewhere.
The fact that the Rs sent him out to go somewhere else thinking their daughter was being held by a kidnapper who said he'd cut her head off tells me they either don't care about the safety of either of their children, or they knew that RN was bogus.
I'm going with they knew it was bogus.
LadyFisher
10-10-2006, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by bullmoose
I'm with you, ladyfisher, I would to see that link. If the FBI had gotten involved to the extant of installing phone traps, how could the BPD keep them from becoming involved in the investigation? I find it hard to believe that with the ransom note that they, once involved, could have disappeared from any part of thecase. Jonbenet was not found for hours, so to me the BPD had not let the FBI into the investigation somehow. I find that fact troubling. Bull, If I understand it correctly, the FBI are automatically involved in a kidnapping or are supposed to be....but once there is a homocide, it is then in the jurisdiction of local authorities, BUT the local LE can and often do request help from the FBI to profile and find the true murderer....BPD had already focused only on the Ramseys and didn't get the FBI involved! :confused:
nuisanceposter
10-10-2006, 04:50 PM
More info on FBI being present at the Ramsey home 12/26/96 -
Please see post #4 of this thread:
http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=1610
Now please read Steve Thomas's book JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation and Perfect Murder, Perfect Town by Lawrence Schiller as well as the Ramsey crock of lies, Death of Innocence. When you read all three of these books, you get the best overall view of what happened, imo.
nuisanceposter
10-10-2006, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by LadyFisher
Bull, If I understand it correctly, the FBI are automatically involved in a kidnapping or are supposed to be....but once there is a homocide, it is then in the jurisdiction of local authorities, BUT the local LE can and often do request help from the FBI to profile and find the true murderer....BPD had already focused only on the Ramseys and didn't get the FBI involved! :confused:
BPD did request the help of FBI, and got in the form of their CASKU unit agreeing the RDI theory was most plausible.
As for police focusing only on the Rs, that could not be more false. From ST's book, hb, page 297:
police interviewed more than 500 people, consulted 64 outside experts, investigated and cleared more than 100 possible suspects, collected 1,058 pieces of evidence, tested over 500 items at federal, state, and private laboratories, gathered handwriting and nontestimonial evidence from 215 people, built a case that was over 30,000 pages, reviewed more than 3,400 letters and 700 telephone tips, and contacted 17 states and 2 foreign countries.
That's hardly focusing on the Ramseys, and the FBI were absolutely involved! The Ramseys have lied to you, and you believed it!
bullmoose
10-10-2006, 04:59 PM
Not me, I think I'll go with another possible reasoning: The Ramsey home was undoubtably in an uproar with the cops and everbody else. The Ramseys, obviously overwhelmed by the unbelievable nightmare that was unfolding, sent Burke home with the Whites, their close and trusted friends to spare him the upheaval that was going on. IMO
lucky13
10-10-2006, 05:34 PM
This is from PM/PT, page 12.
At headquarters, Mason met Special Agent Ron Walker,who had just arrived from the Denver FBI office with a four man kidnapping team. The special agents were working with some police officers to set up phone taps & traps, which would give them immediate access to all incoming & outgoing calls at the Ramsey house. Agent Walker was treating the case as a kidnapping, but the ransom note was unusual. It made him wonder.
-from page 20.
At police headquarters, Larry Mason got a page from the crime scene:"We've got a body."
"Oh Fu**," Mason said, half aloud. "Ron, we don't have a kidnapping," he told agent Walker. "It's a homicide. Do you want to go?"
"Of course." Walker knew that finding JonBenet's body in her own home meant there had probably never been a kidnapping."
-page 21.
Fifteen minutes after Det. Arndt's page, at around 1:30p.m., Ron Walker entered the Ramseys living room with Larry Mason & saw JonBenets body lying at the foot of the Christmas tree.
Mason & Walker went downstairs to the wine cellar, where they saw the white blanket, the duct tape, & the pink Barbie nightgown.
It goes on. FBI was there.
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The FBI were there that morning. Agent Ron Walker and three other agents set up phone traps waiting for the kidnapper to call. They left when JonBenet's body was found and the crime changed from a kidnapping to a homicide, which meant it was no longer in their jurisdiction. John Ramsey lied when he said FBI weren't there and police said they weren't coming.
Why indeed did John and Patsy fail to tell the 911 operator to make sure the kidnapper watching the house didn't find out they had called police? Why did they call some 5 people and ask them to come over, knowing the kidnapper said he was watching them and would cut off JonBenet's head if they even so much as talked to a stray dog? Why did they allow Burke to leave with FW, not knowing where the kidnapper was or if he might get a chance to attack Burke as well?
Because they knew that RN was fake. They knew there was nothing to fear in not telling police their daughter would be beheaded, they knew there was no danger in calling friends over, and they knew there was no one out there would be a threat to Burke.
Think about it - if your youngest child is missing and there's a ransom note threatening to kill her by cutting her head off, are you really going to allow your other child to leave your protective presence? Are you really going to endanger your child's life with your own selfish need to be surrounded by friends?
No. Not unless you know you have nothing to fear.
EXACTLY!!!!
sweetcharlotte
10-10-2006, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by lucky13
This is from PM/PT, page 12.
At headquarters, Mason met Special Agent Ron Walker,who had just arrived from the Denver FBI office with a four man kidnapping team. The special agents were working with some police officers to set up phone taps & traps, which would give them immediate access to all incoming & outgoing calls at the Ramsey house. Agent Walker was treating the case as a kidnapping, but the ransom note was unusual. It made him wonder.
-from page 20.
At police headquarters, Larry Mason got a page from the crime scene:"We've got a body."
"Oh Fu**," Mason said, half aloud. "Ron, we don't have a kidnapping," he told agent Walker. "It's a homicide. Do you want to go?"
"Of course." Walker knew that finding JonBenet's body in her own home meant there had probably never been a kidnapping."
-page 21.
Fifteen minutes after Det. Arndt's page, at around 1:30p.m., Ron Walker entered the Ramseys living room with Larry Mason & saw JonBenets body lying at the foot of the Christmas tree.
Mason & Walker went downstairs to the wine cellar, where they saw the white blanket, the duct tape, & the pink Barbie nightgown.
It goes on. FBI was there.
AFTER JonBenet was found, right? At least 7 hours AFTER they should have been. JMO
sweetcharlotte
10-10-2006, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
<snip>
Why indeed did John and Patsy fail to tell the 911 operator to make sure the kidnapper watching the house didn't find out they had called police?
<snip>
Are you seriously suggesting the Ramseys should have told the BPD how to do their job?
Mimi428
10-10-2006, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The Ramseys have lied to you, and you believed it!
<snipped>
Sad, isn't it? I've never been able to understand what it is about the Ramseys, personally, that has engendered such undeserved support for them.
sweetcharlotte
10-10-2006, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The FBI were there that morning. Agent Ron Walker and three other agents set up phone traps waiting for the kidnapper to call. They left when JonBenet's body was found and the crime changed from a kidnapping to a homicide, which meant it was no longer in their jurisdiction. John Ramsey lied when he said FBI weren't there and police said they weren't coming.
