View Full Version : Too much reasonable doubt
elvislives
12-09-2006, 04:19 PM
Exactly Elvislives. You have taken a giant leap off your fence by arriving at this conclusion.
Not even the IDIs have ever attempted to defend the ransom note as a real note, i. e. not even the IDIs believe that the 'Small Foreign Faction' ever existed.
In short, both RDIs and IDIs agree on the ransom note being a BOGUS note.
But since there is no reason for a sexual predator to leave a bogus kidnapping note, this leaves one or both Ramseys as the author(s) of the note.
Actually I've made very little progress from my fence. I have always believed that the ransom note was bogus...still not sure who wrote it, though
Actually I've made very little progress from my fence. I have always believed that the ransom note was bogus...still not sure who wrote it, though
Well, it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist...OR an ER DOCTOR...to figure out the ransom note was bogus. Obviously there had been no kidnapping....she was found in the basement of the house. So, of COURSE it was bogus. (If you are still on the fence....WHY would an intruder write a bogus ransom note..what would he have to gain?...Ask yourself that question...and then ask yourself...what would the PARENTS have to gain?) And then, you may can take yourself off of the fence...because it has got to be extremely uncomfortable sitting up there. :D
rashomon
12-09-2006, 06:39 PM
I consider myself rational and I find the note rational. It makes no sense only if you assume it was written for no particular purpose by someone like Patsy or a crazed intruder. If you assume it was written for a very specific purpose as part of a very fspecific plan, such as the plan I've outlined, then it makes a great deal of sense and all the little pieces fall together quite clearly.
The media and investigators like Thomas and Smit have tried very hard to interpret the note in ways that make no sense, and this has had a profound impact on how it has been perceived. If you see it as Patsy or as an intruder, then I suppose it does look irrational. Try reading it again with my theory in mind and see if that makes a difference.
Docg,
fascinating that you find the note rational.
"We respect your business" - now that's a real rational thing to say for a kidnapper wanting to sound threatening. LOL!
C'mon, Docg. John Ramsey was a CEO, a truly rational type of person. If we go along (for the sake of the discussion) with your theory that John wrote it: do you
really believe he would have run the risk of having his handwriting identifed by the police? Even Patsy could have recognized his handwriting.
Imo a scant note would have sounded far more threatening, for to me all that babbling nonsense in the RN dilutes the threatening aspect. "We respect your business" -- what balderdash!
John was a take-charge type, used to make decisions.
All he needed to do was take her in his arms and tell her. "Let me handle this, Patsy!" And I bet Patsy would have leaned on him.
And if his plan was to prevent Patsy from calling the police, he would NEVER have let that RN lying around for Patsy to find. He would have made sure that it was HE who found it, and then have shown it to her and manipulated her into doing what he wanted. Child's play for someone like John Ramsey, a successful businessman knowing how to pull the strings.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that if John had
planned to dump the body somewhere, the child would already have been in the trunk of the Ramsey car at the time Patsy got to read the note.
I have a question: is Dec 26 a normal workday in the US? For here in Germany this is also a Christmas holiday, where the banks are not open.
And btw, Lou Smit more or less disregarded the ransom note issue. For obvious reasons, since the note did not fit into his sexual predator scenario. Sexual predators don't leave behind bogus kidnapping notes.
That BOGUS ransom note is the stumbling block for every intruder theory. Lou Smit shut his eyes to it, and so do most of the IDIs on the JBR forums.
LindaA
12-09-2006, 10:16 PM
December 26 is pretty much a regular day here in the states. It's a big day for retailers and banks are open. This year state agencies in the state where I live are closed, but that's not always the case.
shill
12-09-2006, 10:18 PM
My theory is that the Ramseys simply didn't take into account that the pineapple in JB's stomach woud blow their whole concocted story apart. They had presented their story like that: JB was asleep when they got home, and everybody went to bed soon. And then soon afterward the kidnapper snatched JB from her bed ...
Now they couldn't very well tell the investigators "ah, now that you mention it, I remember JB was not asleep at all, but had some pineapple in the kitchen." Now how would that have looked? Like people trying to make the evidence fit into their concocted story of course.
So the Ramseys had no choice but to stick to their story.
They wanted to avoid the impression that something had happend to JB while she was still awake. The less they told about what happened after they got home, the better.
Which is also why John Ramsey changed his version of events: for he initially had told the police that JB had been awake when they got home ...
John claims he stayed up with Burke assembling a toy. Wouldn't Burke know JB was up and getting pineapple. Plus, his room is adjoining hers. Wouldn't this pineapple feeding have to come after Burke assembled his toy and went to bed? So did they wake JB just to feed her pineapple?
bullmoose
12-09-2006, 10:53 PM
No mystery as the Ramseys step by step shut out the police and Fleet could see that they were not in his opinion doing everything they could to cooperate in the investigation and indeed gave a press conference to tv before going back to deal with the investigation things started sliding into slots for him....like a Rubics cube. Nuff said.
At the time of the BPD's initial, illegal questioning of Burke, on the afternoon of 12/26, in what way and shape were the Ramseys shutting out the police? Burke was in the care of the Whites. at that time; on what basis can you say the Ramseys were shutting out the police already?Nuff Said? Not until you answer the question; IMO the Ramseys' real friend was the one who saw what the cops were doing and got them representation. Fleet White was acting like a RAT on the afternoon of 12/26. A friend would have asked his friend if they[Ramseys] would give permission for the BPD to question Burke alone without counsel instead of allowing the BPD to illegally question him. No friend would allow that and keep it secret from the parents while traveling to the funeral and back. But a RAT would. Nuff Said
bullmoose
12-09-2006, 11:03 PM
Docg: No I didn't miss any of your earlier posts about Brugnatelli; I think we posted back and forth on him some months back; your newest link is the same one as before and is just as convincing to me as before. Graphology is no more convincing to me than nephrology; both are pseudosciences, IMO.;)
Docg: No I didn't miss any of your earlier posts about Brugnatelli; I think we posted back and forth on him some months back; your newest link is the same one as before and is just as convincing to me as before. Graphology is no more convincing to me than nephrology; both are pseudosciences, IMO.;)
First of all, Brugnatelli is a lot more than a graphologist, he's a highly experienced FORENSIC doc examiner. Second of all he simply presents the similarities he found for what they are worth, he doesn't attempt to impose his own view on anyone else, he just exhibits some facts. Thirdly, the resemblances that are there for all to see tell us that John should never have been ruled out in the first place.
rashomon:
>fascinating that you find the note rational.
"We respect your business" - now that's a real rational thing to say for a kidnapper wanting to sound threatening. LOL!
I'm talking about the note as a whole. It is clear, purposeful, coherent -- and scary. Why John, Patsy or anyone else would want to write anything as dumb as that particular sentence is beyond me, but there it is, isn't it? Reminds ME of the following statement, uttered not by Patsy, but John: "It has been very difficult for us to keep silent while all these accusations were being leveled at us, every day, every hour, for 3 years, but we were trying to respect the justice system."
>C'mon, Docg. John Ramsey was a CEO, a truly rational type of person. If we go along (for the sake of the discussion) with your theory that John wrote it: do you really believe he would have run the risk of having his handwriting identifed by the police? Even Patsy could have recognized his handwriting.
It gets really tiresome to have to repeat myself so often, but here goes. NO ONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD HAVE DELIBERATELY LEFT SUCH A NOTE FOR THE POLICE TO EXAMINE AND USE AGAINST HIM -- OR HER. Read the note carefully and you'll see the plan behind it, a plan that would have made it very easy for him to destroy the note before the police had a chance to examine it. He certainly made a considerable effort to disguise his hand, nevertheless, that's obvious. And why wouldn't that have fooled Patsy? She was no expert.
>Imo a scant note would have sounded far more threatening, for to me all that babbling nonsense in the RN dilutes the threatening aspect. "We respect your business" -- what balderdash!
Sounds to me like something John would say (see above). Certainly not anything that would occur to Patsy.
>John was a take-charge type, used to make decisions.
All he needed to do was take her in his arms and tell her. "Let me handle this, Patsy!" And I bet Patsy would have leaned on him.
>And if his plan was to prevent Patsy from calling the police, he would NEVER have let that RN lying around for Patsy to find. He would have made sure that it was HE who found it, and then have shown it to her and manipulated her into doing what he wanted. Child's play for someone like John Ramsey, a successful businessman knowing how to pull the strings.
A take-charge guy like John would have made the call himself if he wanted it made.
>And you can bet your bottom dollar that if John had
planned to dump the body somewhere, the child would already have been in the trunk of the Ramsey car at the time Patsy got to read the note.
You are free to take such a bet. I'll pass. We have no way of knowing what sort of place John might have considered safest to store the body. Seems to me the basement room was far less risky than the trunk of his car. Anyone could have stuck her in that room, but only John or Patsy had a key to the trunk. If she'd been found there, his game would have been up.
>I have a question: is Dec 26 a normal workday in the US? For here in Germany this is also a Christmas holiday, where the banks are not open.
Banks are open on the 26th, yes. But not prior to 8 AM, no.
>And btw, Lou Smit more or less disregarded the ransom note issue. For obvious reasons, since the note did not fit into his sexual predator scenario. Sexual predators don't leave behind bogus kidnapping notes.
Agreed.
>That BOGUS ransom note is the stumbling block for every intruder theory. Lou Smit shut his eyes to it, and so do most of the IDIs on the JBR forums.
Agreed. But if you see it as bogus, then it's just as bogus if Pasty wrote it as if John did. Patsy was an educated woman, with a degree in journalism, not at all the nutcase you make her out to be. And I've never ever heard or seen her use the word "respect" in such a manner. That's a Johnism for sure.
rashomon:
>fascinating that you find the note rational.
"We respect your business" - now that's a real rational thing to say for a kidnapper wanting to sound threatening. LOL!
I'm talking about the note as a whole. It is clear, purposeful, coherent -- and scary. Why John, Patsy or anyone else would want to write anything as dumb as that particular sentence is beyond me, but there it is, isn't it? Reminds ME of the following statement, uttered not by Patsy, but John: "It has been very difficult for us to keep silent while all these accusations were being leveled at us, every day, every hour, for 3 years, but we were trying to respect the justice system."
>C'mon, Docg. John Ramsey was a CEO, a truly rational type of person. If we go along (for the sake of the discussion) with your theory that John wrote it: do you really believe he would have run the risk of having his handwriting identifed by the police? Even Patsy could have recognized his handwriting.
It gets really tiresome to have to repeat myself so often, but here goes. NO ONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD HAVE DELIBERATELY LEFT SUCH A NOTE FOR THE POLICE TO EXAMINE AND USE AGAINST HIM -- OR HER. Read the note carefully and you'll see the plan behind it, a plan that would have made it very easy for him to destroy the note before the police had a chance to examine it. He certainly made a considerable effort to disguise his hand, nevertheless, that's obvious. And why wouldn't that have fooled Patsy? She was no expert.
>Imo a scant note would have sounded far more threatening, for to me all that babbling nonsense in the RN dilutes the threatening aspect. "We respect your business" -- what balderdash!
Sounds to me like something John would say (see above). Certainly not anything that would occur to Patsy.
>John was a take-charge type, used to make decisions.
All he needed to do was take her in his arms and tell her. "Let me handle this, Patsy!" And I bet Patsy would have leaned on him.
>And if his plan was to prevent Patsy from calling the police, he would NEVER have let that RN lying around for Patsy to find. He would have made sure that it was HE who found it, and then have shown it to her and manipulated her into doing what he wanted. Child's play for someone like John Ramsey, a successful businessman knowing how to pull the strings.
A take-charge guy like John would have made the call himself if he wanted it made.
>And you can bet your bottom dollar that if John had
planned to dump the body somewhere, the child would already have been in the trunk of the Ramsey car at the time Patsy got to read the note.
You are free to take such a bet. I'll pass. We have no way of knowing what sort of place John might have considered safest to store the body. Seems to me the basement room was far less risky than the trunk of his car. Anyone could have stuck her in that room, but only John or Patsy had a key to the trunk. If she'd been found there, his game would have been up.
>I have a question: is Dec 26 a normal workday in the US? For here in Germany this is also a Christmas holiday, where the banks are not open.
Banks are open on the 26th, yes. But not prior to 8 AM, no.
>And btw, Lou Smit more or less disregarded the ransom note issue. For obvious reasons, since the note did not fit into his sexual predator scenario. Sexual predators don't leave behind bogus kidnapping notes.
Agreed.
>That BOGUS ransom note is the stumbling block for every intruder theory. Lou Smit shut his eyes to it, and so do most of the IDIs on the JBR forums.
Agreed. But if you see it as bogus, then it's just as bogus if Pasty wrote it as if John did. Patsy was an educated woman, with a degree in journalism, not at all the nutcase you make her out to be. And I've never ever heard or seen her use the word "respect" in such a manner. That's a Johnism for sure.
Since Patsy wasn't completely ruled out as the author of the ransom note...what if Patsy wrote it, and John dictated it to her.
Coloradokares
12-10-2006, 12:28 AM
Lou Smit was hired by the DA's office.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Key%20Events%20in%20the%20Investigation
3-12-97 Lou Smit Hired. Boulder DA hired retired Colorado Springs investigator Lou Smit to work on investigation (Daily Camera chronology); Smit's employment contract is dated March 17, 1997.
The implication was none was looked at by LE but the Ramseys. I know Steve Thomas surely investigated many others besides the Ramseys . But more noteably the Ramseys were given a total pass almost by the DA's office I believe in direct relation and porportion to A. Hunters relationship with the council of Ramseys.
Coloradokares
12-10-2006, 12:34 AM
At the time of the BPD's initial, illegal questioning of Burke, on the afternoon of 12/26, in what way and shape were the Ramseys shutting out the police? Burke was in the care of the Whites. at that time; on what basis can you say the Ramseys were shutting out the police already?Nuff Said? Not until you answer the question; IMO the Ramseys' real friend was the one who saw what the cops were doing and got them representation. Fleet White was acting like a RAT on the afternoon of 12/26. A friend would have asked his friend if they[Ramseys] would give permission for the BPD to question Burke alone without counsel instead of allowing the BPD to illegally question him. No friend would allow that and keep it secret from the parents while traveling to the funeral and back. But a RAT would. Nuff Said
One question and I don't have the answer. I know that the Whites and Fernies did not leave the residence until the Ramseys did. What time was Burke interviewed over at the White Residence. I know the Whites had relatives in and was it they that were watching the White children alongside Burke...? I don't know the answer. Just a thought.
docg: It says here, that Burke HEARD John tell Patsy to call 911....
JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation
Released on April 11, 2000
Written by Steve Thomas with Don Davis
Excerpts from Steve Thomas book, "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation" showing dialog from the 911 call and other information that related directly to the 911 call the morning of December 26, 1996 and whether Burke Ramsey was sleeping or awake.
Page 14: "The first word of what had happened came at 5:52am on the morning after Christmas Day, when Patsy Ramsey dialed the 911 emergency number."
PR: (inaudible) police.
911: (inaudible)
PR: 755 Fifteenth Street
911: What is going on there ma’am?
PR: We have a kidnapping...Hurry, please
911: Explain to me what is going on, ok?
PR: We have a ...There’s a note left and our daughter is gone
911: A note was left and your daughter is gone?
PR: Yes.
911: How old is you daughter?
PR: She is six years old she is blond...six years old
911: How long ago was this?
PR: I don’t know. Just found a note a note and my daughter is missing
911: Does it say who took her?
PR: What?
911: Does it say who took her?
PR: No I don’t know it’s there...there is a ransom note here.
911: It’s a ransom note.
PR: It says S.B.T.C. Victory...please
911: Ok, what’s your name? Are you...
PR: Patsy Ramsey...I am the mother. Oh my God. Please.
911: I’m...Ok, I’m sending an officer over, ok?
PR: Please.
911: Do you know how long she’s been gone?
PR: No, I don’t, please, we just got up and she’s not here. O my God Please.
911: Ok.
PR: Please send somebody.
911: I am, honey.
PR: Please.
911: Take a deep breath (inaudible).
PR: Hurry, hurry, hurry (inaudible).
911: Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy?
Page 15: "The telephone call gave us a cornerstone of evidence, not so much for what was easily heard but for what was found when experts washed out the background noise. It has been my experience as a police officer that such emergency calls are virtually unchallengeable. They are tape-recored, and either something was said or it was not. Tapes can be so powerful that prosecutors regularly play them so a jury can hear the actual voices and emotions of the participants.
In preliminary examinations, detectives thought they could hear some more words being spoken between the time Patsy Ramsey said, "Hurry, hurry, hurry" and when the call was terminated. However, the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service could not lift anything from the background noise on the tape. As a final effort several months later, we contacted the electronic wizards at the Aerospace Corporation in Los Angeles and asked them to try and decipher the sounds behind the noise.
Their work produced a startling conclusion. Patsy apparently had trouble hanging up the telephone, and before it rested on the cradle she was heard to moan, "Help me, Jesus, Help me, Jesus." Her husband was heard to bark, "We're not talking to you." And in the background was a young-sounding voice: "What did you find?" It was JonBenet's brother, Burke.
The Ramseys would repeatedly tell us that their son did not wake up at any point throughout the night of the crime. We knew differently."
Page 317: With his legs pulled up and his chin on his knees, Burke said he played some Nintendo on the afternoon of December 25. When showed a photograph of the pineapple and bowl, he recognized the bowl. That showed it belonged in the house and not brought in by an intruder. He recalled nothing unusual at the Whites' party other than getting a mild shock from the electric deer fence outside. He said his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home but awakened to help carry presents into the house of a friend. When they got home, JonBenet walked in slowly and walked up the spiral stairs to bed, just ahead of Patsy. That was quite a difference from the initial and frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed. I felt that this poor kid was confused and that he really had no idea what had happened that night. He heard the house creaking during the night, he said, and when he awoke, his mother was turning on the lights and in a rush, saying, "Oh my gosh, oh my gosh," then his father turned the lights on and off again. Burke stayed in bed wondering if something had happened. He heard his father trying to calm his mother, then telling her to call the police. Burke told the detective he did not get out of bed that morning and that a policeman looked into his room. He recalled thinking that when the police arrived "we would probably be tied up all day" and that he was disappointed the family would not be going to Charlevoix as planned."
One question and I don't have the answer. I know that the Whites and Fernies did not leave the residence until the Ramseys did. What time was Burke interviewed over at the White Residence. I know the Whites had relatives in and was it they that were watching the White children alongside Burke...? I don't know the answer. Just a thought.
Apparently Fernie and White both left the residence before the Ramseys did.
John and Fleet White went to Burke's room and woke him up. According to Schiller, Fleet along with John Fernie drove Burke first to the Fernies' to pick up his children and took all the kids to the Whites' where Whites' houseguests (friends and relatives from California) looked after all the kids. Burke never asked why the family was no longer flying to Michigan as planned, where his sister was, or why police were in the house. At 7:45am Fleet and Fernie returned to the Ramsey home.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer/primer4_time.html
rashomon
12-10-2006, 06:23 AM
[QUOTE=docg;8787294]rashomon:
I'm talking about the note as a whole. It is clear, purposeful, coherent -- and scary.
I think the note a wild concoction of lines from several kidnapping movies, and totally incoherent in itself.
The kidnappers start off by politely stating they respect John's business. They also are concerned about his being rested.
But a few lines later they transform into saber-swinging, islamic-fanatic-type terrorists who threaten to 'behead' JB.
And toward the end the note gets more and more personal toward John, ridiculing him.
It gets really tiresome to have to repeat myself so often, but here goes. NO ONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD HAVE DELIBERATELY LEFT SUCH A NOTE FOR THE POLICE TO EXAMINE AND USE AGAINST HIM -- OR HER. Read the note carefully and you'll see the plan behind it, a plan that would have made it very easy for him to destroy the note before the police had a chance to examine it. He certainly made a considerable effort to disguise his hand, nevertheless, that's obvious. And why wouldn't that have fooled Patsy? She was no expert.
It gets just as tiresome for me to have to repeat myself so often:
imo the Ramseys did not dare to get rid of the body after all, so HOW SHOULD THEY EXPLAIN their child's dead body in their home?
A child who not only had suffered a horrible brain injury, but had also been the victim of chronic sexual abuse? At least John knew about the chronic abuse.
They HAD to keep that note to introduce an 'outside' element.
For otherwise, the police would have found 'only' a child who had died a violent death in her own home, with both parents being present in the home at her time of death.
Without that note to distract attention, the handcuffs would have been around the Ramseys' wrists faster than sugar elts in water.
The bogus note in fact helped them, for it kept the police occupied and on a wrong track.
Imo they also used the note to throw the housekeeper under the bus. Remember that Patsy at once directed the police's attention to the irregular ransom sum and also said her housekeeper had a key and was in dire straits.
And which family would DESTROY a ransom note, a crucial piece of evidence?? How would they explain this to the police - tell them that their dog swallowed it?
A take-charge guy like John would have made the call himself if he wanted it made.
John was asked why he told Patsy to call the police and did not make the call himself. His answer was that this was the way things were handled in the family - it was always Patsy who made the calls.
I think the true reason was that he thought it better if Patsy made the call because she would be able to act more dramatic on the phone than he.
Agreed. But if you see it as bogus, then it's just as bogus if Pasty wrote it as if John did. Patsy was an educated woman, with a degree in journalism, not at all the nutcase you make her out to be. And I've never ever heard or seen her use the word "respect" in such a manner. That's a Johnism for sure.
For every so-called Johnism, you can probably also find a Patsyism in the note. "I advise you to be rested" e. g. sounds more like somehting a (caring) woman would say.
And just think of the "and hence" put in the note, which Patsy also used in her letters.
I don't think Patsy was a nutcase. She was a mother in a panic who had killed her child in a rage attack and frantically thought of a way to save her hide.
Have you read poster Cherokee's analysis of the ransom note on FFJ?
Have you read Delmar England's analysis of the ransom note on the ACandyRose Site?
Have you read Mark McClish's analysis of the ransom note on his Statement Analysis website ?
Why do you disregard what the CBI's handwriting expert Chet Ubowksi and many other experts said about the note: that it points to Patsy Ramsey as the author?
Do you think your lone Italian expert makes their conclusions invalid?
LindaA
12-10-2006, 07:06 AM
Ames, what you are quoting about Burke is old news. I believe it has been posted that much later he admitted to "playing possum" that morning, but his parents had no idea until then that he had actually been awake. JMO.
docg: It says here, that Burke HEARD John tell Patsy to call 911....<snip>
He heard his father trying to calm his mother, then telling her to call the police. Burke told the detective he did not get out of bed that morning and that a policeman looked into his room. He recalled thinking that when the police arrived "we would probably be tied up all day" and that he was disappointed the family would not be going to Charlevoix as planned."
Yes, I'm familiar with that statement allegedly made by Burke. It contradicts ALL other versions of what happened prior to the call. Patsy's version in the Tracey documentary has HER calling up to John to tell him she's going to make the call and then going downstairs to make it. The version in their book has them both on the first floor, with John on his hands and knees at the time he tells Patsy to call 911. If you take a look at the layout of the house you'll see that this is in a completely different area from where Burke's room is. Very hard to believe he could have overheard their conversation from his room. Thomas's account implies they were both together in Burke's room at the time this statement was made, which totally contradicts the version provided in their book. IMO either he was misquoted or he'd been prevailed upon to tell a "white lie" bolstering John's version of what happened.
nuisanceposter
12-10-2006, 11:33 AM
I doubt Thomas would lie for John Ramsey.
Interesting to me is the fact that the Rs claimed Burke was asleep until the 911 call with him on it hit the news...then they granted the NE an interview where they changed their story and admitted Burke had been awake. It sounds to me like they know Burke can be heard on the tape and needed to cover that base.
rashomon:
>I think the note a wild concoction of lines from several kidnapping movies, and totally incoherent in itself.
Kidnapping movies, yes -- of the sort that men typically watch and women typically avoid.
>The kidnappers start off by politely stating they respect John's business. They also are concerned about his being rested.
>But a few lines later they transform into saber-swinging, islamic-fanatic-type terrorists who threaten to 'behead' JB.
Do you really think they were expressing concern for John? Give me a break. The statement is there to make it crystal clear to the police that "tomorrow" really did mean tomorrow and not today. There'd be no time for him to rest if the call were to come THAT morning at 8AM. For some odd reason the police ignored such details and still expected a call that morning but that doesn't change the clear intent of the note.
>And toward the end the note gets more and more personal toward John, ridiculing him.
Exactly. The note was written to point 180 degrees AWAY from the person who wrote it.
>It gets just as tiresome for me to have to repeat myself so often:
imo the Ramseys did not dare to get rid of the body after all, so HOW SHOULD THEY EXPLAIN their child's dead body in their home?
I don't have time to go over my whole theory all over again. You can find it here: http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1244&forum=DCForumID61
<snip>
>The bogus note in fact helped them, for it kept the police occupied and on a wrong track.
Yes, for a few hours the note pointed the police toward a kidnapping. Until the body was found. That changed everything. The whole point of the note was at that point totally undermined. It now pointed to insider staging, NOT a kidnapper. The ONLY thing that saved John as far as the note is concerned was the "expert" decision to rule him out as writer. But those experts never saw the document at Brugnatelli's site or anything like it. Patsy was given a 4.5 out of 5 by the only experts who examined the full range of the many exemplars she provied.
>And which family would DESTROY a ransom note, a crucial piece of evidence?? How would they explain this to the police - tell them that their dog swallowed it?
Not "they". He. You need to read my theory. The case is complicated, not the slam dunk you think it is.
>John was asked why he told Patsy to call the police and did not make the call himself. His answer was that this was the way things were handled in the family - it was always Patsy who made the calls.
Pretty lame excuse. "Gee it's my WIFE who's always on the phone, not ME." Patsy was hysterical and could hardly get the words out. She failed to mention the warnings in the note, so the police arrived in a police car and in uniform. If John deliberately allowed Patsy to call 911 that would have been totally irresponsible. Patsy wanted that call made, NOT John.
>I think the true reason was that he thought it better if Patsy made the call because she would be able to act more dramatic on the phone than he.
If they were in on it together, they'd have gotten rid of the body first, before calling the police.
>For every so-called Johnism, you can probably also find a Patsyism in the note. "I advise you to be rested" e. g. sounds more like somehting a (caring) woman would say.
See above.
>And just think of the "and hence" put in the note, which Patsy also used in her letters.
"And hence" is another Johnism. Patsy never used that expression in any of her letters. John is on record as saying exactly that. The Xmas letter where that appears was written by both of them. Patsy's style was informal. "And hence" is formal, much more John's style than hers.
>I don't think Patsy was a nutcase. She was a mother in a panic who had killed her child in a rage attack and frantically thought of a way to save her hide.
The note was not written by an out of control person in a frantic state of mind. There are very few strikeouts. The margins are scrupulously observed. Not a single word had to be hyphenated. Spacing is consistent. Every single i is dotted, every t crossed.
>Have you read poster Cherokee's analysis of the ransom note on FFJ?
Yes I have. It's totally unconvincing, overblown and amateurish.
>Have you read Delmar England's analysis of the ransom note on the ACandyRose Site?
More of the same. Both Cherokee and England are seeing what they want to see and ignoring everything else. You can't base handwriting comparison on a simple one to one match, you have to use a control group and you have to work double blind to eliminate bias.
>Have you read Mark McClish's analysis of the ransom note on his Statement Analysis website ?
No, but I'm sure it's just more of the same. If you know of anyone who ever did a scientific study using a control group and double blind analysis then I'm intererested. Otherwise not.
>Why do you disregard what the CBI's handwriting expert Chet Ubowksi and many other experts said about the note: that it points to Patsy Ramsey as the author?
The experts to which you refer weren't able to rule Patsy out, that's as far as they went. Most said it was unlikely she wrote it. The Secret Service expert saw no evidence she wrote it. None of them saw the document on Brugnatelli's site, printed by John. Darnay Hoffman's "experts" were working from a totally inadequate sample that included one exemplar clearly penned by a child, probably Burke.
>Do you think your lone Italian expert makes their conclusions invalid?
What Brugnatelli clearly demonstrates is that John should never have been ruled out.
Ames, what you are quoting about Burke is old news. I believe it has been posted that much later he admitted to "playing possum" that morning, but his parents had no idea until then that he had actually been awake. JMO.
Well, if he were playing possum, and was actually awake...then he heard his dad telling his mom to call the police. I don't understand your post, or what you are trying to say...now if he had REALLY been asleep...then he wouldn't have heard a thing. BUT...if he was just PRETENDING to be asleep....and he says that he heard John telling Patsy to call the police, then I believe him. Why would he lie about that? The article states that he heard all sorts of noises. Which would make sense, if he was PRETENDING to be asleep. (IMO)
Page 317: He heard the house creaking during the night, he said, and when he awoke, his mother was turning on the lights and in a rush, saying, "Oh my gosh, oh my gosh," then his father turned the lights on and off again. Burke stayed in bed wondering if something had happened. He heard his father trying to calm his mother, then telling her to call the police. Burke told the detective he did not get out of bed that morning and that a policeman looked into his room. He recalled thinking that when the police arrived "we would probably be tied up all day" and that he was disappointed the family would not be going to Charlevoix as planned."
All of the things mentioned above by Burke, are consistant with him "playing possum"....and not really being asleep.
Yes, I'm familiar with that statement allegedly made by Burke. It contradicts ALL other versions of what happened prior to the call. Patsy's version in the Tracey documentary has HER calling up to John to tell him she's going to make the call and then going downstairs to make it. The version in their book has them both on the first floor, with John on his hands and knees at the time he tells Patsy to call 911. If you take a look at the layout of the house you'll see that this is in a completely different area from where Burke's room is. Very hard to believe he could have overheard their conversation from his room. Thomas's account implies they were both together in Burke's room at the time this statement was made, which totally contradicts the version provided in their book. IMO either he was misquoted or he'd been prevailed upon to tell a "white lie" bolstering John's version of what happened.
How do you know where the Ramsey's actually were when John TOLD Patsy to call the police? That could have happened outside of Burke's room, and I am sure that they were panicking and not very quiet. Why would Burke lie about overhearing their converstation? What in the world would HE have to gain by doing that??
I doubt Thomas would lie for John Ramsey.
Are you kidding? He gave John "a pass." He wanted Patsy at all costs and was hoping that by sucking up to John he could get him to finger her. According to Thomas, John was totally innocent at the time the call was made and only figured things out later. So he'd have no problem with what Burke (allegedly) said about his father telling his mother to make the call. For the same reason, he discounted Burke's testimony about JonBenet walking into the house under her own power, fully awake. Thomas was cherry picking through the evidence, keeping what he liked and tossing out the rest.
Are you kidding? He gave John "a pass." He wanted Patsy at all costs and was hoping that by sucking up to John he could get him to finger her. According to Thomas, John was totally innocent at the time the call was made and only figured things out later. So he'd have no problem with what Burke (allegedly) said about his father telling his mother to make the call. For the same reason, he discounted Burke's testimony about JonBenet walking into the house under her own power, fully awake. Thomas was cherry picking through the evidence, keeping what he liked and tossing out the rest.
I still don't see why you would think that Burke would flat out lie about hearing his parents conversation, now that is something that he wouldn't be confused about. I also believe Burke's orginal statement about JB walking in and helping to carry presents. (IMO)
Athena
12-10-2006, 12:40 PM
And that sexual pervert could mimic Patsy Ramsey's handwriting to perfection?
And you may not be aware of the crucial case facts, but JB had eaten pineapple one to two hours before she died, so the sexual predator must have sat down in the kitchen with JB, fed her pineapple, then waited for up to two hours before bashing her head in. Totally absurd, don't you think so?
No wonder that even Lou Smit called the incriminating pineapple evidence the "big bugaboo" in the case ...
How can you say the handwriting was mimiced to perfection when out of a scale of 1-5, it was a 4.5 probability she did NOT write the note? There were other samples from other people that matched more than hers did. I also have seen over and over again about similarities of certain letters but have seen noone discuss the differences. It is the differences that assist in concluding who wrote something. I will say again if all of us on this board gave a handwriting sample chances are at least some of us would have similarities especially with certain connecting letters such as "th", etc. In addition to that the mere fact that the note was written in marker makes it extremely difficult to find a match and also attempting to form a match from copies of the note and the samples. JMO
Athena
12-10-2006, 12:43 PM
rashomon:
>I think the note a wild concoction of lines from several kidnapping movies, and totally incoherent in itself.
Kidnapping movies, yes -- of the sort that men typically watch and women typically avoid.
>The kidnappers start off by politely stating they respect John's business. They also are concerned about his being rested.
>But a few lines later they transform into saber-swinging, islamic-fanatic-type terrorists who threaten to 'behead' JB.
Do you really think they were expressing concern for John? Give me a break. The statement is there to make it crystal clear to the police that "tomorrow" really did mean tomorrow and not today. There'd be no time for him to rest if the call were to come THAT morning at 8AM. For some odd reason the police ignored such details and still expected a call that morning but that doesn't change the clear intent of the note.
>And toward the end the note gets more and more personal toward John, ridiculing him.
Exactly. The note was written to point 180 degrees AWAY from the person who wrote it.
>It gets just as tiresome for me to have to repeat myself so often:
imo the Ramseys did not dare to get rid of the body after all, so HOW SHOULD THEY EXPLAIN their child's dead body in their home?
I don't have time to go over my whole theory all over again. You can find it here: http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1244&forum=DCForumID61
<snip>
>The bogus note in fact helped them, for it kept the police occupied and on a wrong track.
Yes, for a few hours the note pointed the police toward a kidnapping. Until the body was found. That changed everything. The whole point of the note was at that point totally undermined. It now pointed to insider staging, NOT a kidnapper. The ONLY thing that saved John as far as the note is concerned was the "expert" decision to rule him out as writer. But those experts never saw the document at Brugnatelli's site or anything like it. Patsy was given a 4.5 out of 5 by the only experts who examined the full range of the many exemplars she provied.
>And which family would DESTROY a ransom note, a crucial piece of evidence?? How would they explain this to the police - tell them that their dog swallowed it?
Not "they". He. You need to read my theory. The case is complicated, not the slam dunk you think it is.
>John was asked why he told Patsy to call the police and did not make the call himself. His answer was that this was the way things were handled in the family - it was always Patsy who made the calls.
Pretty lame excuse. "Gee it's my WIFE who's always on the phone, not ME." Patsy was hysterical and could hardly get the words out. She failed to mention the warnings in the note, so the police arrived in a police car and in uniform. If John deliberately allowed Patsy to call 911 that would have been totally irresponsible. Patsy wanted that call made, NOT John.
>I think the true reason was that he thought it better if Patsy made the call because she would be able to act more dramatic on the phone than he.
If they were in on it together, they'd have gotten rid of the body first, before calling the police.
>For every so-called Johnism, you can probably also find a Patsyism in the note. "I advise you to be rested" e. g. sounds more like somehting a (caring) woman would say.
See above.
>And just think of the "and hence" put in the note, which Patsy also used in her letters.
"And hence" is another Johnism. Patsy never used that expression in any of her letters. John is on record as saying exactly that. The Xmas letter where that appears was written by both of them. Patsy's style was informal. "And hence" is formal, much more John's style than hers.
>I don't think Patsy was a nutcase. She was a mother in a panic who had killed her child in a rage attack and frantically thought of a way to save her hide.
The note was not written by an out of control person in a frantic state of mind. There are very few strikeouts. The margins are scrupulously observed. Not a single word had to be hyphenated. Spacing is consistent. Every single i is dotted, every t crossed.
>Have you read poster Cherokee's analysis of the ransom note on FFJ?
Yes I have. It's totally unconvincing, overblown and amateurish.
>Have you read Delmar England's analysis of the ransom note on the ACandyRose Site?
More of the same. Both Cherokee and England are seeing what they want to see and ignoring everything else. You can't base handwriting comparison on a simple one to one match, you have to use a control group and you have to work double blind to eliminate bias.
>Have you read Mark McClish's analysis of the ransom note on his Statement Analysis website ?
No, but I'm sure it's just more of the same. If you know of anyone who ever did a scientific study using a control group and double blind analysis then I'm intererested. Otherwise not.
>Why do you disregard what the CBI's handwriting expert Chet Ubowksi and many other experts said about the note: that it points to Patsy Ramsey as the author?
The experts to which you refer weren't able to rule Patsy out, that's as far as they went. Most said it was unlikely she wrote it. The Secret Service expert saw no evidence she wrote it. None of them saw the document on Brugnatelli's site, printed by John. Darnay Hoffman's "experts" were working from a totally inadequate sample that included one exemplar clearly penned by a child, probably Burke.
>Do you think your lone Italian expert makes their conclusions invalid?
What Brugnatelli clearly demonstrates is that John should never have been ruled out.
docg: John gave five (5) handwriting samples including samples from his writing prior to the murder. I don't believe John's handwriting matched. Just the slant alone is different. JMO
Sprocket
12-10-2006, 02:35 PM
If Patsy had done it, the red fibers from her jacket/sweater would be all over JB's body, but they were not.
That's not necessarily true. Not all fibers transfer the same, and at all times. We don't know how much contact Patsy actually had with JonBenet's body. She could have had minimal contact and still been a participant in the crime/accident.
I still haven't found a reasonable (innocent) explaination for those fibers being found where they were. The fibers were found in the basement, where Patsy said she had not been. Her statement. Her words.
elvislives
12-10-2006, 02:42 PM
Well, it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist...OR an ER DOCTOR...to figure out the ransom note was bogus. Obviously there had been no kidnapping....she was found in the basement of the house. So, of COURSE it was bogus. (If you are still on the fence....WHY would an intruder write a bogus ransom note..what would he have to gain?...Ask yourself that question...and then ask yourself...what would the PARENTS have to gain?) And then, you may can take yourself off of the fence...because it has got to be extremely uncomfortable sitting up there. :D
Well I have asked myself that question and did not arrive that conclusion that you apparently did. Being somewhat of a true crime buff, that same question could be asked in a multitude of cases--why would the DC snipers have left notes? why did the zodiac killer write notes to the press? why would charles manson and company cut the unborn fetus out of their pregnant victim? why would ted bundy bathe his victims then redo their makeup, hair and nails? why would the texas prostitute killer take the time to remove his victims eyeballs? with deranged serial killers, there are often "whys" that will never make sense to a normal person.
And yes, while my fence sitting is getting uncomfortable, I am much more comfortable sitting on the fence than pointing the finger at a person who I am not sure is guilty. But I do enjoy all the condescending 'if you don't see things my way you are obviously an idiot' commentary that goes on on this board. Everyone should remember that the Grand Jury NEVER indicted either Ramsey for JB's murder. Apparently they are as stupid as I am, especially considering the GJ's burden is extremely lenient---not beyond a reasonable doubt--but by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE---which means that the grand jury didn't even believe that it was more likely than not that the Rs were guilty. And they had access to all the EVIDENCE which no one on this board has. So while I am definitely not comfortable saying the Rs are innocent, I am also not convinced of their guilt yet.
How do you know where the Ramsey's actually were when John TOLD Patsy to call the police? That could have happened outside of Burke's room, and I am sure that they were panicking and not very quiet. Why would Burke lie about overhearing their converstation? What in the world would HE have to gain by doing that??
I'm going by the version of that story provided in their book. And if you think they were both in on it together, and Burke overheard them, then he's GOT to be lying, right? If both were guilty then Burke must have overheard a totally different conversation than the one he reported.
What would he have to gain by lying? His father for one thing. Children often lie to protect their parents. The alternative could be an orphanage.
docg: John gave five (5) handwriting samples including samples from his writing prior to the murder. I don't believe John's handwriting matched. Just the slant alone is different. JMO
As I recall, John gave 2 or 3, not 5. Patsy gave 5, I believe. A warrant was issued for Patsy's historic exemplars but none was issued for John's. Clearly there was not the concerted effort to collect historic exemplars from him that there was for Patsy. According to longtime Ramsey supporter Jameson, who would certainly have no reason to lie about that, the FACT is that the document on Brugnatelli's site was NOT one of the exemplars seen by the experts who ruled him out. Jameson has also stated that none of the exemplars they did see, which she claims to have copies of, look anything like that document.
Slant becomes an issue when you are dealing with possible forgery. It has no bearing on the Ramsey note since the writer was trying to disguise his hand, NOT imitate someone elses. Slant is one of the easiest and most obvious things you'd want to alter if you're trying to disguise your own hand. This is NOT a matter for amateurs like us to decide on. Not even the experts can agree on who wrote that note. All I'm saying is that the document DOES resemble the note in many ways and if it had been seen by the experts it's hard to believe they'd have ruled him out.
That's not necessarily true. Not all fibers transfer the same, and at all times. We don't know how much contact Patsy actually had with JonBenet's body. She could have had minimal contact and still been a participant in the crime/accident.
I still haven't found a reasonable (innocent) explaination for those fibers being found where they were. The fibers were found in the basement, where Patsy said she had not been. Her statement. Her words.
Yes, but her daughter was found in the basement, wasn't she? And she was in close contact with her daughter. Who could easily have picked up the fibers from her. She may also have been in close contact with her husband, who could have picked up her fibers and transferred them to the crime scene. Patsy's fibers are NOT evidence. John's fibers ARE.
rashomon
12-10-2006, 03:22 PM
[docg]Do you really think they were expressing concern for John? Give me a break. The statement is there to make it crystal clear to the police that "tomorrow" really did mean tomorrow and not today. There'd be no time for him to rest if the call were to come THAT morning at 8AM. For some odd reason the police ignored such details and still expected a call that morning but that doesn't change the clear intent of the note.
That was of course irony on my part, docg. No one was concerned about John. But the ransom note writer was concerned about herself, that's for sure ..
And I think you interpret way too much into the ambiguous word "tomorrow". Many people have commented as to whether "tomorrow" meant after sunrise, i. e. on the morning of the 26th, or the next day, Dec 27th.
Real kidnappers would of course have given the exact date, for how could a kidnapper know in what sense John Ramsey would interpret the word "tomorrow"?
And John Ramsey, had he composed the note and wanted 24 hours time, he would have written 'Dec 27th' too, and not that vague 'tomorrow'. Imo putting 'tomorrow' together with the advice to be rested (which of course couldn't be acted upon if tomorrow meant Dec 26th) was just one of those blunders people make who try to stage a scene, but are no professional criminals themselves.
For example, if the note was written on Dec 25th before midnight, 'tomorrow' would mean after sunrise as well as the next calendar day.
Exactly. The note was written to point 180 degrees AWAY from the person who wrote it.
Exactly. The note doesn't sound as if written by an admiring wife like Patsy. :)
Patsy was hysterical and could hardly get the words out. She failed to mention the warnings in the note, so the police arrived in a police car and in uniform. If John deliberately allowed Patsy to call 911 that would have been totally irresponsible. Patsy wanted that call made, NOT John.
Of course Patsy wanted that call made. And so did John. And the more hysterical Patsy sounded on the phone, the better. And since both Ramseys knew they had nothing fo fear from any kidnappers, it didn't matter if the police showed up.
If they were in on it together, they'd have gotten rid of the body first, before calling the police.
And if they hadn't come to the conclusion that it was too risky, they would have done this.
You make it seem as if it is child's play to get rid of a body.
Another thing to consider: criminal profilers have pointed out that parents who have killed their children often can't bring themselves to dump the body somewhere like a piece of trash. This could also have played a role here.
rashomon
12-10-2006, 03:53 PM
John claims he stayed up with Burke assembling a toy. Wouldn't Burke know JB was up and getting pineapple. Plus, his room is adjoining hers. Wouldn't this pineapple feeding have to come after Burke assembled his toy and went to bed? So did they wake JB just to feed her pineapple?
Oh no, shill: Burke's room was NOT adjoining JonBenet's. Far from it, in the literal sense. For it was at the other end of the floor. Between JB's and Burke's room there was the big children's playroom as well as Melinda's bedroom.
Have you never seen the layout of the Ramsey home?
rashomon
12-10-2006, 04:21 PM
Patsy's version in the Tracey documentary has HER calling up to John to tell him she's going to make the call and then going downstairs to make it. The version in their book has them both on the first floor, with John on his hands and knees at the time he tells Patsy to call 911.
How you can cite someone like Tracey as a reliable source is beyond my comprehenson.
And even in their own book, it is JOHN who tells Patsy to call the police.
Suppose it was like you said, and Patsy's calling the police foiled John's plan. Now what would YOU have done in John's place? You realize you're in the soup, the woman has called the police already - what would you do? You go along with it of course and make the best of it, wouldn't you?
You don't implore Patsy and tell her, "Darling, please, you have to tell the police that it was ME who told you to call them!" This doesn't make sense, docg. No sense whatsoever.
Quite the contrary: it would raise suspicion on Patsy's part. "Why does John want me to tell the police that?", she might have asked herself. I certainly would have asked myself this question in her place.
<snipped>
And yes, while my fence sitting is getting uncomfortable, I am much more comfortable sitting on the fence than pointing the finger at a person who I am not sure is guilty. But I do enjoy all the condescending 'if you don't see things my way you are obviously an idiot' commentary that goes on on this board. Everyone should remember that the Grand Jury NEVER indicted either Ramsey for JB's murder. Apparently they are as stupid as I am, especially considering the GJ's burden is extremely lenient---not beyond a reasonable doubt--but by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE---which means that the grand jury didn't even believe that it was more likely than not that the Rs were guilty. And they had access to all the EVIDENCE which no one on this board has. So while I am definitely not comfortable saying the Rs are innocent, I am also not convinced of their guilt yet.
Uh, I was joking about the fence sitting...notice the :D ?? I realize that there are RDI's, IDI's and fence sitters on this board...and I respect everyone's opinion. (IMO)
shill
12-10-2006, 05:39 PM
Oh no, shill: Burke's room was NOT adjoining JonBenet's. Far from it, in the literal sense. For it was at the other end of the floor. Between JB's and Burke's room there was the big children's playroom as well as Melinda's bedroom.
Have you never seen the layout of the Ramsey home?
I had a link to it once but have nothing now. I spent hundreds of hours collecting links and I'm not up to doing it again. Looks like I'm wrong about the rooms, sorry.
sweetcharlotte
12-10-2006, 06:08 PM
I had a link to it once but have nothing now. I spent hundreds of hours collecting links and I'm not up to doing it again. Looks like I'm wrong about the rooms, sorry.
Just happen to have this link....... floor plans
http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/floors.htm
LindaA
12-10-2006, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Elvislives <snip>But I do enjoy all the condescending 'if you don't see things my way you are obviously an idiot' commentary that goes on on this board. Everyone should remember that the Grand Jury NEVER indicted either Ramsey for JB's murder. <snip?
:beer: :beer: :beer:
Sprocket
12-10-2006, 07:30 PM
Everyone should remember that the Grand Jury NEVER indicted either Ramsey for JB's murder.
That's actually not a good track record for the Boulder DA.
Consider this:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/1206/0801_mydette_death.html
According to the Boulder Daily Camera, only three Boulder County grand juries have been empanelled to investigate homicide cases in the last 20 years. None have returned indictments.
Sprocket
12-10-2006, 07:34 PM
Yes, but her daughter was found in the basement, wasn't she? And she was in close contact with her daughter. Who could easily have picked up the fibers from her. She may also have been in close contact with her husband, who could have picked up her fibers and transferred them to the crime scene. Patsy's fibers are NOT evidence. John's fibers ARE.
How could the fibers from Patsy's jacket get intertwined within the ligature? And in the paint tray? Patsy said she did not go in the basement, and yes, that's where JonBenet was found. Fibers intertwined within the ligature can not be explained by transfer. How did the fibers from her jacket get into the paint tray, when she said she did not go down there?
It is incrminating fiber evidence.
Louisadelmar
12-10-2006, 07:39 PM
From the autopsy:
Blonde hair is entwined in the knot on the posterior aspect of the
neck as well as in the cord wrapped around the wooden stick.
My guess would be the fibers were in her hair and along with the hair became entwined in the ligature.
The tray coud be secondary transfer. What I would find much more damning would be John's fibers in his daughter's crotch. That is why I think it is suspicious there is only one mention of it.
shill
12-10-2006, 08:59 PM
It appears the fibers were transferred by the hands of the killer;
He tied the ligature with his hands, he placed the tape on her mouth with his hands, and he put the piece of the paintbrush he broke with his hands back in the paint tote.
IMO these fibers didn't leap off Patsy's jacket on to these items. They were transferred from hands that came in contact with the fibers and then the items, be it Patsy, John, or an unknown intruder.
It appears the fibers were transferred by the hands of the killer;
He tied the ligature with his hands, he placed the tape on her mouth with his hands, and he put the piece of the paintbrush he broke with his hands back in the paint tote.
IMO these fibers didn't leap off Patsy's jacket on to these items. They were transferred from hands that came in contact with the fibers and then the items, be it Patsy, John, or an unknown intruder.
Good point....BUT if and I mean a BIG IF...it was an intruder...how did he/she get Patsy's jacket fibers on his/her hands? Unless, of course...(as you stated) it was John or Patsy? Unless the intruder was walking around with Patsy's jacket on....which, I just could not imagine. imo
shill
12-10-2006, 10:05 PM
My question is why wouldn't these fibers be all over JB, she was touched by these hands and in contact with Patsy's jacket that evening.
My question is why wouldn't these fibers be all over JB, she was touched by these hands and in contact with Patsy's jacket that evening.
Is it possible that she could have been wiped down all over...to eliminate any fibers?? My theory is, probably when JB was cleaned up...the "intruder" or "murderer" probably changed too. I, of course, do not think that there was ever an intruder in the first place...so, in that case...since it was the Ramsey's home...one or both of them could have wiped her down, and then changed their clothes, before changing JB. All we have to go on, as far as JB being found in the same clothes that Patsy put her to bed in....is...Patsy's word.
How could the fibers from Patsy's jacket get intertwined within the ligature? And in the paint tray? Patsy said she did not go in the basement, and yes, that's where JonBenet was found. Fibers intertwined within the ligature can not be explained by transfer. How did the fibers from her jacket get into the paint tray, when she said she did not go down there?
It is incrminating fiber evidence.
Not at all. Tufts of JonBenet's hair were found entwined in the knots of the ligature. Since Patsy's fibers could easily have transferred to JonBenet's hair it stands to reason they'd also be in the same knots. As far as the paint tray is concerned, there's probably hundreds of ways those fibers could have gotten there. The paint tray didn't live in the basement, it was just stored there temporarily. Patsy obviously handled it many times. Even if she wasn't painting in her jacket, she might well have rearranged her brushes while wearing it. If John is our perp, he might have had his arm around Patsy some time that night. Her fibers could have transferred to him and he could have transferred them to the paint tote. This was obviously a jacket that shed profusely, so why not?
My question is why wouldn't these fibers be all over JB, she was touched by these hands and in contact with Patsy's jacket that evening.
I imagine they WERE all over her. Why wouldn't they be? Patsy is the one who got her ready for bed and tucked her in.
How you can cite someone like Tracey as a reliable source is beyond my comprehenson.
And even in their own book, it is JOHN who tells Patsy to call the police.
Suppose it was like you said, and Patsy's calling the police foiled John's plan. Now what would YOU have done in John's place? You realize you're in the soup, the woman has called the police already - what would you do? You go along with it of course and make the best of it, wouldn't you?
You don't implore Patsy and tell her, "Darling, please, you have to tell the police that it was ME who told you to call them!" This doesn't make sense, docg. No sense whatsoever.
Quite the contrary: it would raise suspicion on Patsy's part. "Why does John want me to tell the police that?", she might have asked herself. I certainly would have asked myself this question in her place.
Tracey is not a reliable source, far from it. But Patsy's story about telling John SHE was going to call 911 is from her lips, as recorded in the Tracey documentary. That's the thing about documentaries, rashomon, you don't have to take anything on faith, you can see (and hear) for yourself.
And yes, the official story is in their book, why wouldn't it be?
John didn't approach Patsy and implore her to lie. He presented HIS version of the story before millions, on CNN. She was left with no choice but to back his story up, or accuse him of lying. Since he was her chief defender when everyone else was suspecting her of writing the note, it would have been a HUGE mistake on her part to challenge him over this.
thewhitewitch1
12-10-2006, 11:42 PM
Tracey is not a reliable source, far from it. But Patsy's story about telling John SHE was going to call 911 is from her lips, as recorded in the Tracey documentary. That's the thing about documentaries, rashomon, you don't have to take anything on faith, you can see (and hear) for yourself.
And yes, the official story is in their book, why wouldn't it be?
John didn't approach Patsy and implore her to lie. He presented HIS version of the story before millions, on CNN. She was left with no choice but to back his story up, or accuse him of lying. Since he was her chief defender when everyone else was suspecting her of writing the note, it would have been a HUGE mistake on her part to challenge him over this.
You need to add that "IMO" to your statements, DocG...since what you are stating IS only your opinion.
I am curious to know if you think Patsy was ever aware that JR killed JB and covered for him at some point or do you think she was so gullible that she never questioned anything or suspected him of anything for the rest of her life. I can't imagine either.
You need to add that "IMO" to your statements, DocG...since what you are stating IS only your opinion.
I am curious to know if you think Patsy was ever aware that JR killed JB and covered for him at some point or do you think she was so gullible that she never questioned anything or suspected him of anything for the rest of her life. I can't imagine either.
It's NOT my opinion, but a fact, that John presented his version of what happened prior to the 911 call before an audience of millions on CNN. It IS my opinion, but also common sense, that IF Patsy knew John was not telling the truth, she would have been reluctant to challenge him publicly.
And no, I don't think for a minute that Patsy suspected John. And if John is in fact the sole guilty party, as I strongly suspect, then she was certainly not alone in her gullibility. It's no secret that family members tend to support each other, look the other way, and even lie for each other, when the chips are down. It's also no secret that Patsy depended heavily on John, who was the one controlling their finances, their investigators, and their legal team during the long initial period when she was heavily sedated. The truth about the 911 call would, IMO, have made John look suspicious -- and that would have been bad for both of them. I wouldn't be surprised if their lawyers advised her to cool it on that issue.
Even if Patsy had some lingering doubts, they would have been allayed by the idiotic decision to rule John out as writer of the note, which everyone in the world except Brugnatelli and myself seems to have swallowed, hook, line and sinker. So, yes, she was gullible. So are you and almost everyone else following the case.
rashomon
12-11-2006, 11:32 AM
I imagine they WERE all over her. Why wouldn't they be? Patsy is the one who got her ready for bed and tucked her in.
I "imagine" is pure conjecture and has nothing to do with case facts.
If Patsy's jacket fibers had been 'all over' JB, this would have been mentioned in the CBI lab report. No source mentions Patsy's fibers being 'all over' John Benet.
The forensic evidence found at the crime scene indicates that someone handling the garrote, the duct tape, and the paintbrushes transferred Patsy's jacket fibers to these locations. First-hand transfer is far more likely than second-hand transfer.
Per your theory, John, by handling the crime tools, just 'happened' to pick up those few fibers from Patsy's jacket which stuck to JB's body and transferred them.
If you were Patsy's defense laywyer and presented such a scenario to a jury, do you think they woud buy that? Would you buy it if you were a juror?