<snip>
Phone traps are set up in the telco central office. You don't physically go to a location to do that. Ron Walker showed up at the house AFTER JonBenet was found. MOO
LadyFisher
10-10-2006, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
BPD did request the help of FBI, and got in the form of their CASKU unit agreeing the RDI theory was most plausible.
As for police focusing only on the Rs, that could not be more false. From ST's book, hb, page 297:
police interviewed more than 500 people, consulted 64 outside experts, investigated and cleared more than 100 possible suspects, collected 1,058 pieces of evidence, tested over 500 items at federal, state, and private laboratories, gathered handwriting and nontestimonial evidence from 215 people, built a case that was over 30,000 pages, reviewed more than 3,400 letters and 700 telephone tips, and contacted 17 states and 2 foreign countries.
That's hardly focusing on the Ramseys, and the FBI were absolutely involved! The Ramseys have lied to you, and you believed it! Thank you for the info, truthfully I didn't realize that anyone connected with FBI showed up at their home, but from what you've given me, I see that someone did after the body was found....I wasn't listening to the Ramseys, I"m relatively new to this case and learning every day....have you read the book by John Douglas, the Cases That Haunt Us? If so, what do you think about it? If not, I think you would find it a good read! :seeya:
LadyFisher
10-10-2006, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Mimi428
<snipped>
Sad, isn't it? I've never been able to understand what it is about the Ramseys, personally, that has engendered such undeserved support for them. No, Mimi, what is sad is when a poster is so condescending to other posters, and just cannot understand why some posters have other views and want to discuss the case with both sides........and considering someone guilty because of the number of Christmas trees they have in their home! :confused:
MissOtisRegrets
10-10-2006, 10:56 PM
I don't know where it is. Perhaps another poster does. Someone posted a link to a page on Jameson's site several days ago. The issue of past sexual abuse was being discussed. Jameson posted that she had talked to a doctor (name began with a "D", I think) about this and he had said that JonBenet had NOT suffered past sexual abuse. That her hyman was intact and that there was no scarring. There was chronic inflammation, but that that had been caused by poor hygiene.
thewhitewitch1
10-10-2006, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I don't know where it is. Perhaps another poster does. Someone posted a link to a page on Jameson's site several days ago. The issue of past sexual abuse was being discussed. Jameson posted that she had talked to a doctor (name began with a "D", I think) about this and he had said that JonBenet had NOT suffered past sexual abuse. That her hyman was intact and that there was no scarring. There was chronic inflammation, but that that had been caused by poor hygiene.
Whatever doctor she talked to was not JB's doctor, was it? He was not the coroner, was he? How could he know anything about it. Jameson is a joke. IMO
MissOtisRegrets
10-10-2006, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Whatever doctor she talked to was not JB's doctor, was it? He was not the coroner, was he? How could he know anything about it. Jameson is a joke. IMO
I can't find the link now, WW1. I should either have made a note of it at the time or not mentioned it. Sorry.
Why do you say that Jameson is a joke? I don't really know anything about her. I came here in 2003 to post on the Blake board. Jameson left CTV at about the same time, but she had a friend and big supporter on Blake whose opinion I respected for her posts there.
Originally posted by Mimi428
<snipped>
Sad, isn't it? I've never been able to understand what it is about the Ramseys, personally, that has engendered such undeserved support for them.
The IDI folks believe their act for some reason. I haven't figured it out either. Have you EVER seen John Ramsey cry during any one of his interviews?? I haven't! I have seen Patsy cry, but John always just sat there, like a rock..with that stupid smirk on his face. He always looked like he was trying not to smile or laugh. I have ALWAYS thought that about him. The IDI folks just do not want to believe that they could be guilty, for some reason. Maybe they just don't want to believe that a parent could kill their own child, but it happens all the time. Sad...but true. IMO
Originally posted by LadyFisher
No, Mimi, what is sad is when a poster is so condescending to other posters, and just cannot understand why some posters have other views and want to discuss the case with both sides........and considering someone guilty because of the number of Christmas trees they have in their home! :confused:
OH good grief...alot of you IDI folks just LOVE to take things said by the RDI folks, out of context, don't you? Nobody ever said that Patsy was guilty just because she had lots of Christmas trees...how ridiculous!! Patsy liked to overdo things...the trees were just ONE example of that. IMO
nuisanceposter
10-11-2006, 01:03 PM
Please. The number of Christmas trees Patsy had put up are not the reason I think she's guilty.
It's because she has been caught lying and telling contradicting stories during the course of her daughter's murder investigation.
It's because she cannot be excluded as the author of that ransom note, which I believe looks like her handwriting and sounds like her style of speech (and there are many experts who agree with me.)
It's because she never behaved as if the ransom note was real, not bothering to tell police her child's head would be cut off if they knew she called them, calling over some 5 other people, sending her other child out of the house as if there was no threat.
It's because she has hindered investigation and outright obstructed justice to perserve her own self rather than do all she could to serve justice to her own child.
And mostly it's because fibers from her clothing were found in the paint tray, on the back of the tape, and tied into the knot strangling JonBenet.
There is no solid proof, no forensic evidence such as fibers, hair, or prints of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night, and the fiber evidence seals up Patsy as having been part of the killing and the staging. That's why I think she's guilty.
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 01:13 PM
As many times as some people have been told there was no fiber evidence that directly connected the Ramseys to the murder scene they just keep repeating that incorrect information over and over and over. JMO
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Myself and many others have expressed those same thoughts many times. The refusal of IDI's to even allow for the possibility that the Ramseys were involved despite all of this evidence just boggles my mind.
I find your comment amusing in light of the results of MyrDawn's poll.
IDI - no other theory = 10 (56% of those who think IDI)
IDI - no stroke if found RDI = 8 (44% of those who think IDI)
RDI - no other theory = 13 (72% of those who think RDI)
RDI - no stroke if found IDI = 5 (28% of those who think RDI)
This poll - IMO - proves that the refusal of RDIs to even allow for the possibility that an intruder did it is greater. lol
nuisanceposter
10-11-2006, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
As many times as some people have been told there was no fiber evidence that directly connected the Ramseys to the murder scene they just keep repeating that incorrect information over and over and over. JMO
I would like a link to proof that there is NO fiber evidence and that Levin, a lawyer and not a police officer who is legally bound not to lie in an interview, is, in fact, lying about the existance of fiber evidence.
nuisanceposter
10-11-2006, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
<snip>
This poll - IMO - proves that the refusal of RDIs to even allow for the possibility that an intruder did it is greater. lol
The evidence against the Ramseys is so damning that RDIs realize that RDI is the only way to explain ALL of the evidence.
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Please. The number of Christmas trees Patsy had put up are not the reason I think she's guilty.
It's because she has been caught lying and telling contradicting stories during the course of her daughter's murder investigation.
It's because she cannot be excluded as the author of that ransom note, which I believe looks like her handwriting and sounds like her style of speech (and there are many experts who agree with me.)