I bet that if fibers from John's jacket had been found in these incriminating locations, you would be screaming this from the rooftops and not construct a second-hand transfer scenario.
rashomon
12-11-2006, 11:59 AM
It's NOT my opinion, but a fact, that John presented his version of what happened prior to the 911 call before an audience of millions on CNN. It IS my opinion, but also common sense, that IF Patsy knew John was not telling the truth, she would have been reluctant to challenge him publicly.
Even if Patsy had some lingering doubts, they would have been allayed by the idiotic decision to rule John out as writer of the note, which everyone in the world except Brugnatelli and myself seems to have swallowed, hook, line and sinker. So, yes, she was gullible. So are you and almost everyone else following the case.
I'm far from being a gullible person, and nor do I get the impression that posters like TWW, Nuisanceposter and others here are gullible people. Quite the contrary.
Again, docg: there was NO reason for John to lie and tell publicly on CNN that it was HE who told Patsy to call the police. And by doing that, run the risk that Patsy made a surprised face, and maybe said something like "Oh, but ...."
Your whole theory hangs by a thread: your mere assumption that Patsy (without realizing it) foiled John's plan by calling the police.
But this assumption of yours is in NO way corroborated by ANY testimony in this case.
On CNN, in the Ramseys' own book, in SteveThomas' book - no conflicting testimonies at all: John told Patsy to call the police.
But if this was the case, your whole theory dissolves in smoke, docg.
You're aware of that, which is why you cling to that fantasy of yours: that Patsy grabbed the phone before John could step in.
Sorry to repeat myself, but I think if John had wanted to prevent Patsy from calling the police, he would NEVER have let that note lying around and let her read it without him being present. For by doing that, the would lose control of the situation. John could simply not know what Patsy would do, therefore a cool and calculating type like he would not have run such a risk. No way imo.
thewhitewitch1
12-11-2006, 12:04 PM
It's NOT my opinion, but a fact, that John presented his version of what happened prior to the 911 call before an audience of millions on CNN. It IS my opinion, but also common sense, that IF Patsy knew John was not telling the truth, she would have been reluctant to challenge him publicly.
And no, I don't think for a minute that Patsy suspected John. And if John is in fact the sole guilty party, as I strongly suspect, then she was certainly not alone in her gullibility. It's no secret that family members tend to support each other, look the other way, and even lie for each other, when the chips are down. It's also no secret that Patsy depended heavily on John, who was the one controlling their finances, their investigators, and their legal team during the long initial period when she was heavily sedated. The truth about the 911 call would, IMO, have made John look suspicious -- and that would have been bad for both of them. I wouldn't be surprised if their lawyers advised her to cool it on that issue.
Even if Patsy had some lingering doubts, they would have been allayed by the idiotic decision to rule John out as writer of the note, which everyone in the world except Brugnatelli and myself seems to have swallowed, hook, line and sinker. So, yes, she was gullible. So are you and almost everyone else following the case.
Gee, DocG. That's pretty arrogant of you to insult "almost everyone following this case" because some of us don't happen to agree with your version of what happened that you can't prove one way or another.
I also was rather disgusted with the way you dismissed Cherokees analysis of the RN as being ameturish. Do you have some special credentials that we are unaware of?
To think that Patsy never questioned whether John was involved is stupid; especially if he asked her to change her story and say that he is the one who told her to call 911. Wouldn't she question why? I would. If they had to view all of the evidence to get their stories straight (ever changing, though they were), wouldn't she wonder why their stories had to match if the truth were being told?
Do you honestly think that JR did all of these things to his daughter while Patsy laid in bed oblivious to his absence there for hours? When my husband gets up in the middle of the night, it almost always wakes me up; if not right away, then shortly after. I just instinctively know. I think most married people can say the same. What if she did wake up and find him gone? How was he going to explain? That certainly was one hell of a risk he took, wasn't it? What if Burke woke up?
How does the pineapple come into play in your scenerio?
You theory has holes in it just like everyone elses so maybe you should reconsider your "everyone else is gullible" because they don't believe [my version attitude. You have a nice neat little theory going but it is ONLY a theory. Other theories have just as much possibility of being the truth (or close to it) as yours does; especially Cherokees version. IMO
nuisanceposter
12-11-2006, 12:13 PM
All JR had to say to get Patsy to put the phone down was "they'll cut her head off if we call anyone." That would have stopped her right in her tracks, if she had thought JonBenet had really been kidnapped.
Based on the fact that *both* John and Patsy completely disregarded the warnings in the note, not only calling police and inviting friends over, but also risking Burke's safety by sending him out of the house when God knows who has JB and is supposedly watching, I'd say that *both* John and Patsy knew that the RN was bogus, and there were no kidnappers, and therefore no reason to worry that either JonBenet or Burke were in danger.
I just don't think that either John OR Patsy would have allowed the other to call 911 *and* friends over, and I don't think either one of them would have sent Burke out of their protective presence had they thought this RN was real and kidnappers had JonBenet.
I think both of them worked together on this note and on staging the crime. Innocent fiber transfer does not explain Patsy's fibers being in the knot and on the tape and in the paint tray - perhaps one of those places, but all three? Come on. If John's fibers in JonBenet's brand new unwashed size 12/14 undies definitely place him in the staging, then Patsy's jacket fibers in the knot, tray, and tape place her in the staging, too.
John could VERY EASILY have stopped Patsy from calling anyone, if his plan had hinged on it. She may have been a strong woman, but she deferred to her husband, and this situation would have been no different - a sharp NO! from JR would have ended her phone call, esp. after he explained JB's life was threatened.
rashomon:
>I'm far from being a gullible person, and nor do I get the impression that posters like TWW, Nuisanceposter and others here are gullible people. Quite the contrary.
Then why have you, like so many others, simply accepted without any question the decision to rule John out as writer of the note? Why haven't you expressed some degree of skepticism regarding that decision? The same "experts" gave Patsy a 4.5 out of 5, saying it was unlikely she wrote the note. Did you accept THAT? No! So why accept their conclusion regarding John, as though it were handed down from on high?
>Again, docg: there was NO reason for John to lie and tell publicly on CNN that it was HE who told Patsy to call the police. And by doing that, run the risk that Patsy made a surprised face, and maybe said something like "Oh, but ...."
IMO John ran a great many risks. That was only one. He took chances, sure. He had to.
>Your whole theory hangs by a thread: your mere assumption that Patsy (without realizing it) foiled John's plan by calling the police.
But this assumption of yours is in NO way corroborated by ANY testimony in this case.
>On CNN, in the Ramseys' own book, in SteveThomas' book - no conflicting testimonies at all: John told Patsy to call the police.
Try the Tracey documentary. You'll find the contradiction there. Patsy said it was HER idea. Their story is clearly a fabrication. I'm sure you'd agree to that. But you then need to ask yourself "why"? Why would they have needed to lie about what happened prior to that phone call?
>But if this was the case, your whole theory dissolves in smoke, docg.
Not really. It's the only theory that doesn't. Yours dissolved long ago, but you refuse to admit it. You'll be on that Patsy bandwagon forever, shouting to the rooftops that the note "just screams Patsy." (It doesn't.) If there's so much evidence that Patsy did it, she'd have been indicted, tried and convicted long ago. On the other hand, John has hardly been considered by anyone investigating or following the case. Simply because he was "ruled out." What a farce!
>You're aware of that, which is why you cling to that fantasy of yours: that Patsy grabbed the phone before John could step in.
>Sorry to repeat myself, but I think if John had wanted to prevent Patsy from calling the police, he would NEVER have let that note lying around and let her read it without him being present. For by doing that, the would lose control of the situation. John could simply not know what Patsy would do, therefore a cool and calculating type like he would not have run such a risk. No way imo.
And I think that if Patsy wrote the note there's no way she'd have called 911 while the body was still in the house. You're trying to interpret the psychology of two people you know very little about. I'm not interested in their psychology, just the logic of the case. It's totally illogical for someone to write a phoney ransom note to stage a phoney kidnapping and then call the police so they can find the body in the house, and figure out that no kidnapping took place, so the note must be insider staging. It's also illogical for Patsy to have written such a note by hand, and then turned it over to the police so they could use it as evidence against her. The theory that such a note was supposed to explain the body in the basement is laughable.
Once the absurdity of this theory is fully grasped, then the ONLY other option (aside from IDI) is to see the note as written by the person who did NOT call the police. It's as simple as that.
All JR had to say to get Patsy to put the phone down was "they'll cut her head off if we call anyone." That would have stopped her right in her tracks, if she had thought JonBenet had really been kidnapped.
Based on the fact that *both* John and Patsy completely disregarded the warnings in the note, not only calling police and inviting friends over, but also risking Burke's safety by sending him out of the house when God knows who has JB and is supposedly watching, I'd say that *both* John and Patsy knew that the RN was bogus, and there were no kidnappers, and therefore no reason to worry that either JonBenet or Burke were in danger.
I just don't think that either John OR Patsy would have allowed the other to call 911 *and* friends over, and I don't think either one of them would have sent Burke out of their protective presence had they thought this RN was real and kidnappers had JonBenet.
I think both of them worked together on this note and on staging the crime. Innocent fiber transfer does not explain Patsy's fibers being in the knot and on the tape and in the paint tray - perhaps one of those places, but all three? Come on. If John's fibers in JonBenet's brand new unwashed size 12/14 undies definitely place him in the staging, then Patsy's jacket fibers in the knot, tray, and tape place her in the staging, too.
John could VERY EASILY have stopped Patsy from calling anyone, if his plan had hinged on it. She may have been a strong woman, but she deferred to her husband, and this situation would have been no different - a sharp NO! from JR would have ended her phone call, esp. after he explained JB's life was threatened.
ANOTHER weird thing about that note too, is that it starts out referring to John as MR. RAMSEY...and then later refers to him as JOHN. I personally think that Patsy wrote it with John's help. I think that he dictated to her what to write. (And of course, she threw a couple of things in on her own...like for example, the motherly advise to John to be rested up (what a stupid thing to put in a ransom note...a REAL kidnapper wouldn't give a rat's patootie if John was rested or not, all they would care about is the money.) IMO
rashomon:
>I'm far from being a gullible person, and nor do I get the impression that posters like TWW, Nuisanceposter and others here are gullible people. Quite the contrary.
Then why have you, like so many others, simply accepted without any question the decision to rule John out as writer of the note? Why haven't you expressed some degree of skepticism regarding that decision? The same "experts" gave Patsy a 4.5 out of 5, saying it was unlikely she wrote the note. Did you accept THAT? No! So why accept their conclusion regarding John, as though it were handed down from on high?
>Again, docg: there was NO reason for John to lie and tell publicly on CNN that it was HE who told Patsy to call the police. And by doing that, run the risk that Patsy made a surprised face, and maybe said something like "Oh, but ...."
IMO John ran a great many risks. That was only one. He took chances, sure. He had to.
>Your whole theory hangs by a thread: your mere assumption that Patsy (without realizing it) foiled John's plan by calling the police.
But this assumption of yours is in NO way corroborated by ANY testimony in this case.
>On CNN, in the Ramseys' own book, in SteveThomas' book - no conflicting testimonies at all: John told Patsy to call the police.
Try the Tracey documentary. You'll find the contradiction there. Patsy said it was HER idea. Their story is clearly a fabrication. I'm sure you'd agree to that. But you then need to ask yourself "why"? Why would they have needed to lie about what happened prior to that phone call?
>But if this was the case, your whole theory dissolves in smoke, docg.
Not really. It's the only theory that doesn't. Yours dissolved long ago, but you refuse to admit it. You'll be on that Patsy bandwagon forever, shouting to the rooftops that the note "just screams Patsy." (It doesn't.) If there's so much evidence that Patsy did it, she'd have been indicted, tried and convicted long ago. On the other hand, John has hardly been considered by anyone investigating or following the case. Simply because he was "ruled out." What a farce!
>You're aware of that, which is why you cling to that fantasy of yours: that Patsy grabbed the phone before John could step in.
>Sorry to repeat myself, but I think if John had wanted to prevent Patsy from calling the police, he would NEVER have let that note lying around and let her read it without him being present. For by doing that, the would lose control of the situation. John could simply not know what Patsy would do, therefore a cool and calculating type like he would not have run such a risk. No way imo.
And I think that if Patsy wrote the note there's no way she'd have called 911 while the body was still in the house. You're trying to interpret the psychology of two people you know very little about. I'm not interested in their psychology, just the logic of the case. It's totally illogical for someone to write a phoney ransom note to stage a phoney kidnapping and then call the police so they can find the body in the house, and figure out that no kidnapping took place, so the note must be insider staging. It's also illogical for Patsy to have written such a note by hand, and then turned it over to the police so they could use it as evidence against her. The theory that such a note was supposed to explain the body in the basement is laughable.
Once the absurdity of this theory is fully grasped, then the ONLY other option (aside from IDI) is to see the note as written by the person who did NOT call the police. It's as simple as that.
Well, SOMEBODY HAD to call 911.....they just couldn't leave JB's body in the basement FOREVER...and never report her missing to the police. (Now THAT would have been just a "little" suspicious"). Patsy is the more dramatic of the two...the best liar....the best actress. So, of course...she is the obvious choice to make that 911 call. And I am sure that they thought that a mother's frantic plea to the 911 operator, would be more convincing than the dad's. The pilot had to have known that they were leaving early on their trip...because, after all...the pilot had to be there to fly the plane, so he had to have had to know their schedule. So, that...IMO...is the reason that the call came when it did. That would have been pretty dumb of them to wait until say, 8:00 am or so, they had to call early, to make it coincide with them getting up early for their trip. (IMO)
nuisanceposter
12-11-2006, 01:54 PM
Absolutely, Ames. They HAD to call the police, and they HAD to do it when they got up and would have found the note. The note is there to explain the body, which I believe JR thought police would find soon after arriving. Without the note, there is no reason for police to suspect a intruder, other than JR's shabby window story, which falls short of convincing. The note explains why JonBenet isn't in bed where the Rs say they left her, and it gives police someone other than the Rs to suspect and chase down. Without the note, the suspicion falls right on them...with it, there's a boogeyman to blame.
Both J&P had to know the RN was fake, or they would have adhered to the instructions and heeded the death threats. I think they still would have called 911, but I think the call would have sounded a lot different if they had thought JB was really kidnapped - something like, "our daughter is gone, there's a note, and it says they'll kill her if they know we call you. Please send help but PLEASE don't alert the kidnappers we've called you. It says they're watching us."
Absolutely, Ames. They HAD to call the police, and they HAD to do it when they got up and would have found the note. The note is there to explain the body, which I believe JR thought police would find soon after arriving. Without the note, there is no reason for police to suspect a intruder, other than JR's shabby window story, which falls short of convincing. The note explains why JonBenet isn't in bed where the Rs say they left her, and it gives police someone other than the Rs to suspect and chase down. Without the note, the suspicion falls right on them...with it, there's a boogeyman to blame.
Both J&P had to know the RN was fake, or they would have adhered to the instructions and heeded the death threats. I think they still would have called 911, but I think the call would have sounded a lot different if they had thought JB was really kidnapped - something like, "our daughter is gone, there's a note, and it says they'll kill her if they know we call you. Please send help but PLEASE don't alert the kidnappers we've called you. It says they're watching us."
Yes, I agree with you...the fact that they totally disregarded the threats...is one of the reasons that I suspect them. And Patsy didn't mention not ONE of those threats to the 911 operator....so, she must have not been too concerned with JB being beheaded. And the only reason for her lack of concern can only be expained by the fact that she KNEW where JB was, and she KNEW that JB was already dead. She may have called before finishing the note (IF she hadn't of been the author)....BUT...John was reading it on his hands and knees (yeah, right!)...so, it looks like when he got to that part...he would have yelled to her to tell the 911 operator that "little" detail (that JB would be beheaded if they so much as talked to a dog). (IMO)
Absolutely, Ames. They HAD to call the police, and they HAD to do it when they got up and would have found the note. The note is there to explain the body, which I believe JR thought police would find soon after arriving. Without the note, there is no reason for police to suspect a intruder, other than JR's shabby window story, which falls short of convincing. The note explains why JonBenet isn't in bed where the Rs say they left her, and it gives police someone other than the Rs to suspect and chase down. Without the note, the suspicion falls right on them...with it, there's a boogeyman to blame.
Both J&P had to know the RN was fake, or they would have adhered to the instructions and heeded the death threats. I think they still would have called 911, but I think the call would have sounded a lot different if they had thought JB was really kidnapped - something like, "our daughter is gone, there's a note, and it says they'll kill her if they know we call you. Please send help but PLEASE don't alert the kidnappers we've called you. It says they're watching us."
The note is NOT about a body in the basement. It is about a kidnapping that didn't happen. Once the body is found, the note no longer stages anything -- it points to the Ramseys. And if Patsy wrote it, it would point straight to her. There was no need to call the police so early. They could easily have cancelled their travel plans, claiming someone was ill. The note provided the perfect excuse NOT to call, how is it possible to miss that? And if they decided to call anyhow, then that note becomes a liability. Why hand that over to the police as evidence against you? If you must have a note, write another one consistent with a serial killer or a taunting note or something really creepy, the sort of thing a maniac might write. Not a ransom note for a kidnapping that never happened. That looks exactly like what it was: phoney. And it point to someone on the inside, NOT an intruder. The ONLY reason John got away with it was the dumb decision to rule him out on the basis of an inadequate representation of his printing -- cordially provided by HIM.
Yes, I agree, it's hard to believe Patsy would have made that call against John's wishes. It's hard to believe she'd have been willing to lie to back up his version of the story. But it's IMPOSSIBLE to believe she'd have written such a note and then called 911, knowing the note would then become not only pointless but also suspicious and the police would have a HUGE piece of evidence with HER writing on it. The note was clearly written by someone who did NOT want the police called. Patsy called. John didn't. I don't care if he was "ruled out" by the Pope himself, John was the ONLY one with a reason to write that note.
thewhitewitch:
>Gee, DocG. That's pretty arrogant of you to insult "almost everyone following this case" because some of us don't happen to agree with your version of what happened that you can't prove one way or another.
I wasn't insulting you, I was trying to wake you out of your dogmatic slumber (as the saying goes). :) If I didn't have a high regard for the intelligence of the people on this forum I wouldn't post here. To me this case is truly bizarre for several reasons, one of which is the sheer blindness of so many following it, their unwillingness to see certain things that are right there in front of their eyes. That doesn't make you stupid. It makes you, well: gullible.
>I also was rather disgusted with the way you dismissed Cherokees analysis of the RN as being ameturish. Do you have some special credentials that we are unaware of?
Yes, I have a degree in skepticism.
>To think that Patsy never questioned whether John was involved is stupid; especially if he asked her to change her story and say that he is the one who told her to call 911. Wouldn't she question why? I would. If they had to view all of the evidence to get their stories straight (ever changing, though they were), wouldn't she wonder why their stories had to match if the truth were being told?
Wouldn't YOU wonder why she'd call 911 after having written a phoney ransom note? Wouldn't YOU wonder why she'd want to hand police evidence against her? Wouldn't YOU wonder why John was ruled out and no one else ever was? Apparently not. People believe what they want to believe, see what they want to see and ignore what they don't. Gullibility. Patsy was gullible. She was manipulated. What can I say? It can happen to the best of us.
>Do you honestly think that JR did all of these things to his daughter while Patsy laid in bed oblivious to his absence there for hours?
Apparently she did. Maybe he slipped something into her drink. She was never tested for drugs, neither was he. It's also possible she did awake and did notice he wasn't in bed -- but was prevailed upon to lie about that as well.
It's all a matter of what you are prepared to believe and on what basis. I'm prepared to believe all the things you can't -- because I'm NOT prepared to believe Patsy would be so stupid as to call the cops on herself. You are obviously prepared to believe she was. If you can believe THAT you might as well believe the intruder theory, because it's not one bit nuttier.
The note is NOT about a body in the basement. It is about a kidnapping that didn't happen. Once the body is found, the note no longer stages anything -- it points to the Ramseys. And if Patsy wrote it, it would point straight to her. There was no need to call the police so early. They could easily have cancelled their travel plans, claiming someone was ill. The note provided the perfect excuse NOT to call, how is it possible to miss that? And if they decided to call anyhow, then that note becomes a liability. Why hand that over to the police as evidence against you? If you must have a note, write another one consistent with a serial killer or a taunting note or something really creepy, the sort of thing a maniac might write. Not a ransom note for a kidnapping that never happened. That looks exactly like what it was: phoney. And it point to someone on the inside, NOT an intruder. The ONLY reason John got away with it was the dumb decision to rule him out on the basis of an inadequate representation of his printing -- cordially provided by HIM.
Yes, I agree, it's hard to believe Patsy would have made that call against John's wishes. It's hard to believe she'd have been willing to lie to back up his version of the story. But it's IMPOSSIBLE to believe she'd have written such a note and then called 911, knowing the note would then become not only pointless but also suspicious and the police would have a HUGE piece of evidence with HER writing on it. The note was clearly written by someone who did NOT want the police called. Patsy called. John didn't. I don't care if he was "ruled out" by the Pope himself, John was the ONLY one with a reason to write that note.
FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH PATSY:
PR: And I uh, screamed for John. He was up in our bedroom still and he came running down and uh, I told him that there was a note that said she had been kidnapped. And uh, uh, I think he, he said, I said, ‘What should I do. What should I do,’ or something and he said, ‘Call the police,’ and I think somewhere, I remember I said something about, you know, check Burke or something and I think he ran back and checked burke and I ran back down the stairs and then he came downstairs. He was just in his underwear and he uh, took the note and I remember him being down hunched on the floor read, with all three pages out like that reading it and uh, and he said, ‘Call 911’ or ‘Call the police,’ or something and then I did. I called them and uh, and then I called the Whites and the Fernies and told them that she had been kidnapped or said come over quickly or something and they came over and the policeman came and uh, then the Whites and the Fernies were there and uh . . .Oh, I think the policeman was asking, you know, he kind of like, I think he kind of got us (inaudible) in the sun room or something.
So, Patsy is lying??
shill
12-11-2006, 04:09 PM
thewhitewitch:
>Do you honestly think that JR did all of these things to his daughter while Patsy laid in bed oblivious to his absence there for hours?
Apparently she did. Maybe he slipped something into her drink. She was never tested for drugs, neither was he. It's also possible she did awake and did notice he wasn't in bed -- but was prevailed upon to lie about that as well.
I have to agree with TWW. It would be difficult and risky for either parent to try and sneak out of bed for some time to do this. For John to drug Patsy is just one more thing to add to his to-do list, and he would have to have sedated her knowing he was going to execute this plan of his.
rashomon
12-11-2006, 05:31 PM
Wouldn't YOU wonder why she'd call 911 after having written a phoney ransom note? Wouldn't YOU wonder why she'd want to hand police evidence against her? Wouldn't YOU wonder why John was ruled out and no one else ever was? Apparently not.
Where is your source that only John was ruled out as the author of the note?
As far as I'm informed, Patsy was one of the few people who could not be ruled out as the author, so it seems many othes were ruled out too.
And no, I wouldn't wonder why the Ramseys called the police. Not at all. They had to call them.
Sorry to have to repeat myself from a few posts back, but has it ever occurred to you that the Ramseys had come to the conclusion that it was too much of a risk to dump the body somewhere outside?
You make it seem as if it is child's play to get rid of a body.
Another thing to consider: criminal profilers have pointed out that parents who have killed their children often can't bring themselves to dump the body somewhere like a piece of trash. This could also have played a role here.
The Ramseys had to keep the note, for otherwise they would have been arrested on the spot. A child who died a violent death in her own home, with both parents having been present in the home when she died.
What would you have done as the investigator in charge of the crime scene in that case? See what I mean?
The Ramseys had to weigh the risks, and therefore working with their concocted note (strange as it may seem at first sight) was the smaller risk.
[TWW]>Do you honestly think that JR did all of these things to his daughter while Patsy laid in bed oblivious to his absence there for hours?
Very important point TWW.
The Ramseys shared a common bedroom, which is why I think it is totally unrealistic to assume that one of them could have carried all this out alone (assault JB, stage the scene, compose the ransom note) without the spouse becoming aware sometime during the night of what was going on.
Louisadelmar
12-11-2006, 06:21 PM
Where is your source that only John was ruled out as the author of the note?
As far as I'm informed, Patsy was one of the few people who could not be ruled out as the author, so it seems many othes were ruled out too.
[...]
I asked before but you must have missed it. How many people do you think were ruled out as the author. Approximate/per cent/whatever. What is your source? How few is few if Patsy was one of the few?
FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH PATSY:
PR: And I uh, screamed for John. He was up in our bedroom still and he came running down and uh, I told him that there was a note that said she had been kidnapped. And uh, uh, I think he, he said, I said, ‘What should I do. What should I do,’ or something and he said, ‘Call the police,’ and I think somewhere, I remember I said something about, you know, check Burke or something and I think he ran back and checked burke and I ran back down the stairs and then he came downstairs. He was just in his underwear and he uh, took the note and I remember him being down hunched on the floor read, with all three pages out like that reading it and uh, and he said, ‘Call 911’ or ‘Call the police,’ or something and then I did. I called them and uh, and then I called the Whites and the Fernies and told them that she had been kidnapped or said come over quickly or something and they came over and the policeman came and uh, then the Whites and the Fernies were there and uh . . .Oh, I think the policeman was asking, you know, he kind of like, I think he kind of got us (inaudible) in the sun room or something.
So, Patsy is lying??
Excuse me? You need a question mark at the end of your last sentence? Obviously she's lying. The question is "why"? If you think she's telling the truth you might as well buy into the intruder theory, build a shrine to Lou Smit, and assure Lin Wood he doesn't suck after all. :lol:
rashomon:
>Where is your source that only John was ruled out as the author of the note?
All the thousands of newspaper articles, books, interviews, etc. that never once mention anyone else being ruled out. Do you really want all those links? :eek:
>As far as I'm informed, Patsy was one of the few people who could not be ruled out as the author, so it seems many othes were ruled out too.
If you can find a single source for that other than Steve Thomas I'll be happy to retract. Steve is to Lou Smit what Tweedle Dum was to Tweedle Dee. And I DO mean Dum.
>And no, I wouldn't wonder why the Ramseys called the police. Not at all. They had to call them.
>Sorry to have to repeat myself from a few posts back, but has it ever occurred to you that the Ramseys had come to the conclusion that it was too much of a risk to dump the body somewhere outside?
You make it seem as if it is child's play to get rid of a body.
The note was written expressly so they would NOT have to call them. Read it again and you'll see. It was far riskier to leave the body in the house then to use the note as an excuse to get it out first, before calling the police.
>Another thing to consider: criminal profilers have pointed out that parents who have killed their children often can't bring themselves to dump the body somewhere like a piece of trash. This could also have played a role here.
If they didn't want to dump the body then there'd be no reason to use that note. It would only make them look more suspicious, not less.
>The Ramseys had to keep the note, for otherwise they would have been arrested on the spot. A child who died a violent death in her own home, with both parents having been present in the home when she died.
>What would you have done as the investigator in charge of the crime scene in that case? See what I mean?
If it were me I'd have hauled them in for questioning that day and kept them under lock and key until I got some real answers, not dodges. But my main reason for suspecting them would definitely have been the note. The note and the body in the house do NOT go together. The note never helped them, why would it? You think the police were too stupid to figure out that the note was obviously NOT written by a kidnapper? They made mistakes, sure, but they weren't idiots. The ONLY reason the note didn't get them arrested was the failure of the "experts" to figure out who wrote it. If Patsy wrote it, she's have been a fool to hand it over to them. I don't think John ever planned on handing it over to them. If I'm right, he wouldn't have had to.
>The Ramseys had to weigh the risks, and therefore working with their concocted note (strange as it may seem at first sight) was the smaller risk.
The fact that you and so many others can think that way is, to me, the greatest mystery of all. A hand printed note is evidence against the person who wrote it. Neither Patsy nor John were professional forgers. Why would they want to hand such a note over to the authorities, where it could send them to the chair? If you want to stage a breakin and murder by an intruder, then stage a breakin, make it look like someone broke a window and entered via the basement. Don't write a note for no reason, staging a kidnapping you don't intend to follow through on, calling the police with the body still in the house. And if you must have a note, paste something really short together from a magazine, something scary and vindictive sounding, NOT a ransom note -- because there was obviously no kidnapping! Get it?
As I've said before, this case is not the slam dunk you think it is. If it were, the killer would now be behind bars. It's not obvious. You have to read between the lines, think outside the box, or you're lost.
>The Ramseys shared a common bedroom, which is why I think it is totally unrealistic to assume that one of them could have carried all this out alone (assault JB, stage the scene, compose the ransom note) without the spouse becoming aware sometime during the night of what was going on.
What's totally unrealistic is what YOU think happened. THAT's impossible. Everything else that bothers you may seem unlikely. But it's NOT impossible. That's the difference between your theory and mine.
elvislives
12-11-2006, 08:30 PM
[QUOTE=docg;8787883]rashomon:
>>
If it were me I'd have hauled them in for questioning that day and kept them under lock and key until I got some real answers, not dodges.
Hey Docg, unfortunately the police do not have "subpoena" power. If someone doesn't want to talk to the police, they don't have to. The police have no right to hold anyone under lock and key unless they arrest them--And since the Rs were not charged, they were well within their rights to tell the police to get lost which they obviously did. Thats the system, like it or not.
Sprocket
12-11-2006, 10:09 PM
The police have no right to hold anyone under lock and key unless they arrest them--
I don't know how it is in Colorado, but in some states they do have the ability to hold someone for 24 hours to question them. They can refuse to talk, but from my understanding, they can bring someone in for quesitoning.
I posted this on the Ransom Note thread...but, I think that it fits in pretty good here, too.
The Handwriting
What the Experts said
.
Chet Ubowski, CBI: There is evidence that indicates the ransom note may have been written by Patsy. But the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a definitive conclusion.
Leonard Speckin, private forensic document analyst: "When I compare the handwriting habits of Patsy Ramsey with those in the . . . note, there exists agreement to the extent that some of her individual letter formations and letter combinations do appear in the ransom note. When this agreement is weighed against the number, type and consistency of the differences present, I am unable to identify Patsy Ramsey as the author of the . . . note with any degree of certainty. I am, however, unable to eliminate her as the author."
Edwin F. Alford Jr., private document examiner: "Examination of the questioned handwriting and comparison with the handwriting specimens submitted has failed to provide a basis for identifying Patricia Ramsey as the writer of the letter."
Lloyd Cunningham, Ramsey-hired expert: He cannot identify or eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note. He spent 20 hours examining the samples and documents and found that there were no significant individual characteristics but many significant differences between Patsy's writing and the note.
Richard Dusak, document analyst for the Secret Service: His study concluded that there was no evidence that Patsy wrote the note.
Howard Rile, Ramsey-hired expert: His opinion is between "probably not" and "elimination" of Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note. He believes that the writer could be identified if earlier writing samples were found.
Larry Ziegler, expert hired by Darnay Hoffman - in an email to jameson - " It was determined and is still determined by myself that Patsy Ramsey is the writer of the ransom note." (He later removed himself from the case.)
I only have the depositions from the following experts and will take their answers from their depositions.
Cina Wong, expert hired by Darnay Hoffman - from her deposition:
Question by Lin Wood: "Well, do you feel that you have eliminated all reasonable doubt about whether Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note?
Answer by Cina Wong: In this case, I highly believe she wrote the note.
Q. And please answer my question.
A. I am sorry.
Q. Do you feel that you have eliminated all reasonable doubt?
A. With the people, the possibilities of who could be involved in this case with the three handwriting samples that were given to me and enormous -- the enormous similarities that Patsy Ramsey's handwriting and the note, yes, I believe she is the writer.
Gideon Epstein, expert hired by Darnay Hoffman - from his deposition
Q. What is your degree of certainty yourself as you sit here today that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note?
A. I am absolutely certain that she wrote the note.
I will provide a link if needed. Score...Patsy..2 votes, Maybe's...3 votes, Not Patsy...2 votes. Two votes for Patsy plus the three "maybes". This certainly proves to me...that PATSY is the author of the note. IMO
[QUOTE=docg;8787883]rashomon:
>>
If it were me I'd have hauled them in for questioning that day and kept them under lock and key until I got some real answers, not dodges.
Hey Docg, unfortunately the police do not have "subpoena" power. If someone doesn't want to talk to the police, they don't have to. The police have no right to hold anyone under lock and key unless they arrest them--And since the Rs were not charged, they were well within their rights to tell the police to get lost which they obviously did. Thats the system, like it or not.
I'd have told them either talk or be detained on suspicion of murder. That's how it's usually done. Innocent people usually don't have to be intimidated into cooperating with the police, but in this case that probably would have been necessary. They'd have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. And spend the night in the slammer if they decided to clam up.
Coloradokares
12-11-2006, 10:54 PM
I don't know how it is in Colorado, but in some states they do have the ability to hold someone for 24 hours to question them. They can refuse to talk, but from my understanding, they can bring someone in for quesitoning.
They can bring you in but to hold you the 24 hours they better have more than harassment on the mind. Everyone has the right to refuse to questioning without an attorney present. That is the Miranda.
Coloradokares
12-11-2006, 10:58 PM
[QUOTE=elvislives;8787928]
I'd have told them either talk or be detained on suspicion of murder. That's how it's usually done. Innocent people usually don't have to be intimidated into cooperating with the police, but in this case that probably would have been necessary. They'd have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. And spend the night in the slammer if they decided to clam up.
Elvislives in Denver no doubt that would have happend. But the call went down right after the 911 these were the RAMSEYS....Lockheed and connected.... Treat with every courtesy.....what a nightmare that created.
I miscalculated...
SCORE:
PATSY wrote the note...THREE votes
Patsy DID NOT write the note....two votes
Patsy MAYBE wrote the note....two votes
Cannot Eliminate....One vote
PROBABLY NOT...One vote
I posted this on the Ransom Note thread...but, I think that it fits in pretty good here, too.
The Handwriting
What the Experts said
.
Chet Ubowski, CBI: There is evidence that indicates the ransom note may have been written by Patsy. But the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a definitive conclusion.
Leonard Speckin, private forensic document analyst: "When I compare the handwriting habits of Patsy Ramsey with those in the . . . note, there exists agreement to the extent that some of her individual letter formations and letter combinations do appear in the ransom note. When this agreement is weighed against the number, type and consistency of the differences present, I am unable to identify Patsy Ramsey as the author of the . . . note with any degree of certainty. I am, however, unable to eliminate her as the author."
Edwin F. Alford Jr., private document examiner: "Examination of the questioned handwriting and comparison with the handwriting specimens submitted has failed to provide a basis for identifying Patricia Ramsey as the writer of the letter."
Lloyd Cunningham, Ramsey-hired expert: He cannot identify or eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note. He spent 20 hours examining the samples and documents and found that there were no significant individual characteristics but many significant differences between Patsy's writing and the note.
Richard Dusak, document analyst for the Secret Service: His study concluded that there was no evidence that Patsy wrote the note.
Howard Rile, Ramsey-hired expert: His opinion is between "probably not" and "elimination" of Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note. He believes that the writer could be identified if earlier writing samples were found.
Larry Ziegler, expert hired by Darnay Hoffman - in an email to jameson - " It was determined and is still determined by myself that Patsy Ramsey is the writer of the ransom note." (He later removed himself from the case.)
I only have the depositions from the following experts and will take their answers from their depositions.
Cina Wong, expert hired by Darnay Hoffman - from her deposition:
Question by Lin Wood: "Well, do you feel that you have eliminated all reasonable doubt about whether Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note?
Answer by Cina Wong: In this case, I highly believe she wrote the note.
Q. And please answer my question.
A. I am sorry.
Q. Do you feel that you have eliminated all reasonable doubt?
A. With the people, the possibilities of who could be involved in this case with the three handwriting samples that were given to me and enormous -- the enormous similarities that Patsy Ramsey's handwriting and the note, yes, I believe she is the writer.
Gideon Epstein, expert hired by Darnay Hoffman - from his deposition
Q. What is your degree of certainty yourself as you sit here today that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note?
A. I am absolutely certain that she wrote the note.
I will provide a link if needed. Score...Patsy..2 votes, Maybe's...3 votes, Not Patsy...2 votes. Two votes for Patsy plus the three "maybes". This certainly proves to me...that PATSY is the author of the note. IMO
I miscalculated...
SCORE:
PATSY wrote the note...THREE votes
Patsy DID NOT write the note....two votes
Patsy MAYBE wrote the note....two votes
Cannot Eliminate....One vote
PROBABLY NOT...One vote
shill
12-12-2006, 12:01 AM
Another thing to consider: criminal profilers have pointed out that parents who have killed their children often can't bring themselves to dump the body somewhere like a piece of trash. This could also have played a role here.
I doubt this criminal profile applies to parents who bind, strangle, and violate their daughter.
And how is leaving her in a dirty dark room so much better then dumping her body like a piece of trash?
Sprocket
12-12-2006, 12:22 AM
I doubt this criminal profile applies to parents who bind, strangle, and violate their daughter.
And how is leaving her in a dirty dark room so much better then dumping her body like a piece of trash?
Trash is often not found for months and months. Inside the house, she has a much better opportunity to be found, and properly buried, her body still intact and not torn apart, decomposed by the elements.
Louisadelmar
12-12-2006, 12:33 AM
I miscalculated...
SCORE:
PATSY wrote the note...THREE votes
Patsy DID NOT write the note....two votes
Patsy MAYBE wrote the note....two votes
Cannot Eliminate....One vote
PROBABLY NOT...One vote
So...Out of 9 people only 3 are willing to identify Patsy as the author of the note.
There is a funny bit in Epstein's depo about his reaction to Cina Wong being called a co-expert.
22 Q. Mr. Epstein.
23 A. I don't consider her as my co-expert
24 in this case.
25 Q. Why is that?
0033
1 A. Someone else may consider her as a
2 co-expert in this case, but I don't.
3 Q. Why?
4 A. Because I don't believe that she
5 meets what I and the profession consider to be
6 the necessary qualifications for forensic
7 document examination.
thewhitewitch1
12-12-2006, 12:48 AM
DocG...myself and others have explained to you why we think the ransom note was absolutely needed but you fail to see our logic (much the way we fail to see yours :shrug: ).
No point going round and round about that again.
Patsy did not call 911 on herself; she called it on both of them. Somebody had to make the call. It's funny how you think that she implicated herself by making the call and handing over the note. She certainly never served any jail time, did she? Obviously, too, there are those who still believe it was a failed kidnapping attempt.
I never claimed either way who I think actually penned the note. I think the wording was thought up by both of them. I see John's personality at the beginning of the note and then it tends to gravitate towards Pastys dramatics near the middle and end. Changing "Mr. Ramsey" to John is a definate Patsy and I believe the switch from the notes author from "we" to "I" was Patsys doing too.
John may very well have actually written the note...or perhaps both took turns. It is actually pretty hard to pin down someones handwriting characteristics when the writing instrument is a Sharpie marker.
You are right....I am not gullible and I don't believe Patsy was gullible either. At some point during her life, she was going to have questions in her own mind about John if he did this alone. There is no way on Earth he could have hidden it from her all that time. Only an idiot wouldn't question why their husband would talk them into telling a lie to authorities. The truth is the truth and need not be altered unless you have something to hide.
I am going to concede that Cherokees reasoning that the ransom note explains why she was killed is rather off. Unless the Ramseys thought that the LE would believe the killer was still in the house when they made the 911 call and killed her at that time, I do not see the logic in it, since she had been dead for quite a while. But I still can't dismiss it as what the Ramseys were trying to convey in that note. They were not mastermind criminals and I find it hard to believe that they were cool, calm and collect while trying to set up their kidnapping scenerio.
If John intended on dumping JBs body, he had ample time to do it. So why didn't he? Are you saying that he was going to dump her body later? When? How? How was he going to carry the suitcase with her body in it past Patsy? Don't you think it would be obvious that it was heavy?
I think I am going to stick with my opinion that they were both in on it.
If you think that John did all of this by himself right under Patsy and Burkes noses, you may as well buy into the intruder theory and build a shrine to Smit and assure Lin Wood that he doesn't suck afterall. :seeya:
thewhitewitch1:
>DocG...myself and others have explained to you why we think the ransom note was absolutely needed but you fail to see our logic (much the way we fail to see yours :shrug: ).
Logic? That's what it is?
>No point going round and round about that again.
Please, no more.
>Patsy did not call 911 on herself; she called it on both of them. Somebody had to make the call. It's funny how you think that she implicated herself by making the call and handing over the note. She certainly never served any jail time, did she? Obviously, too, there are those who still believe it was a failed kidnapping attempt.
No one but diehard Ramsey supporters like Smit ever believed it was a failed kidnapping attempt. Not even Jameson bought into that one, nor did the BPD, the FBI or even DA Hunter. Patsy never served any jail time because she didn't write the note. There was never ANY real evidence of ANY kind against her. However, the ONLY reason she was a suspect at all was because of the note. John was ruled out and she wasn't, so everyone assumed she must have written it. But no one could prove it -- because she didn't. If she'd written it she'd have been arrested, tried and convicted.
>John may very well have actually written the note...or perhaps both took turns. It is actually pretty hard to pin down someones handwriting characteristics when the writing instrument is a Sharpie marker.
You are right....I am not gullible and I don't believe Patsy was gullible either.
You mean I'm wrong.
>At some point during her life, she was going to have questions in her own mind about John if he did this alone. There is no way on Earth he could have hidden it from her all that time.
He's hidden it from just about everyone else, why not her?
>Only an idiot wouldn't question why their husband would talk them into telling a lie to authorities. The truth is the truth and need not be altered unless you have something to hide.
Patsy wasn't Columbo, she wasn't interested in investigating her husband. She wanted to believe him so she did. They were all "white lies" anyhow, with no direct bearing on the case. John and possibly his lawyers probably convinced her it would be better for both of them if she said nothing about their disagreement regarding that phone call. A matter of legal strategy rather than a coverup. I can see her buying into something like that. I CAN'T see her writing the note and then calling 911 on herself.
>I am going to concede that Cherokees reasoning that the ransom note explains why she was killed is rather off.
The problem with Cherokees "reasoning" is that she has no scientific training and wouldn't know scientific method if it hit her over the head. She sees what she wants to see and ignores everything else. The whole style of the note is totally and completely different from Patsy's writing style, from beginning to end. Sure there are some similarities of detail, so what? Millions of people form their letters in very similar ways. But each ones style is unique.
>Unless the Ramseys thought that the LE would believe the killer was still in the house when they made the 911 call and killed her at that time, I do not see the logic in it, since she had been dead for quite a while. But I still can't dismiss it as what the Ramseys were trying to convey in that note. They were not mastermind criminals and I find it hard to believe that they were cool, calm and collect while trying to set up their kidnapping scenerio.
Every single i was dotted, every t crossed. Does that sound like your "off the wall" Patsy Ramsey?
>If John intended on dumping JBs body, he had ample time to do it. So why didn't he? Are you saying that he was going to dump her body later? When? How?
Read my theory. He did not have ample time to do it without taking a tremendous risk. He would have had plenty of time if Patsy hadn't called 911 when she did. Of course he was going to dump the body later. He was going to follow the instructions in the note "to the letter." And dump the body in the process. Read the note and you'll see how.
>How was he going to carry the suitcase with her body in it past Patsy? Don't you think it would be obvious that it was heavy?
Her body wouldn't fit in that suitcase. He'd have packed Patsy and Burke off with friends, "for their own safety." He would then be home alone and in complete control of the situation.
>I think I am going to stick with my opinion that they were both in on it.
If you think that John did all of this by himself right under Patsy and Burkes noses, you may as well buy into the intruder theory and build a shrine to Smit and assure Lin Wood that he doesn't suck afterall. :seeya:
You need to use your imagination more and rely on your opinion less. There are all sorts of ways to do things, not just one or two.
shill
12-12-2006, 01:27 AM
The ransom note is a paradox.:punch:
[QUOTE=docg;8787883]rashomon:
>>
If it were me I'd have hauled them in for questioning that day and kept them under lock and key until I got some real answers, not dodges.
Hey Docg, unfortunately the police do not have "subpoena" power. If someone doesn't want to talk to the police, they don't have to. The police have no right to hold anyone under lock and key unless they arrest them--And since the Rs were not charged, they were well within their rights to tell the police to get lost which they obviously did. Thats the system, like it or not.
Hmmm, I thought the police could hold a person(s) for a limited time period, under suspicion, to give them time to find evidence or to verify an alibi... maybe this varies from state to state?
[QUOTE=Ames;8787949]I posted this on the Ransom Note thread...but, I think that it fits in pretty good here, too.
Handwriting can not be used as evidence in court, therefore, I (personally) discount all of them. The only thing they can do is offer validation for suspicion in an investigation. I also discount the DNA as solid evidence for obvious reasons, unless the newer technology presents a wider range for a match. If it doesn't match enough to stand as solid evidence, they cannot use it in court but can use it as an investigative tool to possibly capture more solid evidence. IMO
They did ....its pure bunk they didn't. If not explain Lou Smit....
I believe they were targeting the Ramsey's from day one... IMO, of course.
The ransom note is a paradox.:punch:
I am in agreement with this, Shill... one day we will know the meaning of the note and its underlying messages...to John from someone that he deeply angered/humbled by his authority and power.
So...Out of 9 people only 3 are willing to identify Patsy as the author of the note.
There is a funny bit in Epstein's depo about his reaction to Cina Wong being called a co-expert.
22 Q. Mr. Epstein.
23 A. I don't consider her as my co-expert
24 in this case.
25 Q. Why is that?
0033
1 A. Someone else may consider her as a
2 co-expert in this case, but I don't.
3 Q. Why?
4 A. Because I don't believe that she
5 meets what I and the profession consider to be
6 the necessary qualifications for forensic
7 document examination.
Yes, but don't forget the MAYBES and the PROBABLY nots....those are not DEFINATE conclusions....IMO
nuisanceposter
12-12-2006, 11:13 AM
I believe they were targeting the Ramsey's from day one... IMO, of course.
Yeah...police tend to follow where the evidence leads, and there's way more evidence indicating Ramsey involvement than anyone else. BPD weren't the only ones who thought so.
Coloradokares
12-12-2006, 12:19 PM
I believe they were targeting the Ramsey's from day one... IMO, of course.
And your entitled to your opinion, however a fortune in taxdollars was spent investigating alot of others besides the Ramseys. The Whites the Barnhills the McReynolds this list also goes on and on. No doubt that the Ramseys were the primary suspects that has never been denied as that is where all the evidence always pointed as far as LE was concerned however they did have to investigate and clear many others as well.
nuisanceposter
12-12-2006, 12:29 PM
I'm really tired of this lie that the police focused on the Ramseys and didn't follow up on other suspects. People really need to read all the books, and get more than one viewpoint of the case before they decide the lies they've heard from the RST are the truth.
What do you IDI people think Thomas, Gosage, Trujillo, et al were doing every effin day for three years in this investigation? Sitting there trying to decide how else they could persecute the sainted Rs? They spent hundreds of hours chasing down all the tips and leads, traveling to other states to follow up on suspects, such as John Brewer Eustace in NC.
Wake the hell up. The parents are the primary suspects in any child's murder investigation, and sadly, there is forensic evidence tying both Rs to the crime scene and the body, and there isn't enough forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night.
The Ramseys were not the only suspects. They just happened to be the ones home at the time of the murder with fibers on the dead child and a slew of contradicting stories about what happened, and gosh, there's no conclusive evidence of anyone else having been there. If it weren't for them hiring Haddon et al, who just happened to be big old buddies from way back with Hunter, and the corrupted crime scene, the Ramseys would be in jail for what they did to JonBenet. Moo.
rashomon
12-12-2006, 12:34 PM
[QUOTE=docg;8787730]
[rashomon]:
>But if this was the case, your whole theory dissolves in smoke, docg.
[docg]:
Not really. It's the only theory that doesn't.
Of course it does docg. For if it WAS in fact John who told Patsy to call the police, it blows your whole theory out of the window.
That Patsy grabbed the phone before John could step in is a mere fantasy of yours, serving to support your scenario.
Sorry to repeat myself, but I think if John had wanted to prevent Patsy from calling the police, he would NEVER have let that note lying around and let her read it without him being present. For by doing that, the would lose control of the situation. John could simply not know what Patsy would do, therefore a cool and calculating type like he would not have run such a risk. No way imo.
And you think John had wanted to burn the note only to tell the police later, "The kidnappers told me to put the note in the money bag!"
Don't you think the police would have told John: "And you highly intelligent CEO didn't at least make a copy??!!"
Your scenario borders on the comical, docg. Why do think kidnappers don't demand their ransom notes back? Because people would of course make copies before.
So, the police would have got to see that whole idiotic bogus note anyway.
Despite the i's being dotted and the t's crosed, the notes' letters are shaky and slant to the left and right in no particular order. To me this note does look as if a person in a state of emotinal turmoil wrote it.
Pasy btw was ambidextrous and could also have written the note with her left hand.
You think John would have sent Patsy and Burke to friends to be able to dispose of the body. In broad daylight?
In addition, sending them to friends would be against the instructions of the RN.
What's totally unrealistic is what YOU think happened. THAT's impossible. Everything else that bothers you may seem unlikely. But it's NOT impossible. That's the difference between your theory and mine.
If you present a theory, you have to build in all the evidence. You can't just pick and choose what suits you, like you did with the fiber evidence.
Or fill in the holes of your theory with a mere Fata Morgana of yours: "Patsy grabbed the phone before John could, etc."
But if you do do all that, your theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny and falls apart.
Docg, there exist probably as many theories on JBR forums as there are posters, lol, and your theory is just one among many.
It is not a bad yarn, but the fabric you have woven from that yarn has major holes in it.
For your theory disregards the forensic and other circumstantial evidence which points to Patsy's involvement.
Plus, you hinge everything on circumstantial evidence which doesn't exist. (phone call scenario)
Yeah...police tend to follow where the evidence leads, and there's way more evidence indicating Ramsey involvement than anyone else. BPD weren't the only ones who thought so.
.... "thought" does not make a person guilty....
I'm really tired of this lie that the police focused on the Ramseys and didn't follow up on other suspects. People really need to read all the books, and get more than one viewpoint of the case before they decide the lies they've heard from the RST are the truth.
What do you IDI people think Thomas, Gosage, Trujillo, et al were doing every effin day for three years in this investigation? Sitting there trying to decide how else they could persecute the sainted Rs? They spent hundreds of hours chasing down all the tips and leads, traveling to other states to follow up on suspects, such as John Brewer Eustace in NC.
Wake the hell up. The parents are the primary suspects in any child's murder investigation, and sadly, there is forensic evidence tying both Rs to the crime scene and the body, and there isn't enough forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night.
The Ramseys were not the only suspects. They just happened to be the ones home at the time of the murder with fibers on the dead child and a slew of contradicting stories about what happened, and gosh, there's no conclusive evidence of anyone else having been there. If it weren't for them hiring Haddon et al, who just happened to be big old buddies from way back with Hunter, and the corrupted crime scene, the Ramseys would be in jail for what they did to JonBenet. Moo.
Reading the books is not going to produce anymore evidence than is already available, folks. Each of those books, just like this forum, are based on the writer's opinion. If evidence were so great, why aren't people serving time?
rashomon:
>Of course it does docg. For if it WAS in fact John who told Patsy to call the police, it blows your whole theory out of the window.
Yours too. If they were in on it together then their whole story is a lie from beginning to end.
>That Patsy grabbed the phone before John could step in is a mere fantasy of yours, serving to support your scenario.
It may not make much sense to you, but it certainly makes more sense than the two of them conspiring to stage a phoney kidnapping, writing a phoney ransom note, and then calling the police with the body in the house.
>Sorry to repeat myself, but I think if John had wanted to prevent Patsy from calling the police, he would NEVER have let that note lying around and let her read it without him being present. For by doing that, the would lose control of the situation. John could simply not know what Patsy would do, therefore a cool and calculating type like he would not have run such a risk. No way imo.
Logic and common sense beat amateur psychology any day of the week.
>And you think John had wanted to burn the note only to tell the police later, "The kidnappers told me to put the note in the money bag!"
Don't you think the police would have told John: "And you highly intelligent CEO didn't at least make a copy??!!"
Oh, he'd have made a copy all right. And shown the original to some friends as well, who could serve as witnesses.
>Your scenario borders on the comical, docg. Why do think kidnappers don't demand their ransom notes back? Because people would of course make copies before.
Real kidnappers wouldn't care if he made a copy. They'd want the original, with its potentially incriminating handwriting evidence. At least that's how John would have explained it.
>So, the police would have got to see that whole idiotic bogus note anyway.
Not the original, no. John's hand printed copy.
>Despite the i's being dotted and the t's crosed, the notes' letters are shaky and slant to the left and right in no particular order. To me this note does look as if a person in a state of emotinal turmoil wrote it.
No, it was written by a very cool headed person trying to disguise his hand as best he could. To fool Patsy and their friends. I'm sure he'd have been in a state of turmoil, for sure. But John has a reputation as someone with a very cool head. He needed to pull himself together and he did.
>Pasy btw was ambidextrous and could also have written the note with her left hand.
I think John was also. Though he probably kept that fact very close to the vest.
>You think John would have sent Patsy and Burke to friends to be able to dispose of the body. In broad daylight?
No. He'd have done it the following night. That was when the kidnappers instructed him to deliver the ransom.
>In addition, sending them to friends would be against the instructions of the RN.
Well if he wrote it, he wouldn't care about that, would he?
>If you present a theory, you have to build in all the evidence. You can't just pick and choose what suits you, like you did with the fiber evidence.
Or fill in the holes of your theory with a mere Fata Morgana of yours: "Patsy grabbed the phone before John could, etc."
But if you do do all that, your theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny and falls apart.
My theory is the ONLY one that takes all the evidence into account. Where it gets speculative is where it fills in blanks not covered by any evidence. That's what ANY successful theory of this or any other case would HAVE to do. Nothing in my theory is contradicted by ANY of the real evidence.
>Docg, there exist probably as many theories on JBR forums as there are posters, lol, and your theory is just one among many.
Nope. It's the only one that both accounts for ALL the evidence and fully explains what happened and why.
>Plus, you hinge everything on circumstantial evidence which doesn't exist. (phone call scenario)
I think a very strong circumstantial case against John could be made, solely on the basis of the evidence we now have. I also think it would be a good idea to further investigate and question John, based on the issues I've raised. But until the authorities can get over the absurd decision to rule him out, that will never happen.
Coloradokares
12-12-2006, 01:30 PM
I'm really tired of this lie that the police focused on the Ramseys and didn't follow up on other suspects. People really need to read all the books, and get more than one viewpoint of the case before they decide the lies they've heard from the RST are the truth.
What do you IDI people think Thomas, Gosage, Trujillo, et al were doing every effin day for three years in this investigation? Sitting there trying to decide how else they could persecute the sainted Rs? They spent hundreds of hours chasing down all the tips and leads, traveling to other states to follow up on suspects, such as John Brewer Eustace in NC.
Wake the hell up. The parents are the primary suspects in any child's murder investigation, and sadly, there is forensic evidence tying both Rs to the crime scene and the body, and there isn't enough forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night.