It's because she never behaved as if the ransom note was real, not bothering to tell police her child's head would be cut off if they knew she called them, calling over some 5 other people, sending her other child out of the house as if there was no threat.
It's because she has hindered investigation and outright obstructed justice to perserve her own self rather than do all she could to serve justice to her own child.
And mostly it's because fibers from her clothing were found in the paint tray, on the back of the tape, and tied into the knot strangling JonBenet.
There is no solid proof, no forensic evidence such as fibers, hair, or prints of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night, and the fiber evidence seals up Patsy as having been part of the killing and the staging. That's why I think she's guilty.
So you see...you IDI folks...we base our opinion on Patsy's behavior...not the amount of Christmas trees in her house.....geez... :rolleyes:
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I find your comment amusing in light of the results of MyrDawn's poll.
IDI - no other theory = 10 (56% of those who think IDI)
IDI - no stroke if found RDI = 8 (44% of those who think IDI)
RDI - no other theory = 13 (72% of those who think RDI)
RDI - no stroke if found IDI = 5 (28% of those who think RDI)
This poll - IMO - proves that the refusal of RDIs to even allow for the possibility that an intruder did it is greater. lol
Well, thats because there is NO evidence that even points to an intruder. And the Ramsey's were in the house when the murder happened....and they have told numerous lies...and can't keep their story straight. Thats why we think RDI...no other theory. IMO
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I would like a link to proof that there is NO fiber evidence and that Levin, a lawyer and not a police officer who is legally bound not to lie in an interview, is, in fact, lying about the existance of fiber evidence.
Don't hold you breath on that one! IMO
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The evidence against the Ramseys is so damning that RDIs realize that RDI is the only way to explain ALL of the evidence.
Exactly....!!
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The evidence against the Ramseys is so damning that RDIs realize that RDI is the only way to explain ALL of the evidence.
ROFL........
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I would like a link to proof that there is NO fiber evidence and that Levin, a lawyer and not a police officer who is legally bound not to lie in an interview, is, in fact, lying about the existance of fiber evidence.
Why would you think that I think Levin lied? He asked the question - when JR's attorney asked to see the evidence Levin backed off because he had no evidence.
Re: "No fiber" link? I'll give you a link when you give me one that proves there was fiber directly connecting the Ramseys to the crime scene.
nuisanceposter
10-11-2006, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Ames
Don't hold you breath on that one! IMO
I'd really like to see her come up with something that proves that no fibers connecting the Rs to the murder were ever found and that Levin is lying about there being any...but that proof doesn't exist.
IDIs cling to this idea that Barry Levin was able to lie to the suspects during that interview...he wasn't. He's a licensed practicing attorney and not a cop, and he's bound by law not to lie. He could be disbarred for lying.
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I'd really like to see her come up with something that proves that no fibers connecting the Rs to the murder were ever found and that Levin is lying about there being any...but that proof doesn't exist.
IDIs cling to this idea that Barry Levin was able to lie to the suspects during that interview...he wasn't. He's a licensed practicing attorney and not a cop, and he's bound by law not to lie. He could be disbarred for lying.
Fleet White even provided a picture taken at the party, of Patsy wearing her red sweater, because the fibers found on the tape, and entwined in the cord, were red and consistant with that same sweater. You know...I don't even waste my breath anymore trying to convince the IDI's that there was no intruder. They are not going to listen to evidence or reason. They have their minds already made up. Yes, I know, so do we....BUT...at least the evidence that a RDI is there....not so with the IDI theory. I don't think for one second that Barry Levin lied about anything...you are right, he could have been disbarred! IMO
nuisanceposter
10-11-2006, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Why would you think that I think Levin lied? He asked the question - when JR's attorney asked to see the evidence Levin backed off because he had no evidence.
Re: "No fiber" link? I'll give you a link when you give me one that proves there was fiber directly connecting the Ramseys to the crime scene.
If you know that Levin backed off, then you must have seen the interview where Levin says there is fiber evidence.
I do believe our dear Rashomon has provided this information already, but if you really want to see it, by all means, so that I may see the proof that no fiber evidence exists. The fiber evidence is brought up in the Atlanta interviews of 2000, it'll take me a little bit to find exactly what I want to quote.
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Ames
Fleet White even provided a picture taken at the party, of Patsy wearing her red sweater, because the fibers found on the tape, and entwined in the cord, were red and consistant with that same sweater. You know...I don't even waste my breath anymore trying to convince the IDI's that there was no intruder. They are not going to listen to evidence or reason. They have their minds already made up. Yes, I know, so do we....BUT...at least the evidence that a RDI is there....not so with the IDI theory. I don't think for one second that Barry Levin lied about anything...you are right, he could have been disbarred! IMO
ROFL.......so why did good ole Fleet provide that picture? Was Patsy trying to deny what she had on? Hey wait, that can't be possible because one of Steve Thomas' reason for thinking Patsy killed JonBenet was because she had on the same clothes on the morning of the 26th that she wore on the 25th. ROFL......
nuisanceposter
10-11-2006, 03:08 PM
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4773
21 Q. (by Mr. Levin) We have found, and I want you to
22 help us, maybe you can offer an explanation
23 for this. We have found fibers in the paint
24 tray that appear to come off of the coat in
25 the photograph we showed you.
0184
1 A. (by Patsy) In the paint tray?
2 Q. Yes.
<snip>
3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
6 from her jacket were found in the paint
7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
11 the question is, can she explain to us how
12 those fibers appeared in those places that
13 are associated with her daughter's death.
14 And I understand you are not going to answer
15 those.
<snip>
10 In addition to those questions,
11 there are some others that I would like you
12 to think about whether or not we can have
13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
14 understand you are advising her not to today,
15 and those are there are black fibers that,
16 according to our testing that was conducted,
17 that match one of the two shirts that was
18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
19 Those are located in the
20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
22 other areas that we have intended to ask
23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
24 explaining their presence in those locations.
<snip>
21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is
22 our belief based on forensic evidence that
23 there are hairs that are associated, that the
24 source is the collared black shirt that you
25 sent us that are found in your daughter's
0058
1 underpants, and I wondered if you --
2 A. Bull****. I don't believe that.
3 I don't buy it. If you are trying to
4 disgrace my relationship with my daughter --
5 Q. Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to
6 disgrace --
7 A. Well, I don't believe it. I
8 think you are. That's disgusting.
9 MR. WOOD: I think you --
10 MR. LEVIN: I am not.
nuisanceposter
10-11-2006, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
ROFL.......so why did good ole Fleet provide that picture? Was Patsy trying to deny what she had on? Hey wait, that can't be possible because one of Steve Thomas' reason for thinking Patsy killed JonBenet was because she had on the same clothes on the morning of the 26th that she wore on the 25th. ROFL......
ROFL over anyone actually believing that a former beauty pageant winner and wife of a multi-millionaire with a keen sense of fashion and closet literally full of clothes would actually wear the same outfit she wore to a Christmas party for a good five hours the night before again the next day.