The Ramseys were not the only suspects. They just happened to be the ones home at the time of the murder with fibers on the dead child and a slew of contradicting stories about what happened, and gosh, there's no conclusive evidence of anyone else having been there. If it weren't for them hiring Haddon et al, who just happened to be big old buddies from way back with Hunter, and the corrupted crime scene, the Ramseys would be in jail for what they did to JonBenet. Moo.
You sure your not from Colorado? Spoken like a true Coloradoan. You do a excellent rendition of Jane Doe Boulder. All thats missing is the birkenstocks and I am sure you come to Boulder we can get you the apparel to look the part. :) I am kidding but serious at the same time. No one is more emotional regarding this murder than most of Boulder. We at least had enough to have a trial and present all the evidence and determine guilt or innocence don't you think? David Camm has sat out in the Indiana prison on far less evidence for years. IMHO Scott Peterson sits on death row in CA with far far far less evidence. You speak the truth Nusianceposter. :beer: But there were more factors at play right from the beginning calls were made immediately following the 911 call going in and realization it involved the Ramseys. Those who placed those calls should be held accountable. Every officer who gave a pass and played politics should be held to account. No call should ever be made to police to give anyone special considerations. The law should apply equally!! This is a nation of laws. Its a pitiful shame that even has to be said. IMHO Had it applied equally that day....we quite possilby would not be sitting here debating this 10 years after the fact. Alex Hunter should be held to account and made to explain this whole situation as well. He was elected to prosecute crime. I will not answer the question if asked prosecute who? Every time I say this crime should have been prosecuted I am asked prosecute who...... Prosecute where the evidence led. If the perponderance of the evidence led to the Easter Bunny's doorstep than indict the Easter Bunny!!! Not wait for the Easter Bunny to confess!! The Easter Bunny isn't confessing to nothing!! He knows nothing about any colored eggs and is confused about who left the hutch open. I think "they" know who killed JonBenet. But will it ever go to trial? Let me put it this way it is my opinion that if this crime had occured in Denver .....all we'd be discussing is time served and date and strategy of the next appeals. At least OJ was tried. Now he tries to write that hypothetical book IF I were to have killed Nicole and Ron Goldman this is how I might have done it. ARGHHHHHH!!!!! JMO. I will now get down off my soapbox and be quiet a while longer.
nuisanceposter
12-12-2006, 01:54 PM
Reading the books is not going to produce anymore evidence than is already available, folks. Each of those books, just like this forum, are based on the writer's opinion. If evidence were so great, why aren't people serving time?
Three reasons the Rs aren't in jail, in my opinion - unsecured crime scene allowed to be contaminated, corrupt officials, namely the district attorney, and the Ramseys' ultra aggressive defense team with connections to said corrupt officials. Here's an example: Lin Wood threatened Mary Lacy and Boulder with a libel suit, and she took custody of the case from the BPD. How convenient for the case to be in the hands of the Ramsey-friendly DA's office. JonBenet never had a chance at justice as long as Hunter's protegee and Patsy Ramsey funeral attendee Mary Lacy has the case. IMO.
nuisanceposter
12-12-2006, 02:05 PM
Here, everyone, I've found an actual accounting of what BPD was doing in their investigation. I can't copy the info because I didn't write it and the author has stated s/he doesn't their post reproduced elsewhere, so go here:
http://www.acandyrose.com/08262004DejaNu-BoulderPressReleases.htm
Ramsey Update #84, from Dec. 17th, 2001, starting a little less than halfway down the page. Read the whole page. It's interesting information about the truth of this case.
bullmoose
12-12-2006, 02:11 PM
The fact that the BPD were over at Fleet White's house on the afternoon of 12/26 questioning Burke, illegally, of course, is more than enough proof for me that the BPD had already zeroed in on the Ramseys as the only suspects.NP: just a small detail you got wrong on your last last post about Thomas being on the investigation for three effin years; as I recall, Thomas twisted away and in fact quit the BPD, remember his resignation letter? after only eighteen months. Right?:biggrin:
Louisadelmar
12-12-2006, 02:12 PM
Here, everyone, I've found an actual accounting of what BPD was doing in their investigation. I can't copy the info because I didn't write it and the author has stated s/he doesn't their post reproduced elsewhere, so go here:
http://www.acandyrose.com/08262004DejaNu-BoulderPressReleases.htm
Ramsey Update #84, from Dec. 17th, 2001, starting a little less than halfway down the page. Read the whole page. It's interesting information about the truth of this case.
There's a bit in Green River Running Red where Ann Rule (or maybe it was a detective) talks about how when LE has nothing to say they start trotting out those sorts of statistics. Ever since reading that I'm always amused when I see it done in other cases.
nuisanceposter
12-12-2006, 02:31 PM
The fact that the BPD were over at Fleet White's house on the afternoon of 12/26 questioning Burke, illegally, of course, is more than enough proof for me that the BPD had already zeroed in on the Ramseys as the only suspects.NP: just a small detail you got wrong on your last last post about Thomas being on the investigation for three effin years; as I recall, Thomas twisted away and in fact quit the BPD, remember his resignation letter? after only eighteen months. Right?:biggrin:
Of course they questioned Burke. He was in the home at the time of the murder, he may have had valuable information. I think you're making too big a deal of the police not getting permission for that, just like the Rs did. If they hadn't asked Burke questions, they'd complain about that ("police weren't thorough enough - they didn't even talk to Burke!"), and since the intruder did it, then the Rs have nothing to fear by police talking to Burke, now do they? J&P didn't bother to ask him about what he might have heard...someone had to. BPD would have been shoddy in their investigation not to, and not going through the Rs first in no way indicates there was any "zeroing in" on the part of the cops. It's SOP to interview everyone in the house at the time of the murder.
Ahhh, but I didn't say just Thomas. I mentioned Gosage and Trujillo, too, who were still there after Thomas left.
nuisanceposter
12-12-2006, 02:34 PM
There's a bit in Green River Running Red where Ann Rule (or maybe it was a detective) talks about how when LE has nothing to say they start trotting out those sorts of statistics. Ever since reading that I'm always amused when I see it done in other cases.
This is a different kind of case. BPD was being forced to account for their time, expenses, what have you by people who insisted they weren't looking at anyone other the Rs. Sadly, there are still people who insist that.
Coloradokares
12-12-2006, 02:44 PM
The fact that the BPD were over at Fleet White's house on the afternoon of 12/26 questioning Burke, illegally, of course, is more than enough proof for me that the BPD had already zeroed in on the Ramseys as the only suspects.NP: just a small detail you got wrong on your last last post about Thomas being on the investigation for three effin years; as I recall, Thomas twisted away and in fact quit the BPD, remember his resignation letter? after only eighteen months. Right?:biggrin:
Anytown Anytime USA you have a dead body found in the house all occupants of that house will be interviewd by a lawenforcement officer.
They felt they had received permission to do the interview according to the officer. They were going to interview Burke either there or down at the station so to speak. The only thing that was going to alter on that was that a specialized officer would be present along with childs representation. There is only so far that any investigative team can go to cooperate. The Ramseys were handled with kid gloves as it was. Not that I agree that the Ramseys shouldn't have had to have signed for an interview procedure with Burke if that is what was required.
Three reasons the Rs aren't in jail, in my opinion - unsecured crime scene allowed to be contaminated, corrupt officials, namely the district attorney, and the Ramseys' ultra aggressive defense team with connections to said corrupt officials. Here's an example: Lin Wood threatened Mary Lacy and Boulder with a libel suit, and she took custody of the case from the BPD. How convenient for the case to be in the hands of the Ramsey-friendly DA's office. JonBenet never had a chance at justice as long as Hunter's protegee and Patsy Ramsey funeral attendee Mary Lacy has the case. IMO.
The ONLY reason no one is in jail: No solid evidence.
Anytown Anytime USA you have a dead body found in the house all occupants of that house will be interviewd by a lawenforcement officer.
They felt they had received permission to do the interview according to the officer. They were going to interview Burke either there or down at the station so to speak. The only thing that was going to alter on that was that a specialized officer would be present along with childs representation. There is only so far that any investigative team can go to cooperate. The Ramseys were handled with kid gloves as it was. Not that I agree that the Ramseys shouldn't have had to have signed for an interview procedure with Burke if that is what was required.
This may vary from state to state but here if a minor is interviewed by a police investigator, they must first either obtain parental approval or have a child advocate assigned to the child by the court. ...this is all with atty rep being present, of course
thewhitewitch1
12-12-2006, 03:40 PM
rashomon:
>Of course it does docg. For if it WAS in fact John who told Patsy to call the police, it blows your whole theory out of the window.
Yours too. If they were in on it together then their whole story is a lie from beginning to end.
>That Patsy grabbed the phone before John could step in is a mere fantasy of yours, serving to support your scenario.
It may not make much sense to you, but it certainly makes more sense than the two of them conspiring to stage a phoney kidnapping, writing a phoney ransom note, and then calling the police with the body in the house.
>Sorry to repeat myself, but I think if John had wanted to prevent Patsy from calling the police, he would NEVER have let that note lying around and let her read it without him being present. For by doing that, the would lose control of the situation. John could simply not know what Patsy would do, therefore a cool and calculating type like he would not have run such a risk. No way imo.
Logic and common sense beat amateur psychology any day of the week.
>And you think John had wanted to burn the note only to tell the police later, "The kidnappers told me to put the note in the money bag!"
Don't you think the police would have told John: "And you highly intelligent CEO didn't at least make a copy??!!"
Oh, he'd have made a copy all right. And shown the original to some friends as well, who could serve as witnesses.
>Your scenario borders on the comical, docg. Why do think kidnappers don't demand their ransom notes back? Because people would of course make copies before.
Real kidnappers wouldn't care if he made a copy. They'd want the original, with its potentially incriminating handwriting evidence. At least that's how John would have explained it.
>So, the police would have got to see that whole idiotic bogus note anyway.
Not the original, no. John's hand printed copy.
>Despite the i's being dotted and the t's crosed, the notes' letters are shaky and slant to the left and right in no particular order. To me this note does look as if a person in a state of emotinal turmoil wrote it.
No, it was written by a very cool headed person trying to disguise his hand as best he could. To fool Patsy and their friends. I'm sure he'd have been in a state of turmoil, for sure. But John has a reputation as someone with a very cool head. He needed to pull himself together and he did.
>Pasy btw was ambidextrous and could also have written the note with her left hand.
I think John was also. Though he probably kept that fact very close to the vest.
>You think John would have sent Patsy and Burke to friends to be able to dispose of the body. In broad daylight?
No. He'd have done it the following night. That was when the kidnappers instructed him to deliver the ransom.
>In addition, sending them to friends would be against the instructions of the RN.
Well if he wrote it, he wouldn't care about that, would he?
>If you present a theory, you have to build in all the evidence. You can't just pick and choose what suits you, like you did with the fiber evidence.
Or fill in the holes of your theory with a mere Fata Morgana of yours: "Patsy grabbed the phone before John could, etc."
But if you do do all that, your theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny and falls apart.
My theory is the ONLY one that takes all the evidence into account. Where it gets speculative is where it fills in blanks not covered by any evidence. That's what ANY successful theory of this or any other case would HAVE to do. Nothing in my theory is contradicted by ANY of the real evidence.
>Docg, there exist probably as many theories on JBR forums as there are posters, lol, and your theory is just one among many.
Nope. It's the only one that both accounts for ALL the evidence and fully explains what happened and why.
>Plus, you hinge everything on circumstantial evidence which doesn't exist. (phone call scenario)
I think a very strong circumstantial case against John could be made, solely on the basis of the evidence we now have. I also think it would be a good idea to further investigate and question John, based on the issues I've raised. But until the authorities can get over the absurd decision to rule him out, that will never happen.
If I knew how to snip this, I would so sorry for copying the entire thing.
DocG...I wasn't aware that the RN gave a time for the ransom to be delivered. Wasn't the phone call that never came supposed to do that?
nuisanceposter
12-12-2006, 03:46 PM
That's technically true...the author stated they'd call between 8 and 10 tomorrow to give instructions for delivery, then advises JR to rest up because it will be exhausting.
TWW, all I do to snip is leave some of the quote, highlight the part to be snipped, and hit cut. Then I write <snip> and I'm done. :)
rashomon
12-12-2006, 06:22 PM
rashomon:
[QUOTE]If they were in on it together then their whole story is a lie from beginning to end.
Of course it is. Both Ramseys lied, for both were involved.
Logic and common sense beat amateur psychology any day of the week.
I'll leave it to to others to assess how much 'logic and comon sense' is in e. g. your trying to explain away the fiber evidence against Patsy Ramsey (see post # 301 on this thread).
Oh, he'd have made a copy all right. And shown the original to some friends as well, who could serve as witnesses.
So he ran over to friends, showed them the original, but did not call the police? Give me a break, docg. Where's your alleged logic and common sense? The police would have challenged John on that: "The ransom note threatened you not to call anyone (friends or police), but yet you showed that note to friends?"
And remember that your point was that the police should never get to see the nonsense John had written in the note especially designed to 'convince' Patsy. (see your theory on webbsleuths).
But now, in recent posts, you suddenly talk about a copy.
So per you, the police would have been able read the ransom note's nonsensical contents after all. That was my point.
I think a very strong circumstantial case against John could be made, solely on the basis of the evidence we now have.
Sure, docg.
John's defense lawyer would have a field day with you trying to tie to John Patsy's fibers in the garrote wrappings, on the duct tape and in the paint tray. Not to mention the other evidence which implicates her in the crime.
If I knew how to snip this, I would so sorry for copying the entire thing.
DocG...I wasn't aware that the RN gave a time for the ransom to be delivered. Wasn't the phone call that never came supposed to do that?
Yes it was. I was just quoting what John might have said to the investigators when they asked about that. If you read the note carefully you'll figure out the plan behind it. The note was specifically designed to put John Ramsey in complete charge of the situation and do all sorts of things he could later say the "kidnappers" told him to do.
rashomon:
>I'll leave it to to others to assess how much 'logic and comon sense' is in e. g. your trying to explain away the fiber evidence against Patsy Ramsey (see post # 301 on this thread).
No need to explain it away. Patsy lived in that house, it was HER paint tote and her brush and her daughter, with whom she was in close contact with several times that night. You're not offering evidence, you're having a National Enquirer inspired wet dream.
>So he ran over to friends, showed them the original, but did not call the police? Give me a break, docg. Where's your alleged logic and common sense? The police would have challenged John on that: "The ransom note threatened you not to call anyone (friends or police), but yet you showed that note to friends?"
"Yes, officer, I felt I had to get my wife and child out of the house for their own safety, so we called in friends and asked them to come over. The note said it was up to ME to deal with the kidnappers and I took that responsibility very seriously."
>And remember that your point was that the police should never get to see the nonsense John had written in the note especially designed to 'convince' Patsy. (see your theory on webbsleuths).
But now, in recent posts, you suddenly talk about a copy.
So per you, the police would have been able read the ransom note's nonsensical contents after all. That was my point.
What looks to YOU like nonsense is what John would have wanted the police to buy as his reason for being seen driving his car in some deserted place in the middle of the night. The content of the note was part of his plan. There is no other explanation of that note that makes any sense at all. Read it again with an open mind, if possible, and you'll see. You've been fed a load of crap about that note based on the fantasies of people like Steve Thomas and some hack writers at the National Enquirer.
>Sure, docg.
John's defense lawyer would have a field day with you trying to tie to John Patsy's fibers in the garrote wrappings, on the duct tape and in the paint tray. Not to mention the other evidence which implicates her in the crime.
Well Patsy's defense lawyers didn't even need to try. There was no case against her to begin with. And no one wanted to even look at John, so here we are, ten years later.
thewhitewitch1
12-12-2006, 11:41 PM
QUOTE DocG:
"Yes, officer, I felt I had to get my wife and child out of the house for their own safety, so we called in friends and asked them to come over. The note said it was up to ME to deal with the kidnappers and I took that responsibility very seriously."
Ransom note says "if we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies".
So he thinks the kidnappers would think it was okay to call in some friends but not the police? And the police are going to buy that? Well, alrighty then.
QUOTE DocG:
"Yes, officer, I felt I had to get my wife and child out of the house for their own safety, so we called in friends and asked them to come over. The note said it was up to ME to deal with the kidnappers and I took that responsibility very seriously."
Ransom note says "if we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies".
So he thinks the kidnappers would think it was okay to call in some friends but not the police? And the police are going to buy that? Well, alrighty then.
So maybe he slipped up on that little detail. I never said it was an airtight plan. And the authorities would have been extremely suspicious, no question. But with the body out of the house and the original of the note destroyed, they'd have had no evidence. With any amount of luck he might well have gotten away with it.
shill
12-13-2006, 02:14 AM
So maybe he slipped up on that little detail. I never said it was an airtight plan. And the authorities would have been extremely suspicious, no question. But with the body out of the house and the original of the note destroyed, they'd have had no evidence. With any amount of luck he might well have gotten away with it.
If John went to the bank and dumped JB's body on the way, I think he would of got away with it, with out getting rid of the note.
rashomon
12-13-2006, 08:43 AM
rashomon:
I think a very strong circumstantial case against John could be made, solely on the basis of the evidence we now have. I also think it would be a good idea to further investigate and question John, based on the issues I've raised. But until the authorities can get over the absurd decision to rule him out, that will never happen.
Docg:
What evidence is there against John? Aside from the fibers in the crotch area of JB's underpants, there is NO forensic
evidence to tie him to the staging of the crime sene, let alone to the killing of JB.
The fibers in the garrote are Patsy's, and even if (in your opinion) John should not have been excluded as he author of the RN, still Patsy could not be ruled out by the CBI and other experts (but John was).
Pure speculation won't hold up in court: for the prosecution needs to PROVE to the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, and the burden of proof would be a very tough one in the Ramsey case, no matter if the defendant's name was Patsy or John.
You are wrong to assume that I think the case is a 'slam dunk'. Quite the contrary, it is most intricate. The reason is that there are many variables in the case, such as:
- strictly speaking, it CANNOT be automatically be concluded that :
- JB's abuser was also her killer.
- the person who struck the fatal head blow was also JB's abuser.
- the stager of the garrote scene was also the person who struck the fatal head blow.
- the ransom note writer was also the person who killed JB.
So even if, let's say, it could be proved that Patsy Ramsey had written the ransom note, this doesn't have to mean that she was the one who also killed JB.
The Ramseys profited from the fact that there were two suspects.
For example, no prosecutor in the world would be able to prove which of the Ramseys delivered the fatal head bash. Not even the weapon was found (nor the object identified against JB's head was struck).
Sure there was the maglite wiped clean of fingerprints, but even this maglite needn't have been the weapon. Maybe it was used by the Ramseys to light the basement.
Any defense team would take huge advantage from these things which would complicate the issue for the prosecution.
Docg:
What evidence is there against John? Aside from the fibers in the crotch area of JB's underpants, there is NO forensic
evidence to tie him to the staging of the crime sene, let alone to the killing of JB.
The fibers in the garrote are Patsy's, and even if (in your opinion) John should not have been excluded as he author of the RN, still Patsy could not be ruled out by the CBI and other experts (but John was).
Pure speculation won't hold up in court: for the prosecution needs to PROVE to the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, and the burden of proof would be a very tough one in the Ramsey case, no matter if the defendant's name was Patsy or John.
<snip>
Thanks for this thorough review of the very real difficulties in making a case against John. You are absolutely right when you state that there is very little in the way of hard evidence directly implicating him. While I do think one could nevertheless make a convincing circumstantial case against John based on what we now know, I would feel a lot better if certain key aspects of the case were more thoroughly investigated first. That would include a very thorough and tough interrogation of John, based on certain vague and/or misleading aspects of his prior testimony. If he refuses to be questioned, he should be informed that such a refusal would result in immediate arrest for murder. There's enough circumstantial evidence, IMO, to book and indict him, though perhaps not overcome reasonable doubt. That would be for a jury to decide.
What requires additional investigation? 1. The court document at Brugnatelli's website, while not proof of a match, does tell us that John should never have been ruled out. It also very strongly suggests the possibility that John may have deliberately provided the authorities with exemplars that were incomplete and misleading. What must first be determined is whether this is in fact a sample of John's printing or someone elses. I see no reason to assume it isn't authentic, but that must be determined beyond doubt. If it is authentic, there should be an investigation as to why the "experts" never saw either that document or any other that resembled it. According to Jameson the exemplars that were presented look nothing like either this document or the note.
2. IMO John's Achilles heel is the broken window in the basement. Both his actions and his testimony regarding this window are highly suspicious -- and point to HIM, not Patsy, since he is the one who both closed the window AND failed to report it, despite his claim that he was looking for clues. A thorough investigation must be undertaken regarding his story about breaking that window earlier. If he didn't have his key, who did, and will that person so testify? If he was returning from a business trip, where was it, when was it, who did he meet and can these people corroborate his story? The housekeeper, Linda Pugh must be interrogated thoroughly to determine whether her denial of any knowledge of any broken window is in fact the truth. Etc.
3. IMO there is no question that John's fibers were found in JonBenet's crotch, as stated by one of the investigators questioning him. If he refuses to offer any innocent explanation for how they got there, then that is definitely evidence that points to HIM. Patsy's fibers are far more easily explained.
thewhitewitch1
12-13-2006, 11:31 AM
So maybe he slipped up on that little detail. I never said it was an airtight plan. And the authorities would have been extremely suspicious, no question. But with the body out of the house and the original of the note destroyed, they'd have had no evidence. With any amount of luck he might well have gotten away with it.
I can't believe there could ever be no evidence. There is always something. Forensic science is a wonderful thing. You'd be surprised at what they can find out about one little clue as small as a blade of grass stuck to a tire, a piece of dirt etc.
There is no perfect crime and dumping her body would have been far riskier than leaving it in the basement.
I believe Patsy did not want him to dump her body because it was important to her for JB to have a "proper burial." No matter what happened, I believe Patsy loved JB (in her own narccisistic way) and John loved her too. I can't believe either of them would dump her body somewhere to be eaten by wild animals and possibly never found. A proper burial was very important; as stated in the RN. IMO
LindaA
12-13-2006, 12:05 PM
<snip>
2. IMO John's Achilles heel is the broken window in the basement. Both his actions and his testimony regarding this window are highly suspicious -- and point to HIM, not Patsy, since he is the one who both closed the window AND failed to report it, despite his claim that he was looking for clues. A thorough investigation must be undertaken regarding his story about breaking that window earlier. If he didn't have his key, who did, and will that person so testify? If he was returning from a business trip, where was it, when was it, who did he meet and can these people corroborate his story? The housekeeper, Linda Pugh must be interrogated thoroughly to determine whether her denial of any knowledge of any broken window is in fact the truth. Etc.
I agree on all points.
3. IMO there is no question that John's fibers were found in JonBenet's crotch, as stated by one of the investigators questioning him. If he refuses to offer any innocent explanation for how they got there, then that is definitely evidence that points to HIM. Patsy's fibers are far more easily explained.
I belive there is a question as to whether John's shirt was the source of the fibers founds in JB's crotch. We have no indication they actually exsisted or match JR's shirt. He did not answer the question on advice of his lawyer; it was not his decision. It could well have been a bluff either by Levin or by LE who providd the questions. There are conflicting reports as to the color of those fibers, so we can't be sure what they match.
JMO.
If John went to the bank and dumped JB's body on the way, I think he would of got away with it, with out getting rid of the note.
John would NOT have dumped JonBenet's body on the way to the bank, no. That would have defeated the whole purpose of the note. If he'd been spotted in some remote spot BEFORE raising the ransom, his game would have been up. No, he had to do everything in the proper order, just as prescribed in the note: get an "attache," or some sort of briefcase, go to the bank, collect the cash in the proper denominations, and then head home, to await the "kidnapper's" call. Since he'd have collected the money early, they'd have called him early, on his cell phone, of course, while on his way back from the bank. The call would have instructed him to wait till dark, and then deliver the ransom to some remote spot in the mountains. He'd have waited till dark and then driven to the mountains, where he would, finally, have dumped the body. And burned the note. (He'd have called himself, naturally, using a phone booth located near the bank.)
As far as the note is concerned, I think John made an effort to disguise his hand, for sure. It looks like he used a computer font as a model. He also may have used his left hand. But I really don't think he'd have wanted the authorities to closely examine that note, that would have been far too risky.
sweetcharlotte
12-13-2006, 12:58 PM
I belive there is a question as to whether John's shirt was the source of the fibers founds in JB's crotch. We have no indication they actually exsisted or match JR's shirt. He did not answer the question on advice of his lawyer; it was not his decision. It could well have been a bluff either by Levin or by LE who providd the questions. There are conflicting reports as to the color of those fibers, so we can't be sure what they match.
JMO.
My head is much better since I quit banging it against this brick wall of
"John's fibers found in JB's crotch." This seems to be an "unproven" notion that some people can't get past. JMO
I can't believe there could ever be no evidence. There is always something. Forensic science is a wonderful thing. You'd be surprised at what they can find out about one little clue as small as a blade of grass stuck to a tire, a piece of dirt etc.
There is no perfect crime and dumping her body would have been far riskier than leaving it in the basement.
I believe Patsy did not want him to dump her body because it was important to her for JB to have a "proper burial." No matter what happened, I believe Patsy loved JB (in her own narccisistic way) and John loved her too. I can't believe either of them would dump her body somewhere to be eaten by wild animals and possibly never found. A proper burial was very important; as stated in the RN. IMO
IMO, if he had been able to carry out his original plan, it may well have backfired on him, yes. It would have risky for sure. Ironically, the failed plan may have actually worked better for him, because it produced so much confusion, the authorities were never able to figure out what happened or why. But if he'd been able to pull it off without a hitch, the plan I see in that note would have had a decent chance of ensuring that he wouldn't be a suspect for long. On the other hand, there's no way he would have wanted to let himself in for the mess that actually occured. Sure, he never went to prison, but his life was turned upside down and his fortune is gone forever.
Whether Patsy wanted the body dumped or not, there's no way she'd have agreed to call the cops with the body in the house and hand them a note that "just screams Patsy." If they had decided to forget about dumping JonBenet, then they'd have forgotten about the note also. With the body in the house, a phoney ransom note looks like a phoney ransom note. It no longer serves ANY purpose other than providing evidence against the person who wrote it. NO jury would ever believe otherwise, sorry, the Patsy dunnit theory would be laughed out of court.
It's my way or the intruder way, WW, I don't see any alternative. Either John wrote the note and Patsy is innocent OR it was an intruder. No WAY they could be in on it together.
thewhitewitch1
12-13-2006, 03:37 PM
OUOTE DocG:
Whether Patsy wanted the body dumped or not, there's no way she'd have agreed to call the cops with the body in the house and hand them a note that "just screams Patsy." If they had decided to forget about dumping JonBenet, then they'd have forgotten about the note also. With the body in the house, a phoney ransom note looks like a phoney ransom note. It no longer serves ANY purpose other than providing evidence against the person who wrote it. NO jury would ever believe otherwise, sorry, the Patsy dunnit theory would be laughed out of court.
It's my way or the intruder way, WW, I don't see any alternative. Either John wrote the note and Patsy is innocent OR it was an intruder. No WAY they could be in on it together.
END QUOTE
I beg to differ, DocG. The note "just screams Patsy?" Others would disagree...including yourself! Why don't you "get" that there had to be a note? What other note could there have been besides a ransom note? A note taunting them and pointing directly towards the body? Without that note, they'd have been arrested on the spot. I don't understand how you fail to see that. Like I said before, some people still think it was a "kidnapping gone wrong."
It isn't your way or an intruder did it and of course you don't see any alternative. You totally believe your theory...to the point where your mind is closed.