It wasn't as if she only had one Christmas outfit to wear for special occasions, and after wearing it for several hours the night before, it had to have been at least marginally in need of laundering. Even Patsy's friends thought it was really unlikely that she would the same outfit two days in a row.
Note how Patsy tried to tell police that she and Priscilla White had the same jacket, trying to implicate her former friend in the murder.
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 03:18 PM
That's not evidence. That's a line of questioning that "suggests" things. Look at the use of "we believe", "appear," "hairs that are associated." Not evidence - line of questioning. If Mr. Levin was put under oath he could say, "I didn't say we "have", I said "we believe we have." Big difference.
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
ROFL over anyone actually believing that a former beauty pageant winner and wife of a multi-millionaire with a keen sense of fashion and closet literally full of clothes would actually wear the same outfit she wore to a Christmas party for a good five hours the night before again the next day.
<snip>
ROFL.....that WAS one of the reasons Steve Thomas listed for suspecting Patsy Ramsey. "She had on the same clothes the morning of the 26th that she wore the night before so she must have been up all night."
Have you not read that before? Did you not see the movie PM/PT where he practically lost it because Patsy appeared on tv wearing the same clothes she had on the day before at an interview she did with him (Thomas) and his wife said "no woman with the money Patsy Ramsey has wears the same clothes two days in a row" and Steve's response was "she's just doing it to get to me." lol lol
nuisanceposter
10-11-2006, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
That's not evidence. That's a line of questioning that "suggests" things. Look at the use of "we believe", "appear," "hairs that are associated." Not evidence - line of questioning. If Mr. Levin was put under oath he could say, "I didn't say we "have", I said "we believe we have." Big difference.
Really, Charlotte, is that the best you can do? I gave you the link - please read it and get the detail behind what Levin is saying. He goes into how the fibers are as consistent a match as possible. The phrase "chemically and microscopically consistent" has been used wrt the fiber evidence indicating Ramsey involvement.
Quid pro quo, dear. I've supplied the link I had to give, now could you please supply one proving there is no fiber evidence and it was all a lie you said you have?
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Really, Charlotte, is that the best you can do? I gave you the link - please read it and get the detail behind what Levin is saying. He goes into how the fibers are as consistent a match as possible. The phrase "chemically and microscopically consistent" has been used wrt the fiber evidence indicating Ramsey involvement.
Quid pro quo, dear. I've supplied the link I had to give, now could you please supply one proving there is no fiber evidence and it was all a lie you said you have?
Again, that's not evidence. That is simply an attorney pursuing a line of questioning. Sorry, nuisance, is that the best you can do?
Give me a CBI lab report. That would be "evidence."
nuisanceposter
10-11-2006, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
ROFL.....that WAS one of the reasons Steve Thomas listed for suspecting Patsy Ramsey. "She had on the same clothes the morning of the 26th that she wore the night before so she must have been up all night."
Have you not read that before? Did you not see the movie PM/PT where he practically lost it because Patsy appeared on tv wearing the same clothes she had on the day before at an interview she did with him (Thomas) and his wife said "no woman with the money Patsy Ramsey has wears the same clothes two days in a row" and Steve's response was "she's just doing it to get to me." lol lol
Of course I've read it before, and I gave you the reasons as to why people were doubtful that Patsy would have worn the same outfit two days in a row. Her own friends doubted it as well, not just ST.
nuisanceposter
10-11-2006, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Again, that's not evidence. That is simply an attorney pursuing a line of questioning. Sorry, nuisance, is that the best you can do?
Give me a CBI lab report. That would be "evidence."
That lab report isn't available to the public.
So I guess this your loophole out of supplying a link proving there is no fiber evidence and that was a lie? I thought so. I didn't believe for a second that you would be able to produce such a link because that proof does not exist.
It would be really nice if just for once the IDIs could actually back up what they say.
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Of course I've read it before, and I gave you the reasons as to why people were doubtful that Patsy would have worn the same outfit two days in a row. Her own friends doubted it as well, not just ST.
This is another one of those discussions that will take us nowhere, but here goes. She was planning to board their private plane and fly to MI. She stated that she planned to get dressed once she got there. I believe her. JMO
Personal question - are you Steve Thomas? lol
nuisanceposter
10-11-2006, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
This is another one of those discussions that will take us nowhere, but here goes. She was planning to board their private plane and fly to MI. She stated that she planned to get dressed once she got there. I believe her. JMO
Personal question - are you Steve Thomas? lol
Lol. No, I'm not ST, but I have a good deal of admiration for him. I believe he worked harder than anyone else to give JonBenet the justice she deserved. I have to respect a man who openly demonstrated more respect for a little girl than her own parents did.
Why even put on the same old clothes from the night before, which she must have perspired in and probably smelled like she'd worn it before? Cigarette smoke clings like demon. Why not slip on a nice clean sweatshirt and jeans, comfy for the plane ride, if her intention was to change once she got to Charlevoix?
I don't believe her for a second. It would have been out of character for her to do that.
thewhitewitch1
10-11-2006, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
ROFL.......so why did good ole Fleet provide that picture? Was Patsy trying to deny what she had on? Hey wait, that can't be possible because one of Steve Thomas' reason for thinking Patsy killed JonBenet was because she had on the same clothes on the morning of the 26th that she wore on the 25th. ROFL......
Hey wait. She did try to deny what she had on. Imagine that. Couldn't be she denied it because fibers from her sweater were found in those locations, now could it? ROFL
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Lol. No, I'm not ST, but I have a good deal of admiration for him. I believe he worked harder than anyone else to give JonBenet the justice she deserved. I have to respect a man who openly demonstrated more respect for a little girl than her own parents did.
Why even put on the same old clothes from the night before, which she must have perspired in and probably smelled like she'd worn it before? Cigarette smoke clings like demon. Why not slip on a nice clean sweatshirt and jeans, comfy for the plane ride, if her intention was to change once she got to Charlevoix?
I don't believe her for a second. It would have been out of character for her to do that.
I can't fault you for admiring Steve Thomas if that is how you see him. I didn't get the same impression, but hey, that's what makes us all different.
I believed Patsy and John Ramsey. I can't jump on every thing they did that was different from the way I would do it. We are all different.
With regard to the fiber evidence.....I can't provide you a link, but I have read that none of the fibers could be connected to the Ramseys' clothes. I have read that the fibers were "consistent with" which does not mean "same as" and would not hold up in court.
JMO
nuisanceposter
10-11-2006, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I can't fault you for admiring Steve Thomas if that is how you see him. I didn't get the same impression, but hey, that's what makes us all different.
I believed Patsy and John Ramsey. I can't jump on every thing they did that was different from the way I would do it. We are all different.
With regard to the fiber evidence.....I can't provide you a link, but I have read that none of the fibers could be connected to the Ramseys' clothes. I have read that the fibers were "consistent with" which does not mean "same as" and would not hold up in court.
JMO
Fair enough. Thanks.
bullmoose
10-11-2006, 04:33 PM
The only time that I would find any of Twisting Thomas' actions to be admirable would be at a Chubby Checker Revue, come on , baby, lets do the twist! Round and round and round, yeah baby, lets do the twist! The link of the cops' leading questions trying to trip up the Ramseys is not now or ever evidence; it was a line leading questions designed to confuse and trip up the person being questioned. Since no evidence was produced for Lin Wood to see that the questions had any basis in reality, he didn't allow JR to answer. I also agree with Sweet charlotte.
MyrDawn
10-11-2006, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
snip...
Why even put on the same old clothes from the night before, which she must have perspired in and probably smelled like she'd worn it before? Cigarette smoke clings like demon. Why not slip on a nice clean sweatshirt and jeans, comfy for the plane ride, if her intention was to change once she got to Charlevoix?
I don't believe her for a second. It would have been out of character for her to do that.
Frankly, that's one of the things that lead me to believe Patsy was innocent...why go through all that time and trouble staging the scene, writing the note, fashioning the garrotte, etc., etc., etc., then not bother to change the clothes she'd worn to murder JonBenet before calling the police? Patsy was not a stupid woman, as some RDI's seem to believe.
MOO
nuisanceposter
10-11-2006, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
Frankly, that's one of the things that lead me to believe Patsy was innocent...why go through all that time and trouble staging the scene, writing the note, fashioning the garrotte, etc., etc., etc., then not bother to change the clothes she'd worn to murder JonBenet before calling the police? Patsy was not a stupid woman, as some RDI's seem to believe.
MOO
Maybe she ran out of time, or perhaps she forgot in all the flurry of activity. They forgot to put the flashlight somewhere other than the kitchen counter and forgot to get the bowl of pineapple off the breakfast table.
She reapplied her make up before going downstairs to make coffee but didn't put on fresh clothes? She said her shower was broken, but there were some four others she could have used.
And she told contradicting stories about what she did that morning too. Her first story was that she went to wake JonBenet up and found her bed empty and then went downstairs, and her second story was that she went downstairs and found the note and then checked JB's room. Which one was it, and why do the Rs keep contradicting themselves and changing their stories?
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 05:26 PM
You have posted two things that I have never heard
(1) JonBenet was awake when they got home.
(2) That Patsy went in her room that morning and found her bed empty, then went downstairs and found the note.
I've never read either of those accounts. Where did you get the information?
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
ROFL.......so why did good ole Fleet provide that picture? Was Patsy trying to deny what she had on? Hey wait, that can't be possible because one of Steve Thomas' reason for thinking Patsy killed JonBenet was because she had on the same clothes on the morning of the 26th that she wore on the 25th. ROFL......
I don't know...why don't you ask HIM...he is the one that gave it to the police. I would assume that they used it as evidence...asking Patsy later, while showing her the picture....if that was what she was wearing the night of the party. GEEZ....
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Ames
I don't know...why don't you ask HIM...he is the one that gave it to the police. I would assume that they used it as evidence...asking Patsy later, while showing her the picture....if that was what she was wearing the night of the party. GEEZ....
Geez...........you are confused about so many things on so many levels. Why don't you just give up while you are behind?
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Again, that's not evidence. That is simply an attorney pursuing a line of questioning. Sorry, nuisance, is that the best you can do?
Give me a CBI lab report. That would be "evidence."
:rolleyes:
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Ames
:rolleyes:
Oh, please - not the :rolleyes:
That's the last post to you. Obviously, we don't see eye-to
eye. ROFL..........
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Geez...........you are confused about so many things on so many levels. Why don't you just give up while you are behind?
Um...I am not confused. I found that about Fleet's picture of Patsy, while trying to search the net, to see if there had been any pictures of the White's party, that had been released to the public. I resent you telling me to give up while I am behind. I swear...with those eye rolling smilies that you use CONSTANTLY ...and your dumb as- comments...you HAVE to be no more than 10. Isn't it just about your bed time?? IMO
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Ames
:rolleyes:
Is this yours?
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
Frankly, that's one of the things that lead me to believe Patsy was innocent...why go through all that time and trouble staging the scene, writing the note, fashioning the garrotte, etc., etc., etc., then not bother to change the clothes she'd worn to murder JonBenet before calling the police? Patsy was not a stupid woman, as some RDI's seem to believe.
MOO
I have never read that Patsy denied that she had on the same clothes on the morning of the 26th that she wore to the White's party of the 25th. And I was quoting correctly when I said that in Perfect Murder/Perfect Town it listed the 16 reasons Thomas presented at a meeting why he thought Patsy was the killer....and one of the reasons was that she was wearing the same clothes/his conclusion was that she had been up all night.
I would like a link (and have requested one) where she is quoted as denying she had on the same clothes.
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Is this yours?
Yes, I just didn't want ALL of yours to feel left out....
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Ames
Yes, I just didn't want ALL of yours to feel left out....
Now who's acting like the 10 year old? LOL LOL
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Oh, please - not the :rolleyes:
That's the last post to you. Obviously, we don't see eye-to
eye. ROFL..........
You know, the only reason that I rolled my "eyes" is because it seems like everything that I post, you have a smart comment for it. Yes, I KNOW that we don't see eye to eye..that is extremely apparent, and maybe you don't mean to...but, you come across as "MEAN" in some of your posts. All that I did was state that I had read somewhere, in more than one place, that Fleet had Christmas pictures of Patsy in her red sweater...and you totally went off on me, saying that I was confused about alot of things, and that I needed to quit while I was behind. Where the heck did THAT come from?? Not trying to be mean here...BUT...you have stated that you had never seen where the Ramsey's said that JB was awake. I have read it a ton of times, and even in one of their interviews. I will try and find it for you..but, it is a proven fact, that they have changed their story about her being asleep .....at first stating that she was awake. I don't appreciate the fact that you said that I was confused about alot of things, when you, yourself, had never even read that before about JB being awake. Have you done much research on this case? Just curious. IMO
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Now who's acting like the 10 year old? LOL LOL
Not me!!! LOL
Mimi428
10-11-2006, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
That lab report isn't available to the public.
So I guess this your loophole out of supplying a link proving there is no fiber evidence and that was a lie? I thought so. I didn't believe for a second that you would be able to produce such a link because that proof does not exist.
It would be really nice if just for once the IDIs could actually back up what they say.
Thanks for reminding us about the limited releases. I think there are a handful of folks who are essentially new to the case who may not realize how much has NOT been revealed to the public.
Personally, I believe the veracity of the reports about the fiber evidence because Levin makes it very plain that he wished to question the Ramseys about it - but their attorneys would not allow them to answer. That is as plain as mud throughout those transcripts.
And this little excerpt shows Levin was NOT a making a statement of suggestion - it's a statement of reality...
I
14 understand you are advising her not to today,
15 and those are there are black fibers that,
16 according to our testing that was conducted,
17 that match one of the two shirts that was
18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
19 Those are located in the
20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
21 her crotch area,
No equivocation - no 'suggestion' - it was a statement of fact & the acknowledgement that Lin Wood would not allow his client to answer.
MOO
Mimi428
10-11-2006, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Now who's acting like the 10 year old? LOL LOL
My vote goes to the posters who finding anything to laugh about in the discussion of a 6 year old's murder.