There is every way they both could be in on it together. It only worked because they were in on it together. IMO
shill
12-13-2006, 04:11 PM
I think no note would have worked. They wake up, find JB missing, call the cops, body found, it looks like a pervert broke in and had his way with JB and killed her and left.
It would look like a sex crime instead of a sex crime-kidnapping gone wrong.
I think it would cast less suspicion on the Ramseys if they do not write the ransom note.
bullmoose
12-13-2006, 05:00 PM
To shill: Are you trying to say that had there been no ransom note found, less suspicion would have fallen upon the Ramseys? If so, then I agree, the very strange note only served to cast suspician on the parents, which is why it was written and left,IMO. I am an IDI, I think whoever did it was trying to destroy the Ramseys in every way that he/they could.
Thanks for this thorough review of the very real difficulties in making a case against John. You are absolutely right when you state that there is very little in the way of hard evidence directly implicating him. While I do think one could nevertheless make a convincing circumstantial case against John based on what we now know, I would feel a lot better if certain key aspects of the case were more thoroughly investigated first. That would include a very thorough and tough interrogation of John, based on certain vague and/or misleading aspects of his prior testimony. If he refuses to be questioned, he should be informed that such a refusal would result in immediate arrest for murder. There's enough circumstantial evidence, IMO, to book and indict him, though perhaps not overcome reasonable doubt. That would be for a jury to decide.
What requires additional investigation? 1. The court document at Brugnatelli's website, while not proof of a match, does tell us that John should never have been ruled out. It also very strongly suggests the possibility that John may have deliberately provided the authorities with exemplars that were incomplete and misleading. What must first be determined is whether this is in fact a sample of John's printing or someone elses. I see no reason to assume it isn't authentic, but that must be determined beyond doubt. If it is authentic, there should be an investigation as to why the "experts" never saw either that document or any other that resembled it. According to Jameson the exemplars that were presented look nothing like either this document or the note.
2. IMO John's Achilles heel is the broken window in the basement. Both his actions and his testimony regarding this window are highly suspicious -- and point to HIM, not Patsy, since he is the one who both closed the window AND failed to report it, despite his claim that he was looking for clues. A thorough investigation must be undertaken regarding his story about breaking that window earlier. If he didn't have his key, who did, and will that person so testify? If he was returning from a business trip, where was it, when was it, who did he meet and can these people corroborate his story? The housekeeper, Linda Pugh must be interrogated thoroughly to determine whether her denial of any knowledge of any broken window is in fact the truth. Etc.
3. IMO there is no question that John's fibers were found in JonBenet's crotch, as stated by one of the investigators questioning him. If he refuses to offer any innocent explanation for how they got there, then that is definitely evidence that points to HIM. Patsy's fibers are far more easily explained.
This may have already been discussed...but, I thought that you would like to know that John Ramsey is on Barbara Walters list of the 10 Most Facinating People of 2006. Geez....what IS this world coming to?? She should have added OJ to the list, while she was at it...(IMO)
I beg to differ, DocG. The note "just screams Patsy?" Others would disagree...including yourself! Why don't you "get" that there had to be a note? What other note could there have been besides a ransom note? A note taunting them and pointing directly towards the body? Without that note, they'd have been arrested on the spot. I don't understand how you fail to see that. Like I said before, some people still think it was a "kidnapping gone wrong."
It isn't your way or an intruder did it and of course you don't see any alternative. You totally believe your theory...to the point where your mind is closed.
There is every way they both could be in on it together. It only worked because they were in on it together. IMO
I certainly don't think the note "screams Patsy." And others also disagree on that score, certainly. But YOU think it "screams Patsy," no? If Patsy wrote it, and it DID "scream Patsy" then she's the dumbest criminal in recorded history for handing such an incriminating document over to the police. And if she was up all night and didn't change her clothes in the morning, then that makes her even dumber. Not to mention using her own pad, her own pen, her own paintbrush. C'mon, NO ONE is that dumb. You stage to point away from yourself, NOT toward yourself. The note doesn't scream Patsy to me because it looks and sounds totally different from her. She didn't write it!
What the note screams is: STAGING!!!! What good could such a note possibly do for them? It would ONLY work as staging if a kidnapping had actually been staged. But that never happened. Conclusion: either both of them are innocent, or John wrote the note as part of a staging plan that went wrong.
I'm not in love with my theory. In fact I changed theories several times before settling on this one. And if any solid evidence contradicting my theory comes along I'll drop it instantly. What I AM in love with is simple logic, common sense, and evidence. If a theory fails on any of those three counts I won't buy it, sorry.
I certainly don't think the note "screams Patsy." And others also disagree on that score, certainly. But YOU think it "screams Patsy," no? If Patsy wrote it, and it DID "scream Patsy" then she's the dumbest criminal in recorded history for handing such an incriminating document over to the police. And if she was up all night and didn't change her clothes in the morning, then that makes her even dumber. Not to mention using her own pad, her own pen, her own paintbrush. C'mon, NO ONE is that dumb. You stage to point away from yourself, NOT toward yourself. The note doesn't scream Patsy to me because it looks and sounds totally different from her. She didn't write it!
What the note screams is: STAGING!!!! What good could such a note possibly do for them? It would ONLY work as staging if a kidnapping had actually been staged. But that never happened. Conclusion: either both of them are innocent, or John wrote the note as part of a staging plan that went wrong.
I'm not in love with my theory. In fact I changed theories several times before settling on this one. And if any solid evidence contradicting my theory comes along I'll drop it instantly. What I AM in love with is simple logic, common sense, and evidence. If a theory fails on any of those three counts I won't buy it, sorry.
Why would Patsy tell the investigators that she thought that a "woman wrote it"? I think that Patsy wrote it, with John telling her what to say. IMO
thewhitewitch1
12-14-2006, 02:15 AM
I certainly don't think the note "screams Patsy." And others also disagree on that score, certainly. But YOU think it "screams Patsy," no? If Patsy wrote it, and it DID "scream Patsy" then she's the dumbest criminal in recorded history for handing such an incriminating document over to the police. And if she was up all night and didn't change her clothes in the morning, then that makes her even dumber. Not to mention using her own pad, her own pen, her own paintbrush. C'mon, NO ONE is that dumb. You stage to point away from yourself, NOT toward yourself. The note doesn't scream Patsy to me because it looks and sounds totally different from her. She didn't write it!
What the note screams is: STAGING!!!! What good could such a note possibly do for them? It would ONLY work as staging if a kidnapping had actually been staged. But that never happened. Conclusion: either both of them are innocent, or John wrote the note as part of a staging plan that went wrong.
I'm not in love with my theory. In fact I changed theories several times before settling on this one. And if any solid evidence contradicting my theory comes along I'll drop it instantly. What I AM in love with is simple logic, common sense, and evidence. If a theory fails on any of those three counts I won't buy it, sorry.
Evidently you don't really read my posts. I said that certain aspects of the note sound like both of the Ramseys. I believe they wrote it together and am unsure which one actually penned it.
I never said that it "screamed" Patsy. Certain thing sound like her and others sound like John.
How was the note supposed to be written if not by her own pen and paper? It had to be written on someones paper that was in their home. It could have just as easily have been Johns. Was the Sharpie pen exclusively hers? I doubt it. There is no proof that she or John consciously used those items. They were just where it was convenient to use them; as was the paintbrush.
You don't think that later, in retrospect, Patsy wouldn't have wondered why all of her things were used and not Johns things? That would make it appear as though the "intruder" had it in for her, which totally goes against what the RN implies. More things that should have made her suspect John was involved.
She had a good enough excuse for not changing her clothes. Everyone seemed to buy it, didn't they? Again....how would she even have a clue about fiber evidence? She was not a mastermind criminal!
Patsys declarations of how she always came down those stairs in the morning and how she was always the first one up in the morning just convinces me more and more that she already knew about the note and that was her little discreet way of explaining why the note was placed on the stairs. She wanted everyone to think it was somebody who knew her habits. I am sure that nobody outside the home knew that was her habit. How would they know that? John knew. That should have tipped her off too.
Of course the note screamed "staging"....everything screamed "staging". Again, some people still believe it was a kidnapping gone wrong and for all you know, maybe that's what they intended it to look like.
Whatever the case, they got away with it. So tell me again how dumb Patsy was. They were in on it together.
By the way, where does the pineapple fit in in your scenerio?
shill
12-14-2006, 05:29 AM
If the pineapple doesn't fit, you must acquit!
thewhitewitch1
12-14-2006, 11:56 AM
If the pineapple doesn't fit, you must acquit!
:lol: :lol:
My head is much better since I quit banging it against this brick wall of
"John's fibers found in JB's crotch." This seems to be an "unproven" notion that some people can't get past. JMO
Interesting. If this had been reported in the media, you'd have accepted it. But if it's first hand information, directly from the mouth of one of the investigators, you won't. You say you need to see the report it's based on? Funny, because I've never seen ANYONE on any of the forums demanding to see any of the other reports. What about the DNA report, the handwriting report (that ruled John out), the Butler door report, the stun gun report, etc., etc.? You are happy to accept all that without seeing any reports, but the fiber evidence? No. That you can't accept. No need to bang your head against the wall. Just see what is there before you rather than what you want to see.
thewhitewitch1
12-14-2006, 12:10 PM
I've been thinking about if there were no RN. How might the call to 911 go?
J or P: Please send someone! Our daughter is missing!
Operator: She's missing? When was the last time you saw her?
J or P: Last night when we put her to bed. She's not in her bed! She's gone!
Operator: Have you searched your house for her?
J or P: Umm...no.
Operator: Then how do you know she is missing? Go look in every room. Maybe she's just playing a joke on you.
J or P: She wouldn't do that.
Operator: Go look anyway. I'll hold.
J or P: Ok.
And then what?
It would be stupid to make a 911 or police call regarding a missing child when you haven't even checked to make sure the child was somewhere in the house. If they had searched the house, they would have found her. Then the call would have been totally different and it would have made them look suspicious. Remember, in a case like this, the parents are always the first to be suspected.
The RN gave them a good excuse NOT to search for her in the house and not to be the ones who found her. Too bad in the end they did wind up being the ones but I am sure they never planned it that way.
The ransom note served a purpose after all.
<snippity snip snip>
By the way, where does the pineapple fit in in your scenerio?
Glad you asked. It's one more good reason why the two of them could NOT have been in on it together. If both had been involved, then both would have known about the pineapple. She came home, said she was hungry, and they fed her some pinepapple, why lie about that? It's only if one of them was the one who fed her the pineapple and the other knew nothing about it that there'd be a problem. The innocent one would honestly be able to say she knew nothing about it. The guilty one would be unwilling to admit the truth because he'd have to explain what he was doing in the kitchen with his daughter while his wife and son were upstairs asleep.
Interesting situation. Both give the same answer, that they know nothing about any pineapple. But for two VERY different reasons. It's only when you assume ahead of time that they MUST in on it together, that you then conclude they must both be lying. If you can pry yourself loose from the assumption, then you can at least consider the possibility of a different conclusion.
I've been thinking about if there were no RN. How might the call to 911 go?
J or P: Please send someone! Our daughter is missing!
Operator: She's missing? When was the last time you saw her?
J or P: Last night when we put her to bed. She's not in her bed! She's gone!
<snip>
In a fit of rage, you fatally injure your child, her head gets bashed in, either by "accident" or deliberately. You call 911. You report it as an accident. The police either believe you or they don't. You do NOT stage a kidnapping by writing a phoney ransom note AND then stage a pedophile assault by penetrating your child's vagina AND then stage a psycho style murder by strangling her with a garotte AND then call the police with the body still in the house. That's ludicrous.
It's not just a question of what Patsy would have told the 911 operator if they hadn't written a note. Because if Steve Thomas's scenario is correct, and she was killed or fatally injured by a head blow, the whole thing would have played out differently, from beginning to end. And there would certainly have been no need for a phoney note written in either John or Patsy's hand, which would have explained nothing and could be used as evidence against them.
LindaA
12-14-2006, 02:22 PM
This may have already been discussed...but, I thought that you would like to know that John Ramsey is on Barbara Walters list of the 10 Most Facinating People of 2006. Geez....what IS this world coming to?? She should have added OJ to the list, while she was at it...(IMO)
Oj is definitely iinteresting. I can never believe what he will do next. And JR is an enigma.
To shill: Are you trying to say that had there been no ransom note found, less suspicion would have fallen upon the Ramseys? If so, then I agree, the very strange note only served to cast suspician on the parents, which is why it was written and left,IMO. I am an IDI, I think whoever did it was trying to destroy the Ramseys in every way that he/they could.
I agree with both of you. The so-called 'intruder' may not be an invited guest in the Ramsey home, but then again ... he/they may have been. This could be someone that has been in the home many times but .... on this particular occasion, he/they were not invited because he/they don't celebrate Christmas (being of Islam orientation - 'foreign faction')...
If the pineapple doesn't fit, you must acquit!
Go, Shill ... You Rock!:beer:
Louisadelmar
12-14-2006, 03:11 PM
This may have already been discussed...but, I thought that you would like to know that John Ramsey is on Barbara Walters list of the 10 Most Facinating People of 2006. Geez....what IS this world coming to?? She should have added OJ to the list, while she was at it...(IMO)
I don't understand what the fuss is. She isn't offering these people up for sainthood or claiming that by being on the list they are great people. Here is the list from 2004:
Oprah
Mel Gibson
Karl Rove
Michael Moore
Donald Trump
Paris Hilton
Usher
Ken Jennings
Larry Page and Sergey Brin
Curt Schilling
In 2005 she included Michael Jackson's lawyer. It is just an interview with people who for a variety of reasons played an interesting part in that year's news.
bullmoose
12-14-2006, 03:20 PM
To docg: There is a difference between unreleased reports whose contents have been largely leaked to the media and Imaginary Fibers, whose supposed existence were alluded to but once in an interrogation, but were not mentioned ever again, even by the interrogators when the lawyer for the questionee asked for verification that the fibers in question were in fact real. Since the interrogators dropped the question about the fibers, it was and is painfully obvious that it was simply a trick question to try to get an answer about fibers that were not matching anything in the house. The fibers are Imaginary Fibers, it doesn't matter how many times they are referred to as being real, they are no more real than Santa and his elves. You can write all day long about the Imaginary Fibers or Santa but you won't convince anyone that knows better that they exist.HO!HO!HO!:biggrin:
OJ, Petersen, and all child molestors should be thrown in the ocean (naked), far from any land and let the sharks knaw at them.... we shouldn't have to feed, clothe, and pay for their medical needs (we don't OJ's of course, he got off 'scott' free)....
Coloradokares
12-14-2006, 03:34 PM
To docg: There is a difference between unreleased reports whose contents have been largely leaked to the media and Imaginary Fibers, whose supposed existence were alluded to but once in an interrogation, but were not mentioned ever again, even by the interrogators when the lawyer for the questionee asked for verification that the fibers in question were in fact real. Since the interrogators dropped the question about the fibers, it was and is painfully obvious that it was simply a trick question to try to get an answer about fibers that were not matching anything in the house. The fibers are Imaginary Fibers, it doesn't matter how many times they are referred to as being real, they are no more real than Santa and his elves. You can write all day long about the Imaginary Fibers or Santa but you won't convince anyone that knows better that they exist.HO!HO!HO!:biggrin:
If and when those imaginary fibers are produced as evidence at trial Johns or anyone elses in the defense portion of the trial....please don't be shocked. And Santa is too real I saw him at the Mall yesterday. and the easter bunny, next you'll be telling us the tooth fairy was Mom or Dad. tsk .... One thing is for sure. The grinch is well.
That is my opinion and perhaps should state that the fibers are imaginary in your opinion for that is what we each have an opinion. Only a courtroom will now prove which opinion is correct.
bullmoose
12-14-2006, 03:45 PM
When the Imaginary Fibers are entered into evidence at John Ramseys murder trial, I won't be shocked; I'll be flying to the North Pole with Santa, throwing 100 dollar bills to everyone from the 100 billion dollar sweepstakes I've just won.:biggrin:
bullmoose
12-14-2006, 03:48 PM
Imoimoimo,ok?
Sorry to be the bearer of ugly news, but reindeer don't fly and there isn't one with a red nose that illuminates, either.... life is hard core.
Coloradokares
12-14-2006, 03:52 PM
OJ, Petersen, and all child molestors should be thrown in the ocean (naked), far from any land and let the sharks knaw at them.... we shouldn't have to feed, clothe, and pay for their medical needs (we don't OJ's of course, he got off 'scott' free)....
I don't think the list should end with those two. Gnawing of sharks is an appealing thought though. However for those that never get justice this side of eternity. Surely there will be judgement and justice awaiting those who got off scott free here. But I like the shark thing:lol: Paints a picture doesn't it :seeya:
I don't think the list should end with those two. Gnawing of sharks is an appealing thought though. However for those that never get justice this side of eternity. Surely there will be judgement and justice awaiting those who got off scott free here. But I like the shark thing:lol: Paints a picture doesn't it :seeya:
Yeah, a deserving one! ...wouldn't be a slow painful death, though...but, as you said or implied, "God awaits them"...
Coloradokares
12-14-2006, 03:56 PM
When the Imaginary Fibers are entered into evidence at John Ramseys murder trial, I won't be shocked; I'll be flying to the North Pole with Santa, throwing 100 dollar bills to everyone from the 100 billion dollar sweepstakes I've just won.:biggrin:
Your a hoot you know that.....but just incase book TWA now Hope the Happy Feet Penquins are there when you land.....aren't they cute. And buy tickets to the sweepstakes we need da money.
bullmoose
12-14-2006, 03:59 PM
:biggrin: :lol: :beer:
Coloradokares
12-14-2006, 03:59 PM
Imoimoimo,ok?
ok.....please buy the sweepstake tickets though ok.
Coloradokares
12-14-2006, 04:10 PM
Yeah, a deserving one! ...wouldn't be a slow painful death, though...but, as you said or implied, "God awaits them"...
That is something I am willing to state as my personal belief. God indeed awaits them ... with forgiveness or not. That is between God and that person. But I believe that either way they will understand then the pain their actions created for all others who it affected. I can't even fathom it.
thewhitewitch1
12-14-2006, 11:34 PM
In a fit of rage, you fatally injure your child, her head gets bashed in, either by "accident" or deliberately. You call 911. You report it as an accident. The police either believe you or they don't. You do NOT stage a kidnapping by writing a phoney ransom note AND then stage a pedophile assault by penetrating your child's vagina AND then stage a psycho style murder by strangling her with a garotte AND then call the police with the body still in the house. That's ludicrous.
It's not just a question of what Patsy would have told the 911 operator if they hadn't written a note. Because if Steve Thomas's scenario is correct, and she was killed or fatally injured by a head blow, the whole thing would have played out differently, from beginning to end. And there would certainly have been no need for a phoney note written in either John or Patsy's hand, which would have explained nothing and could be used as evidence against them.
I don't know, DocG. Maybe they thought she was dead or near death. It would take some pretty good explaining to get yourself out of some kind of murder charge with a head injury of that magnitude. Even if there was no blood or visible lacerations on her head, they had to have known it was severe. If they had pushed her or hit her in anger, guilt alone may have stopped them from calling for help....as in the guilt and fear of someone finding out that they had inflicted the wound. If she was dying (which she was), yeah, it does make sense to make it look like someone else was responsible rather than take the risk of having you face murder charges.
I disagree (0f course). There was a need for a phoney note and obviously it wasn't evidence against them because it could not be proven that either of them wrote it. So once again...what's your point? ;)
shill
12-15-2006, 03:44 AM
In a fit of rage, you fatally injure your child, her head gets bashed in, either by "accident" or deliberately. You call 911. You report it as an accident. The police either believe you or they don't. You do NOT stage a kidnapping by writing a phoney ransom note AND then stage a pedophile assault by penetrating your child's vagina AND then stage a psycho style murder by strangling her with a garotte AND then call the police with the body still in the house. That's ludicrous.
It's not just a question of what Patsy would have told the 911 operator if they hadn't written a note. Because if Steve Thomas's scenario is correct, and she was killed or fatally injured by a head blow, the whole thing would have played out differently, from beginning to end. And there would certainly have been no need for a phoney note written in either John or Patsy's hand, which would have explained nothing and could be used as evidence against them.
This rings totally true to me. I couldn't agree with you more. I will never believe this was a cover up for an accident unless the Ramseys confess it was, and even then I would still doubt them.
rashomon
12-15-2006, 04:25 PM
If the pineapple doesn't fit, you must acquit!
LOL! That was funny, Shill - thanks for a good laugh!
But I'm afraid the first one to be acquitted here is the mythical intruder. :)
I don't know, DocG. Maybe they thought she was dead or near death. It would take some pretty good explaining to get yourself out of some kind of murder charge with a head injury of that magnitude. Even if there was no blood or visible lacerations on her head, they had to have known it was severe. If they had pushed her or hit her in anger, guilt alone may have stopped them from calling for help....as in the guilt and fear of someone finding out that they had inflicted the wound. If she was dying (which she was), yeah, it does make sense to make it look like someone else was responsible rather than take the risk of having you face murder charges.
I disagree (0f course). There was a need for a phoney note and obviously it wasn't evidence against them because it could not be proven that either of them wrote it. So once again...what's your point? ;)
Patsy...IMO....would have had to have heard that awful cracking of the skull sound...so she probably knew right away that it was going to be a fatal blow...whether intended or not (I still think it was an act of rage). Anyway, JB could have possibly even been convulsing.....my guess is...that with a her skull cracked like an egg shell....she probably was convulsing. Patsy could have finished her off, so to speak....with the strangulation (John could have helped with that)...as a MERCY KILLING. Just a thought.....
I don't know, DocG. Maybe they thought she was dead or near death. It would take some pretty good explaining to get yourself out of some kind of murder charge with a head injury of that magnitude. Even if there was no blood or visible lacerations on her head, they had to have known it was severe. If they had pushed her or hit her in anger, guilt alone may have stopped them from calling for help....as in the guilt and fear of someone finding out that they had inflicted the wound. If she was dying (which she was), yeah, it does make sense to make it look like someone else was responsible rather than take the risk of having you face murder charges.
I disagree (0f course). There was a need for a phoney note and obviously it wasn't evidence against them because it could not be proven that either of them wrote it. So once again...what's your point? ;)
My point is that there is a far simpler and more logical explanation of what happened, one that fits ALL the evidence -- but is unacceptable to almost everyone because they can't get past Patsy as writer of the note.
Rather than see this as some kind of off-the-wall soap opera, with the father abusing her and the mother "accidently" on purpose bopping her over the head, "and hence" both of them engaging in an outrageous folie-a-deux of a coverup, complete with 3 page hand-printed ransom note, garotte, cord, tape, you name it, and then calling the police on themselves before their staging was complete, we can take a deep breath, come to our senses and see it the way I'd imagine just about everyone was seeing it back in early 1997: as something incest related, with the father as most likely suspect. If John was molesting JonBenet, that in itself is sufficient motive for murder, to silence her forever. And if he murdered his daughter after abusing her, he would want to cover that up any way he could think of. And he certainly would NOT want to engage his wife as co-conspirator in such an effort.
What went wrong with the investigation IMO began with John's own interference in the process of handwriting identification. He'd hired not one but TWO handwriting "experts" within a week -- and shortly thereafter they ruled him out as writer of the note. And then became consultants, working with the police and the DA on some of the most important evidence in the case. Think about it. How many suspects have actually participated in the investigation of the crime THEY are accused of? How many DA's actually permitted them to do this? I think John was able to place himself in control of this aspect of the investigation, to the point that he was able to get away with providing incomplete and misleading samples of his handwriting. So, only a month or so after the murder, he was officially "ruled out" and all eyes moved from him to Patsy. The rest, as I see it, has been a HUGE and unecessary farce.
THAT's my point!!!!!!! :mad:
rashomon
12-16-2006, 10:48 AM
Docg,
I won't rehash Patsy's fibers in the garrote handle, on the duct tape and in the paint tray. If you were her defense lawyer, do you think you would stand a chance in court trying to convince a jury that they got there through John?
And Patsy could not be ruled out as the author of the note. Even if John should not have been ruled out in you opinion, you can't change the fact that Patsy was never ruled out.
And wouldn't John have played the grieving husband a little better if he was the mastermind behind all this? But no, he let Patsy stay there in one room, and never went over to her and comfort her. This struck the detectives as very odd.
And John was pretty dumb too, don't you think so, by blurting out to the investigators that this was "an inside job"? So John pointed the finger at the Ramseys themselves?
I just doesn't add up, Docg.
Louisadelmar
12-16-2006, 11:22 AM
[...]But no, he let Patsy stay there in one room, and never went over to her and comfort her. This struck the detectives as very odd.
.
Do you have the source for this rumor?
sweetcharlotte
12-16-2006, 12:39 PM
Interesting. If this had been reported in the media, you'd have accepted it. But if it's first hand information, directly from the mouth of one of the investigators, you won't. You say you need to see the report it's based on? Funny, because I've never seen ANYONE on any of the forums demanding to see any of the other reports. What about the DNA report, the handwriting report (that ruled John out), the Butler door report, the stun gun report, etc., etc.? You are happy to accept all that without seeing any reports, but the fiber evidence? No. That you can't accept. No need to bang your head against the wall. Just see what is there before you rather than what you want to see.
Excuse me - I would accept it if it "had been reported in the media?" And how, please, do you know what I would or would not accept? And, which of the investigators reported this? The only thing I've ever read was from a deposition in which Levin was questioning JR.
JMO
Sprocket
12-16-2006, 01:35 PM
Do you have the source for this rumor?
It's documented fact. It was observed by officers on the scene.
Sprocket
12-16-2006, 01:46 PM
Too late to edit my last post.
Addendum:
Steve Thomas mentions it in his book, (which I currently can not quote because my copy is loaned out) and it's mentioned at least once in Schiller's book:
Page 10: At the morning wore on, the victim advocates, Jedamus and Morlock, decided to go out and get bagels and fruit for everyone. With fewer people hovering around Arndt noticed for the first time that Patsy and John rarely sat together. Granted, this quote does not specifically address the "comforting" aspect that Rashomon brought up, but it does address the fact that officers observed the obvious distance between husband and wife.
Louisadelmar
12-16-2006, 01:48 PM
It's documented fact. It was observed by officers on the scene.
As quoted by Thomas to Bardach. Perhaps they should have talked with Jedamus and Morlock who saw John and Patsy sitting together, talking and holding each other in the dining room. PMPT pp 324-5
bullmoose
12-16-2006, 05:02 PM
I love it when somebody uses Synthroid Steve as a source of seemingly impeccable information; perhaps his misperceptions were caused by his inattention to his police work due the enormous amount of work he was doing on the first draft of his book, his Twisterpiece.:biggrin:
aussiesheila
12-16-2006, 06:12 PM
I have to agree with andU on this new theory; it doesn't feel right and seems to me to be unnecessarily complicated, especially to have stayed unsuspected all this time. IMO, there would be too many people involved for there not to be a weak link, somebody snitching off, these past ten years.Jacqueline Dilson did snitch on her boyfriend in the early days of the investigation when BPD were directing all their efforts into finding only evidence that would implicate the Ramseys so her evidence was ignored on the basis that she was 'unbalanced'. Nancy Krebs came forward with information about John's best friend but was immediately denounced as a nut case by those with a vested interest in having her thought to be such, as well as threatening her personal safety. Nedra did let slip that JonBenet was "only a little bit molested" giving a hint that she knew what was going on within the Paugh family at least. It appears that one of my theorized pedophiles, did snitch on some pedophile underground network which was how JMK came to know of some non-publically known details of the murder scene, IMO. Even Priscilla White is quoted somewhere (oh I think it was in DOI, so it would have come from the unreliable Patsy, but the comment wasn't denied as far as I know) as having said to her something to the effect "I can tell you what was going on if you don't know".