MOO
sweetcharlotte
10-11-2006, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Ames
You know, the only reason that I rolled my "eyes" is because it seems like everything that I post, you have a smart comment for it. Yes, I KNOW that we don't see eye to eye..that is extremely apparent, and maybe you don't mean to...but, you come across as "MEAN" in some of your posts. All that I did was state that I had read somewhere, in more than one place, that Fleet had Christmas pictures of Patsy in her red sweater...and you totally went off on me, saying that I was confused about alot of things, and that I needed to quit while I was behind. Where the heck did THAT come from?? Not trying to be mean here...BUT...you have stated that you had never seen where the Ramsey's said that JB was awake. I have read it a ton of times, and even in one of their interviews. I will try and find it for you..but, it is a proven fact, that they have changed their story about her being asleep .....at first stating that she was awake. I don't appreciate the fact that you said that I was confused about alot of things, when you, yourself, had never even read that before about JB being awake. Have you done much research on this case? Just curious. IMO
I sincerely apologize for saying anything inappropriate to or about you. I really mean that.
Yes, I have read a great deal about this case but I have never read where the Ramseys say JonBenet was awake when they got home, that Patsy denied having on the same clothes on the 25th and 26th, or that Patsy went into JonBenet's room before going downstairs on the morning of the 26th.
Not in any materials - transcripts, books, links or posts - have I read those three things before today.
Again, I apologize for being mean to you. It won't happen again. SweetC
thewhitewitch1
10-11-2006, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Ames
You know, the only reason that I rolled my "eyes" is because it seems like everything that I post, you have a smart comment for it. Yes, I KNOW that we don't see eye to eye..that is extremely apparent, and maybe you don't mean to...but, you come across as "MEAN" in some of your posts. All that I did was state that I had read somewhere, in more than one place, that Fleet had Christmas pictures of Patsy in her red sweater...and you totally went off on me, saying that I was confused about alot of things, and that I needed to quit while I was behind. Where the heck did THAT come from?? Not trying to be mean here...BUT...you have stated that you had never seen where the Ramsey's said that JB was awake. I have read it a ton of times, and even in one of their interviews. I will try and find it for you..but, it is a proven fact, that they have changed their story about her being asleep .....at first stating that she was awake. I don't appreciate the fact that you said that I was confused about alot of things, when you, yourself, had never even read that before about JB being awake. Have you done much research on this case? Just curious. IMO
I have read all of the same things that you have, Ames. I think that if some people did more research, we wouldn't have to go back continuously and search for a link to everything we read. I don't know about you, but I do a LOT of reading on this case. I don't base my opinion on nothing and I know you don't either, Ames.
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I sincerely apologize for saying anything inappropriate to or about you. I really mean that.
Yes, I have read a great deal about this case but I have never read where the Ramseys say JonBenet was awake when they got home, that Patsy denied having on the same clothes on the 25th and 26th, or that Patsy went into JonBenet's room before going downstairs on the morning of the 26th.
Not in any materials - transcripts, books, links or posts - have I read those three things before today.
Again, I apologize for being mean to you. It won't happen again. SweetC
Thank you, I accept your apology....I am sorry for rolling my eyes at you, too.
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I have read all of the same things that you have, Ames. I think that if some people did more research, we wouldn't have to go back continuously and search for a link to everything we read. I don't know about you, but I do a LOT of reading on this case. I don't base my opinion on nothing and I know you don't either, Ames.
I do alot of reading on this case, too. And you are right, I do not base my opinion on nothing. Everything that I have ever written in a post, I have read somewhere. I am not going to just pull something out of thin air, and post it, to make it fit my theory. If I post it, then I have read it somewhere, in an Ramsey interview, or some other source. Thanks for being on my side...
IMO
Athena
10-12-2006, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Really, Charlotte, is that the best you can do? I gave you the link - please read it and get the detail behind what Levin is saying. He goes into how the fibers are as consistent a match as possible. The phrase "chemically and microscopically consistent" has been used wrt the fiber evidence indicating Ramsey involvement.
Quid pro quo, dear. I've supplied the link I had to give, now could you please supply one proving there is no fiber evidence and it was all a lie you said you have?
Levin was interviewed for PMPT by Schiller. He specifically says he was NOT hired to EVALUATE the evidence but present it to the Grand Jury. He got his information from the BPD as well as list of written questions because the BPD were not allowed in the room during the latter interviews with the Ramseys. So although you say Levin would not lie - maybe not knowingly -- but the BPD sure would.
All of you who believe Steve Thomas really believe that he resigned because he was seeking justice for JonBenet????
LOL -- He resigned because his Doctor specifically told him that his long hours were going to kill him. He was diagnosed with a disease that affected his thyroid and he did not have enough energy to continue. Then he comes out with that sham of a resignation letter which originally was going to be a request for a leave of absence.
Then he makes everyone think he deserved to testify for the Grand Jury but he had already wrote his book -- just wasn't published yet but was a well-known fact and the book writing created a conflict of interest. The man clearly had tunnel-vision and was his own worst enemy. jmo
Athena
10-12-2006, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by Ames
I do alot of reading on this case, too. And you are right, I do not base my opinion on nothing. Everything that I have ever written in a post, I have read somewhere. I am not going to just pull something out of thin air, and post it, to make it fit my theory. If I post it, then I have read it somewhere, in an Ramsey interview, or some other source. Thanks for being on my side...
IMO
The interviews are one thing; but just because it is read somewhere from some other source doesn't make it true. I have read alot of things as well and only later to discover it is old news that has been corrected, redacted and/or revised, updated. There is ALOT of misinformation out there on this case and some of it right here on the board.
Ames -- I remember when I first noticed you posting on the board - I recommended you read PMPT. If you and/or TWW have not read it I really suggest you do. It is probably the most unbiased book on the case.
Everything that is read has to be checked and verified. jmo
Good night all!!! :seeya: This dial-up is killing me.
thewhitewitch1
10-12-2006, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Athena
The interviews are one thing; but just because it is read somewhere from some other source doesn't make it true. I have read alot of things as well and only later to discover it is old news that has been corrected, redacted and/or revised, updated. There is ALOT of misinformation out there on this case and some of it right here on the board.
Ames -- I remember when I first noticed you posting on the board - I recommended you read PMPT. If you and/or TWW have not read it I really suggest you do. It is probably the most unbiased book on the case.
Everything that is read has to be checked and verified. jmo
Good night all!!! :seeya: This dial-up is killing me.
Hi Athena. I have been reading PM/PT and I've read DOI. I have not read Steve Thomas's book and not sure that I will. I do consider the sources of what I read cuz I know there's a lot of junk out there. I do a lot of research...probably more than a healthy person should. :D It takes my mind off of my problems.
MyrDawn
10-12-2006, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Maybe she ran out of time, or perhaps she forgot in all the flurry of activity. They forgot to put the flashlight somewhere other than the kitchen counter and forgot to get the bowl of pineapple off the breakfast table.
She reapplied her make up before going downstairs to make coffee but didn't put on fresh clothes? She said her shower was broken, but there were some four others she could have used.
And she told contradicting stories about what she did that morning too. Her first story was that she went to wake JonBenet up and found her bed empty and then went downstairs, and her second story was that she went downstairs and found the note and then checked JB's room. Which one was it, and why do the Rs keep contradicting themselves and changing their stories?
Ran out of time? How? She's the one that called 911. All she would have had to do was change clothes before calling them.
Neither of the Ramsey's forgot to put the flashlight or pinapple anywhere. The intruder that murdered JonBenet left them where they were found, IMO.
Patsy said from the beginning that she went down stairs and read the first part of the note first, then ran back upstairs, pushed open JonBenet's bedroom door, and saw that she was gone.
MOO
MyrDawn
10-12-2006, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I'd really like to see her come up with something that proves that no fibers connecting the Rs to the murder were ever found and that Levin is lying about there being any...but that proof doesn't exist.
IDIs cling to this idea that Barry Levin was able to lie to the suspects during that interview...he wasn't. He's a licensed practicing attorney and not a cop, and he's bound by law not to lie. He could be disbarred for lying.
He could NOT be disbarred for lying during that interview. He was NOT in a court of law. He was asking questions the police told him to ask.
MyrDawn
10-12-2006, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Lol. No, I'm not ST, but I have a good deal of admiration for him. I believe he worked harder than anyone else to give JonBenet the justice she deserved. I have to respect a man who openly demonstrated more respect for a little girl than her own parents did.
Why even put on the same old clothes from the night before, which she must have perspired in and probably smelled like she'd worn it before? Cigarette smoke clings like demon. Why not slip on a nice clean sweatshirt and jeans, comfy for the plane ride, if her intention was to change once she got to Charlevoix?
I don't believe her for a second. It would have been out of character for her to do that.
Since you know her character so well, please explain why it's more in character for her to keep on the same clothes she'd worn to the party, and all night, including while murdering her daughter, and not take a couple minutes to change them when she put on fresh makup before she called the police.
nuisanceposter
10-12-2006, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
You have posted two things that I have never heard
(1) JonBenet was awake when they got home.
(2) That Patsy went in her room that morning and found her bed empty, then went downstairs and found the note.
I've never read either of those accounts. Where did you get the information?
(1) Steve Thomas's book has the part about JR contradicting his story, and please give me a bit longer to locate where I read that Patsy had sang to JonBenet. I've read so much that I can't remember where it all came from, and some of it I can't find online at all, and need to cite books as the source.
ST's book, hb, page 23
Officers reconstructed some of the timeline of the previous night from the parents' recollection. John Ramsey said the family returned home from the party about ten o'clock, and he read to both children before they went to sleep. He confirmed to Arndt that he had read to JonBenet after tucking her in. He would later deny these statements as well.
ST's book, hb, page 173
(JR is being interviewed by Thomas and Trujillo)
But even with that cursory reading, John Ramsey said he found "errors or misunderstandings." He said not only did he not check every door in the house the night before but he did not believe he checked any door. Also incorrect was the police notation that Ramsey said he read to the kids before going to bed. "That did not happen. I mean what happened was the kids went to bed and then I read."
I asked, "Do you attribute that simply to an officer's error in recollection, or might you have said that?"
"No, I wouldn't have said that. I think that maybe the way I said it was misinterpreted. I clearly did not read to the kids that night. JonBenet was asleep, we wanted Burke to get to sleep. We were going to get up early the next morning."
To believe him now, one would have to believe that three police officers - Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant eichenbach - were all mistaken about what Ramsey had told them.
(2) This comes from official reports and ST's book.
http://www.khow.com/pages/pdf/CS_karraffidavit.pdf
I can't copy and paste from this, but the info is on the bottom of page one continued onto page two, about a third of the way down cursor-wise (does that make sense?)
http://www.acandyrose.com/timeline-transcripts1996.htm
1996-12-26 (--) Patsy Ramsey told French at 5:45am she went to wake JonBenet up (ST pg 18)
1996-12-26 (--) Patsy Ramsey told French JonBenet was not in her bed when she checked (ST pg 18)
1996-12-26 (--) Patsy Ramsey told French she went down spiral stairs and found the note (ST pg 18)
ST's book, hb, pg 23
It soon became clear that Patsy Ramsey had changed a very important part of her story and that her statements about her initial movements were inconsistent. It raised some doubts when investigators compared their notes. She originally told Officer French that she checked the bedroom before finding the note on the stairs, but she later told Detective Arndt that she went downstairs and found the note first and only then hurried to the bedroom and found JonBenet gone.
sweetcharlotte
10-12-2006, 02:00 PM
I think I have provided links on the sticky that discount both the Ramseys changing their story about JonBenet being asleep (didn't happen), and Patsy going in to wake JonBenet before she went downstairs (didn't happen). JMO
nuisanceposter
10-12-2006, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I think I have provided links on the sticky that discount both the Ramseys changing their story about JonBenet being asleep (didn't happen), and Patsy going in to wake JonBenet before she went downstairs (didn't happen). JMO
And I just provided you with links that say that did happen. The link to Patsy changing her story about checking JonBenet's room before seeing the note (in contradiction to the story she later told that she found the note first) is part of an official affadavit and taken from French's official police report from 12/26.
sweetcharlotte
10-12-2006, 02:19 PM
If you read both of the links you provided - especially the candyrose timeline - you'll see different accounts of what happened - from ST's book and PM/PT. Also, I don't think the account of events in sequential.
Also, as you stated the first document you posted in an affidavit - not French's official report.
JMO
nuisanceposter
10-12-2006, 02:27 PM
I'm going to believe Thomas knew more about the official police reports than Schiller did.
Let's see what Schiller has to say:
"From my investigation of the Ramsey murder, Steve Thomas was the lead detective on the case from the beginning and may know what happened better than anyone." --Lawrence Schiller, New York Times bestselling author of Perfect Murder, Perfect Town
http://www.amazon.com/JonBenet-Steve-Thomas/dp/0312978618
The affadavit is taking information from Officer French's official police report.
Face it - John and Patsy changed their stories, and they changed more than one story. They would have no reason to do so if an intruder killed their daughter. They would only need to change stories and contradict themselves and lie during the investigation if they were involved.
sweetcharlotte
10-12-2006, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
<snip>
Face it - John and Patsy changed their stories, and they changed more than one story. They would have no reason to do so if an intruder killed their daughter. They would only need to change stories and contradict themselves and lie during the investigation if they were involved.
I don't agree that they changed their stories significantly. I take into account the different ways they were asked the same questions, the number of times they were asked the same thing, the length of time between the interviews and whose account we are reading. Also, remember these were parents who had lost their child. They probably were not thinking clearly and didn't realize their responses to what probably seemed somewhat redundant and insignificant questions to them would be analyzed over and over again.