Not much I know, but as all pedophiles are acutely aware, their ability to continue with their hideous practices depends on extreme secrecy so they are grand masters at the art, IMO.
As for the rest of those who I think were involved, I would say that of the ones that are still alive, they are all well aware that snitching would come with an immensely adverse personal cost that they must be unwilling to pay.
Docg,
<snipped>
I won't rehash Patsy's fibers in the garrote handle, on the duct tape and in the paint tray.
Okay, then I will then....;)
Bruce Levin: To Lin Wood – “We believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, were found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet’s neck, were found on the blanket that she as wrapped in, were found on the duct tape that was found on the mouth.”
To Patsy: “I have no evidence from any scientist that suggests that those fibers are from any source other than your red jacket.”
http://www.jameson245.com/48hours2.htm
Louisadelmar
12-16-2006, 10:33 PM
Okay, then I will then....;)
Bruce Levin: To Lin Wood – “We believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, were found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet’s neck, were found on the blanket that she as wrapped in, were found on the duct tape that was found on the mouth.”
To Patsy: “I have no evidence from any scientist that suggests that those fibers are from any source other than your red jacket.”
http://www.jameson245.com/48hours2.htm
Did they test any other sources?
Did they test any other sources?
I have no idea. I would think that they would have...I mean, I am sure that they didn't discover the fibers, and then someone said..."Hey, those look just like the fibers from Patsy's jacket....lets rush out and test it, but test nothing else". Common sense tells me that other sources were tested.
Ames:
>Bruce Levin: To Lin Wood – “We believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray,
Patsy's paint tray, which she often used, and which may well have been placed in the basement by her. Why wouldn't it contain fibers from her clothing?
>were found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet’s neck,
along with tufts of JonBenet's hair, which could easily have picked up Patsy's fibers when her mother was putting her to bed.
>were found on the blanket that she as wrapped in,
Again, Patsy put her to bed, so we'd expect her fibers to be on the blanket.
>were found on the duct tape that was found on the mouth.”
The duct tape was placed on the blanket after John removed it from JonBenet's mouth, so fibers from the blanket were probably transferred to the tape.
I find it truly remakable that so many are so sure Patsy's fibers were transferred to JonBenet and the paint tote ONLY during the crime/coverup but could NOT have been transferred prior to that. Do murderers shed more than innocent people? :confused:
rashomon:
>I won't rehash Patsy's fibers in the garrote handle, on the duct tape and in the paint tray. If you were her defense lawyer, do you think you would stand a chance in court trying to convince a jury that they got there through John?
Since Patsy was in intimate contact with JonBenet the evening before the crime, one would expect to see her fibers at the crime scene. No need to bring John into it. And no, it would NOT be hard to convince a jury that fibers from the victim's mother could have been passed to the crime scene via the victim herself. None of PATSY's fibers were found in JonBenet's crotch.
>And Patsy could not be ruled out as the author of the note. Even if John should not have been ruled out in you opinion, you can't change the fact that Patsy was never ruled out.
And you can't change the fact that Patsy had no reason to write that note and would have gained nothing from writing it, assuming she actually was guilty of this crime. While she wasn't ruled out, ALL the investigators who had the chance to review ALL the relevant exemplars agreed that either there was no evidence she wrote it or it was unlikely that she wrote it. She was fingered by the media essentially by process of elimination. If John was ruled out and she wasn't, then she MUST be the one. NO ONE questioned the decision to rule John out -- all they saw was Patsy. Darnay's "experts" got on the bandwagon for exactly the same reason other "experts" got on the Karr bandwagon: they saw an opportunity to get some attention.
>And wouldn't John have played the grieving husband a little better if he was the mastermind behind all this? But no, he let Patsy stay there in one room, and never went over to her and comfort her. This struck the detectives as very odd.
If they were in on it together I imagine they'd want to put on an act for the benefit of the police, yes. But if John had just murdered his daughter on his own, I think he'd probably have good reason to avoid his wife. That reason being: guilt.
>And John was pretty dumb too, don't you think so, by blurting out to the investigators that this was "an inside job"? So John pointed the finger at the Ramseys themselves?
No. Obviously he was pointing at the housekeeper. Why would he point at himself?
thewhitewitch1
12-17-2006, 12:24 AM
Ames:
>Bruce Levin: To Lin Wood – “We believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray,
Patsy's paint tray, which she often used, and which may well have been placed in the basement by her. Why wouldn't it contain fibers from her clothing?
>were found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet’s neck,
along with tufts of JonBenet's hair, which could easily have picked up Patsy's fibers when her mother was putting her to bed.
>were found on the blanket that she as wrapped in,
Again, Patsy put her to bed, so we'd expect her fibers to be on the blanket.
>were found on the duct tape that was found on the mouth.”
The duct tape was placed on the blanket after John removed it from JonBenet's mouth, so fibers from the blanket were probably transferred to the tape.
I find it truly remakable that so many are so sure Patsy's fibers were transferred to JonBenet and the paint tote ONLY during the crime/coverup but could NOT have been transferred prior to that. Do murderers shed more than innocent people? :confused:
Pictures of the duct tape show it laying on the blanket sticky side up so I don't know how the tape touched the blanket to get her fibers on it. Were fibers from Patsy found on the blanket itself?
If Patsy was wearing that jacket and moved the paint tote or used it at some point, I could see the fibers being there but why would she wear dress clothes to paint in and we know LHP moved it to the basement prior to that night.
John carried her from the car...wouldn't his clothes fibers be more likely to be in JBs hair and therefore in the garrote?
If John was the one that grabbed the oversized pair of Bloomies and put them on her, that would account for his fibers being in her crotch area. It doesn't mean that they are there because he molested her....and it doesn't mean that that he acted alone in all of this.
shill
12-17-2006, 01:56 AM
Pictures of the duct tape show it laying on the blanket sticky side up so I don't know how the tape touched the blanket to get her fibers on it. Were fibers from Patsy found on the blanket itself?
If Patsy was wearing that jacket and moved the paint tote or used it at some point, I could see the fibers being there but why would she wear dress clothes to paint in and we know LHP moved it to the basement prior to that night.
John carried her from the car...wouldn't his clothes fibers be more likely to be in JBs hair and therefore in the garrote?
If John was the one that grabbed the oversized pair of Bloomies and put them on her, that would account for his fibers being in her crotch area. It doesn't mean that they are there because he molested her....and it doesn't mean that that he acted alone in all of this.
Patsy and John both live there and had contact with JB, finding their fibers anywhere are not damaging evidence.
Now finding fibers from someone who didn't belong there or fibers from JB at a place where JB had allegedly never been, would be damaging evidence to the guilty party.
Athena
12-17-2006, 02:12 AM
Pictures of the duct tape show it laying on the blanket sticky side up so I don't know how the tape touched the blanket to get her fibers on it. Were fibers from Patsy found on the blanket itself?
If Patsy was wearing that jacket and moved the paint tote or used it at some point, I could see the fibers being there but why would she wear dress clothes to paint in and we know LHP moved it to the basement prior to that night.
John carried her from the car...wouldn't his clothes fibers be more likely to be in JBs hair and therefore in the garrote?
If John was the one that grabbed the oversized pair of Bloomies and put them on her, that would account for his fibers being in her crotch area. It doesn't mean that they are there because he molested her....and it doesn't mean that that he acted alone in all of this.
Hi all - can't sleep - just peeking in.
More than just the red fibers were on that blanket; fibers that were not accounted for. To say those fibers matched Patsy's jacket without testing any other clothing is not conclusive and you can't disregard the other fibers that were never sourced either. Her jacket was acrylic -- a very popular fabric. When Levin mentioned those fibers he could not even identify the material which leads me to believe he was questioning Patsy based on someone else's suggestions. He appeared to not have first-hand knowledge of these fibers.
Re: fiber being transferred from the blanket to the duct tape -- what you have to remember is that John removed the duct tape from JBR's mouth and that tape could have been sticky side down. Fleet picked it up and placed it back on the blanket and I would guess that is the position it was photographed in but doesn't mean John didn't place it sticky side down. JMO
rashomon
12-17-2006, 03:13 PM
[docg]And you can't change the fact that Patsy had no reason to write that note and would have gained nothing from writing it, assuming she actually was guilty of this crime.
Since Patsy Ramsey (for obvious reasons) decided against taking the child to the hospital, she had to write a note to introduce an 'outside' element.
What reason did John have to strangle JonBenet if his purpose was to silence her for good? Why not finish her off with another blow to the head?
But maybe you think the garrote was done for mere staging purposes?
But there was no need to stage that garrote scene if John intended to fake a kidnapping.
According to your theory, John had the body ready to be carried out of the house when Patsy got to see the note, right?
He wanted to stage a kidnapping, right?
So why on earth would he construct that silly 'cord around a stick' contraption?
Why not just dump JB (dead from the skull fracture) somewhere outside?
But if John had just murdered his daughter on his own, I think he'd probably have good reason to avoid his wife. That reason being: guilt.
Guilt? Docg, I don't know how many true crime cases you have studied, but people who commit first-degree murders (for according to your theory, John wanted to silence JB forever = first-degree murder) rarely ever feel guilt. For it is precisely their lack of social conscience and inability to feel guilt which enables them to commit these crimes.
Pictures of the duct tape show it laying on the blanket sticky side up so I don't know how the tape touched the blanket to get her fibers on it. Were fibers from Patsy found on the blanket itself?
If Patsy was wearing that jacket and moved the paint tote or used it at some point, I could see the fibers being there but why would she wear dress clothes to paint in and we know LHP moved it to the basement prior to that night.
John carried her from the car...wouldn't his clothes fibers be more likely to be in JBs hair and therefore in the garrote?
If John was the one that grabbed the oversized pair of Bloomies and put them on her, that would account for his fibers being in her crotch area. It doesn't mean that they are there because he molested her....and it doesn't mean that that he acted alone in all of this.
The tape was moved by John and probably also Fleet. I doubt if either was careful to preserve the integrity of the sticky side, so who knows what happened? It would be very strange if Patsy's fibers were NOT found on the blanket, but again, who knows? You don't need to be actually painting to be handling your paint tote. She could have been wearing that sweater when she moved the tote from one place to another, or fiddled with one of the brushes. Or it could have been transferred via JonBenet or John or Burke in any one of a hundred or so ways. This is NOT solid evidence, sorry.
And yes, if John was the one who redressed her (assuming she WAS redressed) then that sure would account for his fibers being where they were found. It doesn't necessarily mean he molested her, no. Just that he killed her. :)
Fibers from a shirt are far less likely to shed than fibers from a sweater or jacket, so it's not surprising John's fibers weren't found all over the place. Patsy's jacket clearly shed all over the place, since her fibers were found all over the place.
LindaA
12-18-2006, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Rashomon:
[/QUOTE}Guilt? Docg, I don't know how many true crime cases you have studied, but people who commit first-degree murders (for according to your theory, John wanted to silence JB forever = first-degree murder) rarely ever feel guilt. For it is precisely their lack of social conscience and inability to feel guilt which enables them to commit these crimes.[/QUOTE]
Only sociopaths fail to feel guilt. Many other murderers do
aussiesheila
12-18-2006, 09:39 AM
So you think the perp strangled JB and then immediately bashed her head in? Not even die-hard IDIs have ever offered such a far-fetched explanation which totally defies logic.Hey rash, remember my theory? It's that one about intruder pedophiles that you and so many others at Websleuths found far-fetched.
I am probably the most die-hard of all IDIs and my explanation is that there was more than one intruder, they were all pedophiles and all were sexually abusing JonBenet. My theory stipulates that while one pedophile was operating the garotte another shoved a sharp object up her vagina causing her to let out that hideous scream, at which point they both immediately tried to silence her, the garotte operator pulling it so tightly that it strangled her and the other picking up a baseball bat and bashing her so hard over the head with it that it cracked her skull open.
Now it's fine with me if you and all the others find my explanation far-fetched, but what I would really like you to tell me is why you think it defies logic.
LindaA
12-18-2006, 09:56 AM
Aussieshiela, I think the RDI's chief argument is that they find it hard enough to believe that one person could have been in the Ramsey home without their knowing about it, much less two. They believe there was no evidence of even one intruder left and that it wojuld have been impossible for them to have been quiet enough to not be heard by the family. I find it hard to believe myself, but not as hard to believe as their theories of the garotting as a cover-up for the head bashing or other strangling. However, considering what is in the media lately about JMK having an accomplice, your theory is sounding more and more plausible.
aussiesheila
12-18-2006, 10:02 AM
That's the problem with the English language...or at least with American English--the definition depends on the context. When they say that someone's DNA is "consistent with" a particular sample, that does mean a match. But when they say that handwriting is "consistent with" a particular sample, it only means that it *could* be a match. I have heard experts say that JMK's handwriting is consistent with the ransom note, which may or may not mean that he wrote it. But if they said his DNA was consistent with the sample under JB's nails, it would be case closed.But elvis, I don't think they ever say one sample of DNA is 'consistent with' another. Don't they usually say the DNA is 'a match' with a quantified probability of the 'match' being wrong?
Sprocket
12-18-2006, 01:27 PM
Only sociopaths fail to feel guilt. Many other murderers do
How does someone who premeditates first degree murder, then commits the murder, feel guilt about that murder? How can that individual do the planning and execution of the murder, and then still feel guilt?
I planned my wife's murder in detail and got away with it. I feel real bad about murdering her, guilty infact, but not so bad that I turn myself into the police, or confess.
There is no DSM classification for "sociopath," but there is one for Anti-social Personality Disorder.
????
bullmoose
12-18-2006, 01:45 PM
To Aussiesheila: I think your idea makes much better sense than the many RDI theories I've seen ; you are not the only diehard IDI fan.As for having unknown intruders in the house, in a house that size it doesn't seem hard to believe that there could be skulkers; my own experience in a house far smaller makes it plausible to me.
LindaA
12-18-2006, 02:00 PM
How does someone who premeditates first degree murder, then commits the murder, feel guilt about that murder? How can that individual do the planning and execution of the murder, and then still feel guilt?
I planned my wife's murder in detail and got away with it. I feel real bad about murdering her, guilty infact, but not so bad that I turn myself into the police, or confess.
There is no DSM classification for "sociopath," but there is one for Anti-social Personality Disorder.
????
You're assuming an awful lot. I'm not quoting the DSM, but I believe "sociopath" is shorthand for the term you mentioned. I don't know who you are quoting, but it sounds as those that offender did feel some remorse, so I guess whoever that was propves my point.
elvislives
12-18-2006, 02:03 PM
But elvis, I don't think they ever say one sample of DNA is 'consistent with' another. Don't they usually say the DNA is 'a match' with a quantified probability of the 'match' being wrong?
http://www.dna.gov/audiences/victim/know/interpreting
Interpreting DNA Test ResultsThree types of results can occur in DNA testing: inclusion, exclusion, and inconclusive. It is important that victim service providers understand the meaning of these terms and be able to explain their implications.
Inclusion. When the DNA profile of a victim or suspect is consistent with the DNA profile from the crime scene evidence, the individual is "included" as the possible source of that evidence. However, the strength of inclusion depends upon the number of loci (locations on the DNA strand) examined and how common or rare the resulting DNA profile is in the general population.
Exclusion. When the DNA profile from a victim or suspect is inconsistent with the DNA profile generated from the crime scene evidence, the individual is "excluded" as the donor of the evidence. However, exclusion does not imply innocence. In a rape case, for example, a perpetrator wearing a condom could be excluded as a suspect because no semen was found at the crime scene, but evidence found elsewhere at the crime scene may include that same person as a suspect.
Inconclusive. Inconclusive results indicate that DNA testing could neither include nor exclude an individual as the source of biological evidence. Inconclusive results can occur for many reasons: for example, the quality or quantity of DNA may be insufficient to produce interpretable results, or the evidentiary sample may containa mixture of DNA from several individuals (e.g., a sample taken from a victim of a gang rape).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Aussiesheila: I think your idea makes much better sense than the many RDI theories I've seen ; you are not the only diehard IDI fan.As for having unknown intruders in the house, in a house that size it doesn't seem hard to believe that there could be skulkers; my own experience in a house far smaller makes it plausible to me.
BullMoose, I agree. In fact, I believe there were at least 2 people in the house that shouldn't have been. They may well have had a key, could have been part of the construction crew, or knew someone who was. I still believe it was someone that had a strong desire to get even with John and while one of them may have had pedofile tendancies, I don't think that was the main reason, it was to defile John's daughter, one hell-a-cious pay back to put John in a world of hurt. I do believe they or at least one of them may have muslim ties, I agree with Shill about that, and some other points that he's made. I'm not sure if they staged the scene to point at the Ramsey's, but that would be the frosting on the cake for them to watch the case develop as it has.... and go on for this long.
Sprocket
12-18-2006, 03:41 PM
You're assuming an awful lot. I'm not quoting the DSM, but I believe "sociopath" is shorthand for the term you mentioned. I don't know who you are quoting, but it sounds as those that offender did feel some remorse, so I guess whoever that was propves my point.
I wasn't quoting anyone. I was trying to make a logical thought process from someone who (by your standards) can commit first degree murder, and still have a conscience.
For me, it doesn't work.
The word "sociopath" is a more modern term, developed around the 1930's. Older, is the term "psychopath," coined much later in 1875 or there abouts. The word sociopath is often interchanged with the word psychopath, but in no way shape or form is it in the DSM.
LindaA
12-18-2006, 04:02 PM
I wasn't quoting anyone. I was trying to make a logical thought process from someone who (by your standards) can commit first degree murder, and still have a conscience.
For me, it doesn't work.
The word "sociopath" is a more modern term, developed around the 1930's. Older, is the term "psychopath," coined much later in 1875 or there abouts. The word sociopath is often interchanged with the word psychopath, but in no way shape or form is it in the DSM.
You are still assumng this was first degree murder. There are people who commit murder and are remorseful afterwards. I know the term sociopaath is not in the DSM, but the concept esists. The term is often used to mean the person with that personality disorder. My point is that not everyone who commits murder is either a psychopath or sociopath or has anti-social personality disorder. The possibilities are endless...
Sprocket
12-18-2006, 04:43 PM
You are still assumng this was first degree murder. There are people who commit murder and are remorseful afterwards. I know the term sociopaath is not in the DSM, but the concept esists. The term is often used to mean the person with that personality disorder. My point is that not everyone who commits murder is either a psychopath or sociopath or has anti-social personality disorder. The possibilities are endless...
Let me see if I can clarify my thought process.
The point rashomon was making was first degree murder, so that's what I addressed. From my understanding, also premeditation.
You stated:
Only sociopaths fail to feel guilt. Many other murderers do
Since you did not clarify what "other" murderers you were talking about, I thought we were on the same subject: premeditated murder. I didn't realize we were discussing a specific murder; did you mean to reference JonBenet's death? I personally don't see guilt, and premeditation of murder going hand in hand.
As always, jmho, of course.
You are still assumng this was first degree murder. There are people who commit murder and are remorseful afterwards. I know the term sociopaath is not in the DSM, but the concept esists. The term is often used to mean the person with that personality disorder. My point is that not everyone who commits murder is either a psychopath or sociopath or has anti-social personality disorder. The possibilities are endless...
IMO if John killed his daughter it would have been because he believed he had no other choice. If he'd been abusing her, then allowing her to live could have destroyed him. This would NOT be your typical murderer, no. And he'd certainly be riddled with agonizing guilt over such an act, no question. If, on the other hand, John and Patsy were in on this together, staging an elaborate kidnap murder to avert suspicion from themselves, then:
1. They'd have made a great show of "togetherness."
2. They'd have gotten their story straight BEFORE calling the police -- and then "fully cooperated" with the authorities, with no need for any delay, no need to lawyer up.
rashomon
12-18-2006, 05:31 PM
Hey rash, remember my theory? It's that one about intruder pedophiles that you and so many others at Websleuths found far-fetched.
I am probably the most die-hard of all IDIs and my explanation is that there was more than one intruder, they were all pedophiles and all were sexually abusing JonBenet. My theory stipulates that while one pedophile was operating the garotte another shoved a sharp object up her vagina causing her to let out that hideous scream, at which point they both immediately tried to silence her, the garotte operator pulling it so tightly that it strangled her and the other picking up a baseball bat and bashing her so hard over the head with it that it cracked her skull open.
Now it's fine with me if you and all the others find my explanation far-fetched, but what I would really like you to tell me is why you think it defies logic.
According to your theory, a group of sexual sadists were having a orgy in the Ramsey basement with JB as their victim, at Christmas, with both parents being present in the home. And you wonder why people think your theory defies logic.
(Not to mention the ransom note which you would have to build into you theory too).
But since you asked me, even when going along with your theory for the sake of argumentation, I would find it highly unlikely that 3 perps of that type would be working on the victim 'simultaneoulsy' , i. e. perp A was in the process of 'operating the garrote' while perp B shoved a sharp object up the child's vagina, and perp C was already getting his baseball bat ready to bash JB's head in in case she should scream. Sorry, but imo such a scenario borders on the comical.
rashomon
12-18-2006, 05:45 PM
IMO if John killed his daughter it would have been because he believed he had no other choice. If he'd been abusing her, then allowing her to live could have destroyed him. This would NOT be your typical murderer, no. And he'd certainly be riddled with agonizing guilt over such an act, no question. If, on the other hand, John and Patsy were in on this together, staging an elaborate kidnap murder to avert suspicion from themselves, then:
1. They'd have made a great show of "togetherness."
2. They'd have gotten their story straight BEFORE calling the police -- and then "fully cooperated" with the authorities, with no need for any delay, no need to lawyer up.
1. I think John (in part at least) hated Patsy for what she had done, which is why he could not bring himself to go over to her and console her.
2. Regarding in the emotional turmoil and time pressure they were in, they could not get their story straight. Impossible imo.
elvislives
12-18-2006, 05:58 PM
1. I think John (in part at least) hated Patsy for what she had done, which is why he could not bring himself to go over to her and console her.
2. Regarding in the emotional turmoil and time pressure they were in, they could not get their story straight. Impossible imo.
Hey Rash, I struggle with the parents as co-conspirators. If Patsy had killed her, why would JR help protect her? I know someone (maybe you) has speculated that he had been molesting JB and didn't want to be ratted out. But come on, the alleged molestation victim was dead. Even if Patsy did make this allegation it would be impossilbe to prove. And by pointing out that Patsy was the killer, JR could get out from under a first degree murder investigation, move on with his life, continue his work, and find a new, young, hot, cancer-free wife to hook up with. It just defies reason to me that he would protect her, even if he was molesting his daughter.
Sprocket
12-18-2006, 06:27 PM
Sorry, but imo such a scenario borders on the comical.
Not only that, but they didn't leave one shred of physical evidence behind.
nuisanceposter
12-18-2006, 06:28 PM
Now it's fine with me if you and all the others find my explanation far-fetched, but what I would really like you to tell me is why you think it defies logic.
I'll be happy to tell you why I think it defies logic - I don't believe Patsy Ramsey would go out of her way to let some photographer in her house to take pictures of JonBenet after midnight when they have to be up very early the next morning.
Patsy had no need to put herself out like that - she already had portfolios full of pictures of JonBenet, quality photo studio portraits. JonBenet had already been featured on the cover of a magazine, and as journalism major, I'm sure Patsy Ramsey knew that magazines don't show up at your house after midnight on Christmas night to take shots for a layout featuring a 6 year old child.
She had no need whatsoever to lower herself and her child to being desperate enough to sit up late on Christmas night for some Santa photographer that didn't even have time to see them other than in the middle of the night, just to see JB on some magazine cover.
I also don't believe for a second that Patsy would just let some guy in, hand over her daughter, and then go lay down in another room and take a nap while some guy she didn't know that well was taking pictures of her. Patsy was a more diligent mother than that. When JonBenet had dance rehearsals, Patsy insisted on being present. I have no doubt that as a stage mom she would absolutely want to be present while someone photographed her daughter, especially in their house at that time of night.
I don't believe there is enough evidence of even one person that wasn't a Ramsey having been in that house, let alone three. There is no evidence whatsoever that JonBenet's hands were restrained above her head by a wire, and there is no forensic evidence whatsoever that she was ever standing on a chair for that, either. There's no evidence that a chair had been moved around. There's no evidence that three different people had been standing around molesting anyone. There's no evidence on JonBenet indicating that three different people were molesting her.
On top of that, I do not believe Patsy would be forced into writing that RN, and if she had, I seriously doubt that both her and JR would have been spending the past decade lying for and defending anyone who murdered their daughter like that.
I don't believe the people you implicate are still suspects. GM was cleared. Santa Bill was cleared. FW was cleared.
In short, no offense, aussiesheila, but your theory does not match up to the evidence. If you had some solid proof that people who knew the Rs were in a pedophile ring and had had orgies starring kids of people they knew, that would be one thing, but it seems to me as if you have a sick mind and dreamed this all up whether the evidence fits or not.
elvislives
12-18-2006, 06:57 PM
I'll be happy to tell you why I think it defies logic - I don't believe Patsy Ramsey would go out of her way to let some photographer in her house to take pictures of JonBenet after midnight when they have to be up very early the next morning.
Patsy had no need to put herself out like that - she already had portfolios full of pictures of JonBenet, quality photo studio portraits. JonBenet had already been featured on the cover of a magazine, and as journalism major, I'm sure Patsy Ramsey knew that magazines don't show up at your house after midnight on Christmas night to take shots for a layout featuring a 6 year old child.
She had no need whatsoever to lower herself and her child to being desperate enough to sit up late on Christmas night for some Santa photographer that didn't even have time to see them other than in the middle of the night, just to see JB on some magazine cover.
I also don't believe for a second that Patsy would just let some guy in, hand over her daughter, and then go lay down in another room and take a nap while some guy she didn't know that well was taking pictures of her. Patsy was a more diligent mother than that. When JonBenet had dance rehearsals, Patsy insisted on being present. I have no doubt that as a stage mom she would absolutely want to be present while someone photographed her daughter, especially in their house at that time of night.
I don't believe there is enough evidence of even one person that wasn't a Ramsey having been in that house, let alone three. There is no evidence whatsoever that JonBenet's hands were restrained above her head by a wire, and there is no forensic evidence whatsoever that she was ever standing on a chair for that, either. There's no evidence that a chair had been moved around. There's no evidence that three different people had been standing around molesting anyone. There's no evidence on JonBenet indicating that three different people were molesting her.
On top of that, I do not believe Patsy would be forced into writing that RN, and if she had, I seriously doubt that both her and JR would have been spending the past decade lying for and defending anyone who murdered their daughter like that.
I don't believe the people you implicate are still suspects. GM was cleared. Santa Bill was cleared. FW was cleared.
In short, no offense, aussiesheila, but your theory does not match up to the evidence. If you had some solid proof that people who knew the Rs were in a pedophile ring and had had orgies starring kids of people they knew, that would be one thing, but it seems to me as if you have a sick mind and dreamed this all up whether the evidence fits or not.
I haven't heard this theory before! Perhaps you can answer my burning question. If in fact it happened this way, why wouldn't Patsy just tell the police....I took a nap while JB was being photographed in the basement by So and SO and woke up and she was dead. Go find So and So if you want the killer. What was her motivation to protect this pedophile killer and subject herself to years of suspission and scrutiny??
thewhitewitch1
12-18-2006, 07:47 PM
IMO if John killed his daughter it would have been because he believed he had no other choice. If he'd been abusing her, then allowing her to live could have destroyed him. This would NOT be your typical murderer, no. And he'd certainly be riddled with agonizing guilt over such an act, no question. If, on the other hand, John and Patsy were in on this together, staging an elaborate kidnap murder to avert suspicion from themselves, then:
1. They'd have made a great show of "togetherness."
2. They'd have gotten their story straight BEFORE calling the police -- and then "fully cooperated" with the authorities, with no need for any delay, no need to lawyer up.