JMO
bullmoose
10-12-2006, 03:50 PM
Come on Baby, let's do the the Thomas Twist. Every time I read Thomas' book I would get angry at him , since he was so obviously the main leak to the tabloid press during the investigation. Being the lead investigator when he was with his attitude IMO may be one of the biggest reasons the case was so badly botched. This whole idea that Patsy and John have been caught changing their stories and lying is based on the recollections, much later, of tunnelvision cops. My own experience with the kingdom of cops is that they wilfully lie and perjure with the greatest of ease. And yes, I mean lying under oath; in my experience cops are less credible than any random person you might pick; they want to prove their hunches are right, so to them lying is just a tool of their trade. I do not find anything in the Twister's book very convincing.JMHO
Athena
10-12-2006, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
He could NOT be disbarred for lying during that interview. He was NOT in a court of law. He was asking questions the police told him to ask.
Gosh thank you Myr. I don't think people get that if lawyers deliberately lie in COURT in front of a Judge they can be sanctioned and of course if serious enough can be disbarred but not in an interview and it is very possible he did not KNOWINGLY LIE. In addition to the BPD giving Levin the questions, Levin was hired to present the BPD's reports (30,000) pages of them to the Grand Jury in August 1998. The Grand Jury convened in September 1998. He DID NOT evaluate nor review the evidence first-hand.
thewhitewitch1
10-13-2006, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I don't agree that they changed their stories significantly. I take into account the different ways they were asked the same questions, the number of times they were asked the same thing, the length of time between the interviews and whose account we are reading. Also, remember these were parents who had lost their child. They probably were not thinking clearly and didn't realize their responses to what probably seemed somewhat redundant and insignificant questions to them would be analyzed over and over again.
JMO
Isn't it common practice to ask a suspect the same questions over and over to see if they trip themselves up?
RDIs have shown you over and over again where and how they have changed their stories. You can't dismiss it that they weren't thinking clearly when their stories changed a year later. They DID have the opportunity to read what they had said previously so they could have easily stuck to the same story but they changed them anyway to whatever would point the finger away from them. Seems to me that they remembered a great deal about what they thought was important to remember and stick with, filling in the blanks with "I don't remember." They have even contradicted themselves during the course of ONE interview.
thewhitewitch1
10-13-2006, 02:25 AM
BARBARA WALTERS Why wasn't the body exhumed?
JOHN RAMSEY (PAUSE) Don't know why the Police didn't consider that. Uh we were asked… when this theory first surfaced about a Stun gun that if the body were exhumed… it could be proved conclusively but it had to be done fairly quickly. This was… within months of when we'd just buried JonBenet. And I, as her father, could not bring myself to do that. I had laid my child to rest. She was at peace. And that was a that decision I couldn't make.
BARBARA WALTERS Even though it might have cleared you?
JOHN RAMSEY It wasn't… that was not the priority. The priority was my child was at rest.
So what was he trying to say? On the one hand he blames the police for "not having thought" to exhume her body, but in the same breath he says they were asked to do it and he said no.
Apparently the "priority" was not finding her murderer either. IMO
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
BARBARA WALTERS Why wasn't the body exhumed?
JOHN RAMSEY (PAUSE) Don't know why the Police didn't consider that. Uh we were asked… when this theory first surfaced about a Stun gun that if the body were exhumed… it could be proved conclusively but it had to be done fairly quickly. This was… within months of when we'd just buried JonBenet. And I, as her father, could not bring myself to do that. I had laid my child to rest. She was at peace. And that was a that decision I couldn't make.
BARBARA WALTERS Even though it might have cleared you?
JOHN RAMSEY It wasn't… that was not the priority. The priority was my child was at rest.
So what was he trying to say? On the one hand he blames the police for "not having thought" to exhume her body, but in the same breath he says they were asked to do it and he said no.
Apparently the "priority" was not finding her murderer either. IMO
It also sounds like he was worried if the marks identified in positively from the stun gun, then it would either encourage or force BPD to search the surrounding area of Ramsey’s property even further, even if it means by tearing down the sewers, storm drain, and each trash bins in 5 blocks or more in radius. It wasn’t priority for JR because if there actually was a stun gun used on JB, JR’s fear that they would also find the duct tape roll among with maybe some other evidences too matching his fingerprints. It just that he felt uneasy about if the marks were verified which would still point back at him as suspect in case the BPD have some relevant evidences that haven’t been told to public or the stun gun would be found among with other evidences. JMO
sweetcharlotte
10-13-2006, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Isn't it common practice to ask a suspect the same questions over and over to see if they trip themselves up?
RDIs have shown you over and over again where and how they have changed their stories. You can't dismiss it that they weren't thinking clearly when their stories changed a year later. They DID have the opportunity to read what they had said previously so they could have easily stuck to the same story but they changed them anyway to whatever would point the finger away from them. Seems to me that they remembered a great deal about what they thought was important to remember and stick with, filling in the blanks with "I don't remember." They have even contradicted themselves during the course of ONE interview.
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I know it's a theory. You said you couldn't understand why Patsy wouldn't admit she'd fed JB pineapple and we offered you a reasonable explaination as to why she wouldn't admit it. I never said that is what happened. It was something for you to consider because it does make sense but I guess you don't want to consider it. I'm not Patsy and I wasn't there. None of us were so all we can do is speculate. When you expressed your confusion over the pineapple, I must have been mistaken when I thought you wanted someone to venture a guess for the reason why she wouldn't admit it. If I had offered a reason that involved an intruder, I have a feeling you'd have jumped right on it. IMO
Your responses to me and to can'tstandnuts indicate you can't accept that some people are just not buying what you are selling.
I'm sorry, but I can't help your with that.
LadyFisher
10-13-2006, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by bullmoose
Come on Baby, let's do the the Thomas Twist. Every time I read Thomas' book I would get angry at him , since he was so obviously the main leak to the tabloid press during the investigation. Being the lead investigator when he was with his attitude IMO may be one of the biggest reasons the case was so badly botched. This whole idea that Patsy and John have been caught changing their stories and lying is based on the recollections, much later, of tunnelvision cops. My own experience with the kingdom of cops is that they wilfully lie and perjure with the greatest of ease. And yes, I mean lying under oath; in my experience cops are less credible than any random person you might pick; they want to prove their hunches are right, so to them lying is just a tool of their trade. I do not find anything in the Twister's book very convincing.JMHO He is the main reason this case was botched.....he has no integrity imho ...a honest detective working a case would have no need to leak info to the tabloids...he imho is not a good man nor was he a professional, he wasn't mature enough to get his focus off of Patsy for a second and listen to others that might disagree with him! imho
nuisanceposter
10-13-2006, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by LadyFisher
He is the main reason this case was botched.....he has no integrity imho ...a honest detective working a case would have no need to leak info to the tabloids...he imho is not a good man nor was he a professional, he wasn't mature enough to get his focus off of Patsy for a second and listen to others that might disagree with him! imho
Obviously your information about Thomas has been fed to you by the RST. You don't even know the facts - he didn't focus on Patsy, he tracked down every tip or lead, and the experts he talked to told him this case had every indication of being a case of parents covering up an accidental killing of a child.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.