Why would they make a "great show of togetherness?" If only one was responsible for the actual death (accident, in my opinion), then I would think the other would have a very difficult time being close to the one responsible, even if they were helping to cover for them. I think I would have some mixed feelings going on about that person.
As far as we know, they probably thought that they did have "their stories straight" before they called authorities. I'm sure neither of them have ever been interrogated before. Short, sweet and to the point was their story...until the LE started getting into details. How were they to anticipate which details the LE was going to delve into?
They probably knew they were going to be suspects, which is exactly why the did not fully cooperate and lawyered up. I would say that was a pretty smart move on their behalf even though it backfired in that they looked even more suspicious. IMO
Louisadelmar
12-18-2006, 08:16 PM
[...]They probably knew they were going to be suspects, which is exactly why the did not fully cooperate and lawyered up. I would say that was a pretty smart move on their behalf even though it backfired in that they looked even more suspicious. IMO
Do you think Bynum was in on it? He was the one who suggested they have legal help and arranged for a lawyer.
thewhitewitch1
12-18-2006, 08:24 PM
Do you think Bynum was in on it? He was the one who suggested they have legal help and arranged for a lawyer.
No. I don't think he was "in on" anything.
SnarkyCow
12-18-2006, 08:28 PM
Do you think Bynum was in on it? He was the one who suggested they have legal help and arranged for a lawyer.
Hard to answer this question (even though you may be being sarcastic :)) since the cell phone records were never given to police. Who knows who the Ramseys did or didn't call before, during or after?
PS. Yep, I am being sarcastic, but you get my point.
Louisadelmar
12-18-2006, 08:48 PM
Hard to answer this question (even though you may be being sarcastic :)) since the cell phone records were never given to police. Who knows who the Ramseys did or didn't call before, during or after?
PS. Yep, I am being sarcastic, but you get my point.
Actually I wasn't being sarcastic. Bynum has said he went over to the Fernie's and based on his experience as a prosecutor he thought they should have a lawyer. It was his idea.
Louisadelmar
12-18-2006, 09:14 PM
More Bynum stuff:
BYNUM: I was a prosecutor. I know how this works. I know where the police attention's going to go, right from the get go.
SAWYER: And he says that's exactly what happened. By Saturday, two days after the murder that the police were openly hostile. An assistant DA gave him some news.
BYNUM: He said the police are refusing to release JonBenet's body for burial unless John and Patsy give them interviews. I have never heard of anything like that. I said to the DA, "I don't know whether or not this is illegal, but I'm sure it's immoral and unethical." I just was not willing to participate and facilitate or do anything other than to say "no." Not only no, but hell, no, you're not getting an interview. And I did say that.
SAWYER: Did they authorize you to say that?
BYNUM: John and Patsy? No. Absolutely not.They weren't in the room. They didn't know what was going on. And I wasn't going to bring them in on it. I did it.
http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/bynum.html
SnarkyCow
12-18-2006, 09:25 PM
Actually I wasn't being sarcastic. Bynum has said he went over to the Fernie's and based on his experience as a prosecutor he thought they should have a lawyer. It was his idea.
Sorry, it's hard to tell tone of voice via messageboard. FYI, I meant no disrespect - I rely heavily on sarcasm to get through the day, it's one of my favorite traits.:D
Serious question: Is there any way to prove it was his idea? I'm not being deliberatly pig(cow?)-headed, but I'm curious how that can be proven if we don't know who the Ramseys called via cell phone.
Louisadelmar
12-18-2006, 10:08 PM
Sorry, it's hard to tell tone of voice via messageboard. FYI, I meant no disrespect - I rely heavily on sarcasm to get through the day, it's one of my favorite traits.:D
Serious question: Is there any way to prove it was his idea? I'm not being deliberatly pig(cow?)-headed, but I'm curious how that can be proven if we don't know who the Ramseys called via cell phone.
I'm a big sarcasm fan myself. Also gallows humor.
One assumes if BPD doubted his story they would have interviewed any witnesses and if there were conflicts we would have heard about it.
One of the things needed to make this vast conspiracy work is all these heretofore law-abiding people had to be willing to gloss over the murder of a child for people they'd only known a few years or less. It just doesn't wash to me.
Athena
12-18-2006, 10:37 PM
Sorry, it's hard to tell tone of voice via messageboard. FYI, I meant no disrespect - I rely heavily on sarcasm to get through the day, it's one of my favorite traits.:D
Serious question: Is there any way to prove it was his idea? I'm not being deliberatly pig(cow?)-headed, but I'm curious how that can be proven if we don't know who the Ramseys called via cell phone.
I don't understand why the police did not have access to the Ramsey's telephone records. Having worked for a major telephone company all one needs to do is get a warrant/subpoena for the phone records. They did not need the Ramseys to turn them over. The same goes for land lines as well.
SnarkyCow
12-18-2006, 10:41 PM
I don't understand why the police did not have access to the Ramsey's telephone records. Having worked for a major telephone company all one needs to do is get a warrant/subpoena for the phone records. They did not need the Ramseys to turn them over. The same goes for land lines as well.
I don't understand it either & would love for someone to enlighten me as to why the phone records were not given to/taken by police.
Sprocket
12-19-2006, 12:50 AM
When they finally did get them, (I believe a year later, but I could be wrong about that) all of December there were no calls listed.
That's pretty strange, isn't it? That there were no calls on any of the phones for December. The records were erased.
LindaA
12-19-2006, 07:48 AM
When they finally did get them, (I believe a year later, but I could be wrong about that) all of December there were no calls listed.
That's pretty strange, isn't it? That there were no calls on any of the phones for December. The records were erased.
that is strange. Could one erase ones own phone records? Source, please?
...snipped...
In short, no offense, aussiesheila, but your theory does not match up to the evidence. If you had some solid proof that people who knew the Rs were in a pedophile ring and had had orgies starring kids of people they knew, that would be one thing, but it seems to me as if you have a sick mind and dreamed this all up whether the evidence fits or not.
But, then, there is evidence that we, the public, may not have access to. At least, I hope so (no matter what Lacey says). There has to be something, the GJ did not have enough to send the Ramsey's to trial, did they?
nuisanceposter
12-19-2006, 11:18 AM
Thomas got his supervisor's signature for the search warrants for the phone records but then when it was time for DA Hunter to give him the warrant, Hunter refused.
There's apparently some question as to whether the GJ even voted to indict or not indict. Read post #76 of this thread:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8098&page=7&pp=12
Thomas got his supervisor's signature for the search warrants for the phone records but then when it was time for DA Hunter to give him the warrant, Hunter refused.
There's apparently some question as to whether the GJ even voted to indict or not indict. Read post #76 of this thread:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8098&page=7&pp=12
As I understood that post, Lee advised there to be no charges filed, his advise came before the GJ had even voted, it doesn't say specifically that the GJ did not vote.
nuisanceposter
12-19-2006, 12:19 PM
That's why I said there's some question. I'm going to look into this. I need more info about the grand jury decision.
That's why I said there's some question. I'm going to look into this. I need more info about the grand jury decision.
I'm even surprised that the insinuation was made public, since the thing is supposed to be sealed. Can we find out if they actually voted? I thought not...
According to this newspaper article, it implies that Hunter may have made the decision, doesn't it? But, it does not say that specifically, either.
BOULDER, Colorado (CNN) -- The grand jury that has been examining the JonBenet Ramsey murder case for 13 months will not issue any indictments, Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter announced Wednesday evening. He said the panel has been discharged.
However, this one from the Washington Post states that the decision was made by the Grand Jury:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/19991013/aponline214802_000.htm
bullmoose
12-19-2006, 04:44 PM
If I remember correctly the year 1996, cellphones were large, bulky and seldom used by most people who had them. I know because I had one; I would like to know how Sprocket can so glibly assert that the Ramseys managed to erase their cellphone records. Has he done this himself, so that he knows it is possible? He doesn't explain his assertion, just states it as fact; Synthroid Steve would be proud of detective abilities. IMO:biggrin:
sweetcharlotte
12-19-2006, 06:05 PM
Thomas got his supervisor's signature for the search warrants for the phone records but then when it was time for DA Hunter to give him the warrant, Hunter refused.
<snip>
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8098&page=7&pp=12
Why would Thomas as Hunter for signature? Isn't that something a judge usually does?
Sprocket
12-19-2006, 07:26 PM
The phone records. I'm sure the information is still at A Candy Rose if you're willing to do your own research; I'm not willing to do it for you. Do your research; know your case before arguing it.
From what I remember reading, a year later the Ramsey's turned over to LE selected records, and the December activity on one account, I believe a cell phone was unusually blank for that month, although there was plenty of activity on prior months. They did not turn over all their records; just selected ones. There was never a subpoena issued for the Ramsey's phone records by the Boulder DA, although the Boulder PD requested that they get them.
To me, not issuing a subpoena for the phone records (something that would be done as a matter of routine in any other case) reflects more than incompetence.
sweetcharlotte
12-19-2006, 08:40 PM
The phone records. I'm sure the information is still at A Candy Rose if you're willing to do your own research; I'm not willing to do it for you. Do your research; know your case before arguing it.
From what I remember reading, a year later the Ramsey's turned over to LE selected records, and the December activity on one account, I believe a cell phone was unusually blank for that month, although there was plenty of activity on prior months. They did not turn over all their records; just selected ones. There was never a subpoena issued for the Ramsey's phone records by the Boulder DA, although the Boulder PD requested that they get them.
To me, not issuing a subpoena for the phone records (something that would be done as a matter of routine in any other case) reflects more than incompetence.
I'm surprised the Ramseys had any "records" to turn over. I don't keep my old telephone bills.
Anyway they would have been simple enough to obtain if PD had pursued.
I doubt though that local calls would have been recorded on either their cell or land line - probably just minutes of use.
JMO
Louisadelmar
12-19-2006, 09:14 PM
The phone records. I'm sure the information is still at A Candy Rose if you're willing to do your own research; I'm not willing to do it for you. Do your research; know your case before arguing it.
From what I remember reading, a year later the Ramsey's turned over to LE selected records, and the December activity on one account, I believe a cell phone was unusually blank for that month, although there was plenty of activity on prior months. They did not turn over all their records; just selected ones. There was never a subpoena issued for the Ramsey's phone records by the Boulder DA, although the Boulder PD requested that they get them.
To me, not issuing a subpoena for the phone records (something that would be done as a matter of routine in any other case) reflects more than incompetence.
The Ramseys signed off on 100 or more waivers so BPD could look at their records. I don't know why Hunter didn't want to have a warrant and wanted BPD to ask them for another waiver. But I also don't know why BPD decided they would rather do without than ask the Ramseys. As far as I know the only record John Ramsey didn't immediately give them access to were his business phone calls and I can understand that. I think they did ultimately come to some sort of agreement on those.
shill
12-19-2006, 10:14 PM
When they finally did get them, (I believe a year later, but I could be wrong about that) all of December there were no calls listed.
That's pretty strange, isn't it? That there were no calls on any of the phones for December. The records were erased.
December 23rd, a call to 911. That is known.
LindaA
12-19-2006, 11:10 PM
The phone records. I'm sure the information is still at A Candy Rose if you're willing to do your own research; I'm not willing to do it for you. Do your research; know your case before arguing it.
From what I remember reading, a year later the Ramsey's turned over to LE selected records, and the December activity on one account, I believe a cell phone was unusually blank for that month, although there was plenty of activity on prior months. They did not turn over all their records; just selected ones. There was never a subpoena issued for the Ramsey's phone records by the Boulder DA, although the Boulder PD requested that they get them.
To me, not issuing a subpoena for the phone records (something that would be done as a matter of routine in any other case) reflects more than incompetence.
Sprocket, according to the rules of the forum you are obligated to provide a link for anything you state as a fact.
nuisanceposter
12-20-2006, 09:10 AM
Sprocket, according to the rules of the forum you are obligated to provide a link for anything you state as a fact.
S/he gave you one - A Candy Rose.
LindaA
12-20-2006, 09:20 AM
S/he gave you one - A Candy Rose.
That's not exactly a link, just a name, thank you.
nuisanceposter
12-20-2006, 10:00 AM
You're welcome. You're also smart enough to know how to find A Candy Rose...goodness knows I myself have linked this board to that site any number of times, and anyone familiar with the case such as yourself knows what an invaluable source of information ACR is.
Just put a www. in front of it, and a .com behind it. If that's too difficult for you, try typing it into Google.
Or did you need someone to set up a hyperlink for you? Maybe your hero Shill can figure out how to point you in the right direction, although I doubt it - Shill doesn't seem to have all the basics on this case down pat yet. Oh well, maybe Sprocket is in a better mood than I am and will hook you up, since you're having so much trouble getting to it yourself.
Why are you being so picky about a link? I notice you didn't link in the TOS stating facts need links for Sprocket...tsk tsk.
LindaA
12-20-2006, 10:42 AM
Nuisance, the sarcasm displayed in your recent messages to me and in general is just the reason I find most RDIs offensive.
I wouldn't have mentioned the link to Sprocket, but I find his "don't be so lazy , look it up yourself" as rude as you are.
nuisanceposter
12-20-2006, 10:58 AM
I realize I've been condescending in my previous post to you, Linda, but be fair - I don't usually make posts like that, and it isn't fair to generalize all RDI as being rude all the time. People need to let their personal opinion of this case not affect their opinion of the other posters. If you knew me outside of the JBR case, you might have a completely different opinion of whether I am a rude and offensive person or not.
I know you dislike FFJ, but this isn't FFJ, and while I read FFJ, I don't post there. This board is nothing like FFJ, and if you really wanted to be fair and honest, you'd realize FFJ isn't the only board that has a set opinion of people in this case - the IDI mecca of Jameson's webbsleuths is every bit as nasty and full of personal opinion.
Sprocket gave you a link, it just wasn't in the form of a hyperlink. You knew that when you decided to get picky and take him/her to task for not supplying one. I can see you complaining if s/he hadn't mentioned the info being at ACR, but s/he did. Sprocket was right too - people need to know the facts in order to argue them.
LindaA
12-20-2006, 11:07 AM
Actually, NP, you make posts like that frequently as does TWW1 and Ames, who literally cussed a poster out on another thread. Sprocket and his/her "don't be so lazy, look it up yourself" shows signs of tha same tendency. That's why I called him on not providing a link, as have many RDIs of IDIs and vice versa.
Where do you get that I don't like FFJ? I don't go there at all -- or Jameson's site. Don't have time.
nuisanceposter
12-20-2006, 11:43 AM
Really...please show me other posts of mine where I have been rude. As for Ames, she defended herself, and if you had read the thread and comments made to her with more objectivity, you wouldn't just accuse her of cussing someone out in a manner that implies she was solely at fault. She also apologized, did she not? TWW makes good points, but I haven't noticed her insulting people. Where is that? I'm going to need some links to know exactly what you mean.
As for Sprocket, I've already pointed out that s/he included a source for their info, but not the hyperlink you so adamantly desire. If s/he hadn't, I would agree with you that "look it up" is rude, but honestly, that's pretty basic. IMO, it's rather petty to bother badgering Sprocket (and me) about the rudeness you have perceived, whether that's a valid perception or not.
So the CTV JBR board is all you have time for? Hmmm, most JBR enthusiats I know take the time to read up on info and discussions elsewhere so they can be informed and present a valid argument, but if all you have time for is this board, then it's no surprise all you do is pat Shill and his ignorance on the back and accuse others of being rude.
I hate it when the conversation turns from the case to personal issues, so unless you want to take it to PM, I'm through with this topic of discussion.
LindaA
12-20-2006, 01:10 PM
Personally, I am trhough with it, too. Obciously you can'at understand what I am saying.
bullmoose
12-20-2006, 04:23 PM
Sprocket, why would I want to research, no how could I research your conclusion on the subject of cellphone records? You wrote as fact something you have concluded from your reading of candyrose. Show me the proof for your conclusion or just say IMO so you don't look ignorant. OK?:lol:
thewhitewitch1
12-20-2006, 05:14 PM
Sprocket, why would I want to research, no how could I research your conclusion on the subject of cellphone records? You wrote as fact something you have concluded from your reading of candyrose. Show me the proof for your conclusion or just say IMO so you don't look ignorant. OK?:lol:
IDIs are never rude, though are they, LindaA? What do you call the above quote?
I'm sorry to tell you this but many IDIs come off sarcastic or rude in here too. If I have ever been rude myself, it had to have been in reponse to someone elses rudeness.
LindA...it's obvious that you are a person who can't let go of things, since you bring up Ames one time outburst as often as you can. I don't think she deserves to have this thrown in her face anymore.
I have never seen Nuisanceposter be rude either. Why don't we stop being so thin-skinned? It's just an internet message board and I personally could give a "flying flip" (heh) about what you or anyone else thinks about me in here. We aren't here to impress each other or to win a popularity award so let's get on with the discussion.
Back on subject, I would like to make a comment regarding the dark fibers found in JBs underwear and pubic area. If the Ramseys didn't turn over the clothes they were wearing at the Whites until a year after the fact, how does anyone know that John, in particular, even sent them the same shirt that he was wearing the night? The shirt he actually did wear could have been long gone by then...so of course the fibers wouldn't match.
Just another screw up by the BPD.
Sprocket
12-20-2006, 05:23 PM
I apologize. I thought anyone who has actually done any research on this case was familiar with this site. It's archival information on the case.
Link to: A Candy Rose (http://www.acandyrose.com/index.htm)
LindaA
12-20-2006, 05:55 PM
I rarely see the level of sarcasm and snideness in a IDI post as I do often in the RDIs' posts.
Okay, maybe I can't "let go of things". So what? I'm a Taurus. What can I say?
How many times have I brought up Ames' outburst? Maybe twice. This makes 3 times. When you call another poster a b*tch, that pretty much wins in the rudeness department. On most of the other boards I've posted on that would get you banned regardless of what it was in response to.
Now, where is that Ignore feature?
LindaA
12-20-2006, 05:57 PM
I apologize. I thought anyone who has actually done any research on this case was familiar with this site. It's archival information on the case.
Link to: A Candy Rose (http://www.acandyrose.com/index.htm)
We are familiar with the site, Sprocket, but the rules do state a poster is to provide a link to back up statement he makes as fact. I thought you would like to know. Didn't mean to start a firestorm.
shill
12-20-2006, 09:42 PM
Really...please show me other posts of mine where I have been rude.
....then it's no surprise all you do is pat Shill and his ignorance on the back and accuse others of being rude.
Ignorance means; Showing lack of knowledge.
I'll need a link to the definition of Ignorance meaning; Doesn't agree with nuisancepos(t)er.
You're so full of yourself it's impossible for you to have an objective opinion on this case.
How do you sleep at night knowing your right and the Ramseys are guilty and walking free?
Good thing the Ramseys knew people to bury the crotch fiber evidence from John's shirt and it was only mentioned that one time. That was a close one. He would have surely fried if they showed that to a GJ.
I rarely see the level of sarcasm and snideness in a IDI post as I do often in the RDIs' posts.
Okay, maybe I can't "let go of things". So what? I'm a Taurus. What can I say?
How many times have I brought up Ames' outburst? Maybe twice. This makes 3 times. When you call another poster a b*tch, that pretty much wins in the rudeness department. On most of the other boards I've posted on that would get you banned regardless of what it was in response to.
Now, where is that Ignore feature?
I promised myself that I was NOT going to get back onto this board anymore, but as I was reading the posts...I couldn't help but run across my name on a few of them. LindaA, you apparently cannot let go of things...as you have stated. I even PM'd YOU and apologized to YOU for cussing the other poster out. I even went so far as to ask YOUR forgiveness...because, I had lost my temper, with a poster that had personally attacked me. I told you that it was unlike me to do that. And do YOU remember what you said, ...you said..."There is nothing to forgive you for". I was afraid of YOU being mad at ME...and YOU were not even the person that I had cussed out. I think that really says alot more about me as a person, than that ONE time that I lost my temper. You seem to forget that I am not the one that started the whole thing. And it was MONTHS ago....Please...let it go for goodness sakes.
thewhitewitch1
12-20-2006, 11:28 PM
I rarely see the level of sarcasm and snideness in a IDI post as I do often in the RDIs' posts.
Okay, maybe I can't "let go of things". So what? I'm a Taurus. What can I say?
How many times have I brought up Ames' outburst? Maybe twice. This makes 3 times. When you call another poster a b*tch, that pretty much wins in the rudeness department. On most of the other boards I've posted on that would get you banned regardless of what it was in response to.
Now, where is that Ignore feature?
If you don't see "that level of sarcasm and snideness" in IDI posts then you must never read Sweetcharlottes or Shills posts....or else you turn a blind eye towards them.
No offense to SW or Shill...I can handle it. :D
shill
12-21-2006, 03:41 AM
If you don't see "that level of sarcasm and snideness" in IDI posts then you must never read Sweetcharlottes or Shills posts....or else you turn a blind eye towards them.
No offense to SW or Shill...I can handle it. :D
I take it and I give it back. It's just a question of who started it.
Like nosenseposer's recent jabs.
LindaA
12-21-2006, 07:18 AM
Ames, I knew that would get you back on the board. Hope you stick around.
sweetcharlotte
12-21-2006, 11:12 AM
If you don't see "that level of sarcasm and snideness" in IDI posts then you must never read Sweetcharlottes or Shills posts....or else you turn a blind eye towards them.
No offense to SW or Shill...I can handle it. :D
WHAT? I am the sweetest, most nicest person ever. :confused:
thewhitewitch1
12-21-2006, 11:06 PM
WHAT? I am the sweetest, most nicest person ever. :confused:
Well, of course you are, Sweetcharlotte. ;)
Eagle1
12-22-2006, 02:23 PM
Fleet White admitted to moving the suitcase and picking up glass and put it on the sill which means he could have also stirred the debris. Just a couple of months ago (and almost 10 years later) Thomas told Greta he thinks Fleet also opened the window............
I didn't know ST said he thinks FW opened the window, which could be true, but how did ST come to that conclusion? Because he'd moved the suitcase?
Staging, right? They were all in it together?
Tober
12-22-2006, 03:44 PM
I didn't know ST said he thinks FW opened the window, which could be true, but how did ST come to that conclusion? Because he'd moved the suitcase?
Staging, right? They were all in it together?
Fleet was not involved in the crime. He may have coincidentally moved the suitcase and opened the window. Steve was explaining this in light of the fact that the photos of the opened window and suitcase that Lou Smit uses weren't time-stamped when they were taken, therefore they aren't pristine representations of the crime scene as it existed within a reasonable amount of time after JonBenet's body had been found.
sweetcharlotte
12-22-2006, 07:03 PM
Fleet was not involved in the crime. He may have coincidentally moved the suitcase and opened the window. Steve was explaining this in light of the fact that the photos of the opened window and suitcase that Lou Smit uses weren't time-stamped when they were taken, therefore they aren't pristine representations of the crime scene as it existed within a reasonable amount of time after JonBenet's body had been found.
Other than moving the suitcase and opening the window, going back to the room where JB was found, picking up the duct tape and dropping it back on the blanket, what else did Fleet "coincidentally" do? Busy little bee, wasn't he? JMO
Louisadelmar
12-22-2006, 07:12 PM
Fleet was not involved in the crime. He may have coincidentally moved the suitcase and opened the window. Steve was explaining this in light of the fact that the photos of the opened window and suitcase that Lou Smit uses weren't time-stamped when they were taken, therefore they aren't pristine representations of the crime scene as it existed within a reasonable amount of time after JonBenet's body had been found.
Did he tell Arndt or anyone at the time that he'd taken it upon himself to rearrange a crime scene? All that note-taking for accuracy, one would think he'd have been aware enough to leave the physical evidence alone.
shill
12-22-2006, 07:45 PM
Pretty amazing the BPD didn't immediately seal the basement off, let alone let FW go down there and rearrange the crime scene.
And what was FW thinking, going down there instead of staying with the Ramseys for emotional support.
The Ramseys and the Whites new each other less then 3 years. How well can you know someone in that time, or trust them?
IMO FW went on a defensive attack.
sweetcharlotte
12-22-2006, 07:56 PM
What was the deal with Fleet? Someone wouldn't let him fly to corporate jet to Atlanta for the funeral, then when he gets there John's brother wants him moved from his home to a motel, and then he has a hissy fit at Patsy's parents? Anyone know what all of that was about?
Louisadelmar
12-22-2006, 08:21 PM
I believe it was Fernie who wouldn't let him on the jet because of he seemed out of control.. As far as the rest I think it is more post-crime behavior that is far out of the norm and should have been heavily investigated, not rewarded by more 'Breakfasts with Steve.'
Louisadelmar
12-22-2006, 08:30 PM
Speaking of matching phrases to the ransom note:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/841487/detail.html
[…]
"I have respect for this court," White began. "In this case, however, I did not have so much respect for this case in which I'd been subpoenaed."
[…]
sweetcharlotte
12-22-2006, 08:39 PM
A lot really comes back to "Steve", doesn't it?
aussiesheila
12-22-2006, 08:45 PM
Aussieshiela, I think the RDI's chief argument is that they find it hard enough to believe that one person could have been in the Ramsey home without their knowing about it, much less two. They believe there was no evidence of even one intruder left and that it wojuld have been impossible for them to have been quiet enough to not be heard by the family. I find it hard to believe myself, but not as hard to believe as their theories of the garotting as a cover-up for the head bashing or other strangling. However, considering what is in the media lately about JMK having an accomplice, your theory is sounding more and more plausible.First of all LindaA, thanks for replying to my post and giving me a thrill; mostly my posts are ignored which does get a little boring.
Second of all I don't think BOTH parents were unaware of the intruders, just John. IMO it is quite within the realms of possibility that John slept through the entire night without hearing anything, after all, Burke apparently did.
I think Patsy knew though, but she thought it was just Santa (who she had herself let in through the kitchen door IMO) and Santa's friend Charles Kuralt, the highly regarded photgrapher.
aussiesheila
12-22-2006, 08:50 PM
To Aussiesheila: I think your idea makes much better sense than the many RDI theories I've seen ; you are not the only diehard IDI fan.As for having unknown intruders in the house, in a house that size it doesn't seem hard to believe that there could be skulkers; my own experience in a house far smaller makes it plausible to me.Thanks to you too, bullmoose, please see my reply to LindaA (previous post 495)
Tober
12-22-2006, 09:25 PM
Did he tell Arndt or anyone at the time that he'd taken it upon himself to rearrange a crime scene?
There is a stark difference between coincidentally handling something at a crime scene and intentionally altering a crime scene. Fleet may have done the former, not the latter. Essentially, the crime scene was initially compromised when all the guests were invited over in the morning. Any actions thereafter simply further contaminated an already compromised crime scene.
LindaA
12-22-2006, 09:33 PM
Tober, the other guests did not alter the scene in the basement, which was apparently the most important part of the house/crime scene. (Not that the presence of the visitors didn't compromise it as well and should never have been allowed to happen.)
shill
12-22-2006, 09:47 PM
Tober,
It wasn't a murder crime scene when all those people came over (including FW).
When JB was discovered, that area became one of the most important areas to protect. FW slipped away from everyone and went down there to poke around alone.
He should have been arrested for tampering with evidence.
Tober
12-22-2006, 10:07 PM
Tober, the other guests did not alter the scene in the basement, which was apparently the most important part of the house/crime scene. (Not that the presence of the visitors didn't compromise it as well and should never have been allowed to happen.)
That's right, Linda. The guests didn't alter the crime scene, they compromised it by being there. The intent wasn't their own, the intent lies with those who invited the guests over. Technically, the entire house was the crime scene, the basement being the most significant part of that crime scene since JonBenet's body was placed and found there.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.